Comments on: Hansen Poll Results and the Backup Poll

By: CodeTech

CodeTech — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:53:58 +0000

I voted for “fired” for two reasons. First, he’s using his position in a government agency for his own very public agenda, second it was a tit-for-tat: Demand blood and you may find it is your own.

That said, he’s already tried making a martyr of himself with the absurd claims of “censorship”, firing him would probably just enhance his “street cred”.

By: papertiger

papertiger — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:21:35 +0000

Global warming on trial. Sounds good to me.

By: Wondering Aloud

Wondering Aloud — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:38:40 +0000

So political agenda led people to fudge the data on this poll. What could possibly be a more appropriate way to support Dr. Hansen than to fudge data.

I am so naughty sometimes.

By: SEAR

SEAR — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:57:31 +0000

Also, re: “Michael Smith’s” screen cap “analysis” — why the shock and dismay that the “lynch the energy execs” option shot up 1680 votes in a day, yet utter silence about the fact that the “lynch Jimmy Hansen” option shot up 2455 votes a couple days after? I mean, how did they procreate so fast?!

By: SEAR

SEAR — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:45:26 +0000

Why did the self-righteous, faux-indignant slow-shaking of heads begin only after the pro-Hansen freeping began? For a crowd that prides itself on being "all about the science," one can't help but wonder why such low critical standards were allowed in creating a poll that was so obviously biased, its intended results so clearly predetermined, from the get-go. To wit: - The poll claims to "gauge reader perception." Judging from its themes and content, exactly what sort of general audience did you think this website tend to attract on a day-to-day basis? Somewhat "skeptical" types, perhaps? - Exactly how "far and wide" did you think said readership was likely to spread word of the poll? Equally in all directions, or rather shunted disproportionately towards other like-minded sites? - It's an online poll. Were you serious about actually submitting it to a US senator as evidence of some kind? That would surely be a credibility-killing move on your part.

By: Arthur Glass

Arthur Glass — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:54:18 +0000

I must re-iterate that the Congress of the United States has no power to try anyone for anything, with the exception of impeachment in the case of Federal official, and there the penalty is removal from office. This is, I believe, unlike the powers of the British Parliament, so Mr Hansen’s ignorance on this issue at least is excusable, if perhaps willful.

Also, where in the Federal code is ‘crime against humanity’ or ‘crime against nature defined?

By: Aileni Noyle

Aileni Noyle — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:54:46 +0000

Zealots will do anything to further their cause but those who adhere to the scientific view are not going to skew results because it goes against the grain.

By: Bob Cormack

Bob Cormack — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:35:14 +0000

Vadim: “I refuse to believe that all skeptics are so morally superior to econuts so that they never even attempt adjusting the poll results in their favor.”

I think that most skeptics got that way by paying attention to the data. The econuts, on the other hand, often pick their views based on what makes them feel morally superior and “in”. Hence, skeptics don’t really care about poll results (except as a measure of public knowledge), since they know that it is irrelevant to the facts. To the econuts, belief (and consensus) is more important than facts and they are more threatened by disagreement. (Just look at Hansen as an extreme example of where that can end up.)

Warmers are much more likely to scam polls (and suppress dissent) than skeptics, since they are much more threatened by dissent (and less capable of rational argument in response).

By: garron

garron — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:10:17 +0000

In my opinion, screaming for Dr. Jim Hansen’s head is as unreasonable as Dr. Hansen’s demands. To me, it is somewhat embarrassing when people in government, or NASA, or any high place, go over the top. It’s very embarrassing when it becomes a polarized food-fight in the general population.

At such times, I really, really hope that there is no one out there — watching.

By: savo

savo — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:53:47 +0000

This is what happens when you try to prove something by consensus.

By: Vadim Tropashko

Vadim Tropashko — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:33:43 +0000

You have to get credit where the credit is due: alarmists are more skillful faking poll results. I refuse to believe that all skeptics are so morally superior to econuts so that they never even attempt adjusting the poll results in their favor.

Perhaps there is a simpler explanation, and we just don’t fully realize how many brainwashed folks are there?

By: Jack Simmons

Jack Simmons — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:24:33 +0000

The AGW crowd is losing.

This is why they waste their time hijacking polls.

AGW is the Vietnam of the environmental extremists. As the government had to cover their loss with lies, so too the extremists.

People are not going to support the measures called upon when:

1) Temperatures are going down, globally, invalidating the predictions of AGW.

2) Energy prices soar, threatening the security of the ordinary person.

Regards

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:24:33 +0000

These online polls really just rate a CRN5. Too much micro-site interference. And what you have in the end is a record that is only good for PR. ;-)

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:03:42 +0000

from the blog Small Dead Animals:

“Calling The SDA Nation

A poll that needs your vote to go horribly right.

(I like “Hansen should be fired by NASA for overstepping his bounds”, but your milage may vary.)
Posted by Kate at 2:12 PM | Comments (38)”

By: Robert Ray

Robert Ray — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:00:02 +0000

Evan 13:04
As one of the 8% I knew I was going to be in the minority from the get go. But then I’ve never really cared to be a face in the crowd. (Hmm, I wonder if that obscure reference is applicable to the whole global warming show)