And then what happens? Another online poll that might go horribly wrong

UPDATE: At first I was concerned about this poll and the language involved. Now from comments I’m seeing a number of people whom aren’t worried and see an opportunity to voice their opinion. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide if they wish to participate. – Anthony

Wow, just wow. Who would think we’d see this sort of language and lack of sound judgment from a science museum? In the Now playing at a museum near you, the “Day After Tomorrow Map” thread, something interesting was discovered.

Once you click the “count me out” button, you enter a netherworld of governmental lists. The London Science Museum might want to think about redoing this web feature. The images are below, here’s the link.

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Okay…now look what happens when you click “COUNT ME OUT”. Yellow highlighter mine.

UKScience_fail2

Click for a larger image

Not only is this insulting and threatening to the reader, it virtually ensures that all responses logged by the London Science Museum are “COUNT ME IN” if you originally chose to vote otherwise.

Future presentation of results to the government: “The results show overwhelmingly that people agree with us. Hardly anyone chose COUNT ME OUT.

Even with the caveat the list*, how many people would trust it? I wouldn’t. I doubt many people even get to the caveat. The main statement is just too worrisome.

Perhaps the “COUNT ME OUT” respondents get a visit from these chaps? ;-)

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

To be fair, respondents get a similar message if they choose to be counted in.

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

However, one wonders how many people will respond at all once they see that language.

The Science Museum really ought to pull this feature or redo language in it in my opinion.

h/t to alert WUWT reader coddbotherer

UPDATE: 10/24 @11:30PM

It appears some robovoting hit this poll. Robert Phelan’s letter pretty well sums up my thinking on this issue.

Sirs:

By now you must be aware that your on-line Prove It poll was seriously compromised. I voted “count-me-out” once under my own name, but after the individual who corrupted your poll revealed himself, I tested your polling system with two consecutive “count-me-in” votes, which were both apparently accepted.

Leaving aside my distaste for your support of politicized, Lysenko-style “science”, as both a social scientist and computer systems consultant I respect data and am appalled by the shoddy manner in which your organization collected it. A few suggestions:

1. State clearly the purpose of your poll and exactly which data will be used for that purpose.
2. You stated that you would pass the results to the government:
a. if the results had fairly resulted in a “count-me-out” majority, would those results have been passed on?
b. it would be helpful top explain what you would do with the comments you requested from the “count-me-outs”;
c. since the results were to be passed, presumably, to the UK government, foreigners such as myself should have been excluded from the voting. Checking the IP location of voters should be easy.

3. No one, either inside the UK or outside received the follow up e-mail. The explanation provided about ensuring one vote per person, frankly, makes no sense.

4. Maintaining a confidential list of voter names, e-mail addresses and IP’s to verify non-duplication would be easy. Making the voting a two-step process, where the voter had to respond to a follow-on e-mail would be even more secure.

5. Maintaining a list of non-acceptable names for screening: Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Mickey Mouse all claimed to have voted no, as did Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.

7. Create a display page where interested persons can view the names who have voted. Given the politicized nature of the topic, a unified alphabetical list would be appropriate.

8. Test the security of your poll before putting it on-line. Find a good hacker and pay him only if he succeeds in breaking into your system.

If you people can’t even run an on-line poll, why should anyone consider your opinions on climate? If this poll was so important that you needed two ministers of HMG to introduce it, why didn’t you get it done right?

I intend my suggestions to be helpful; if you find them so then I would be glad to be of further assistance. I am bitterly opposed to the position you have taken on “AGW” but I would not allow that to interfere with my professionalism.

Oh, one last suggestion. Don’t even try to salvage the results of this poll. Wipe them, make the changes I’ve suggested and start again.

Robert E. Phelan
Adjunct Instructor of Sociology
Business Systems and Automation Consultant

A commenter on our site, “lihard” has seemingly confessed to adding a thousand votes via a script. There was a period of about 15 minutes where the count jumped about 1000 votes. It appears “lihard” was at fault as he pre-announced it here in comments. Of course there was little anyone could do about it. I speak for myself and the moderation staff in saying we strongly object and are offended by his ballot stuffing and want to make clear that it is not condoned in any way. Whether or not the poll was put together with apparently no security in place does not justify any kind of dishonest activity.

However, since that burst (if indeed he, lihard, did one) the vote count has steadily risen, I believe those to be valid. If the Science Museum has any logs, they should be able to filter those ~1000 in question out. I hope they do.

I don’t condone ballot stuffing in any form. Unfortunately it can happen when polls like this one don’t appear to have the most basic simplistic security. The interesting thing here is that if anybody wanting to stuff the poll, no matter what side of the argument they are on, could easily have done so. No special skills are needed to boost the counter…just keep clicking the submit button. Any kid can do it.

Perhaps the Science Museum didn’t think of security for cyberspace like they do for their exhibits. The internet is a harsh place and prone to such things. The lack of due diligence for security is as troubling as the language they used which originally caught my attention.

The polls we do here at WUWT don’t suffer from these problems, as they have anti-ballot stuffing security built in courtesy of WordPress. I hope that the Science Museum will upgrade their poll security if they choose to continue with it. Also for the record, you’ll find me logged once in poll, shortly after posting this story on 11/23 approximately 9:30-10AM PST, with my full name and email address given. If anyone from the Science Museum (or the UK government) wishes to contact me, they can use that email address. – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Ridiculae. Bookmark the permalink.

500 Responses to And then what happens? Another online poll that might go horribly wrong

  1. Chris says:

    They are coming to burn your anti-AGW books.

  2. popcorn says:

    Count me out and count me in have the same language. They are passing along the results to the government. You see that allot in the US.

  3. Steve S. says:

    There’s about to be an economic civil war IMO.

    Moveon.org is advocating for boycotting FOX and other nonconformists for Obama and this may expand to a tit for tat boycott surge.

  4. crosspatch says:

    So you can be counted in anonymously but to be counted out you must identify yourself. Smacks of intimidation.

    Unless, of course, someone were to visit that site with a phone book from the UK and simply start entering names at random. But that wouldn’t be nice.

  5. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    They can count me out. Me, my kids and all my relatives and progeny will never visit them until we have a complete turnaround and regime change back to the days of sensability. Want to report something to “government”? Report them that their days are numbered and the gangsters we have in charge will be on the run for life.

  6. crosspatch says:

    Now that I think about it, maybe it isn’t so bad. They only want a name and an email address. That is not enough to identify a person with as many people could share a first/last name. And the “name” could be something like “crosspatch”.

  7. Richard Heg says:

    I was London science museum last year, it was fascinating to see the progress of technology starting with atmospheric steam engines to space rockets. Then i got to the end and it was some rubbish displays on climate change, it felt like a step backwards.
    Note the results on the page 333 in 234 out, hardly a landslide in favour.

  8. SeanH says:

    They can have my address. I am counted out. I’ll even burn a tree in sacrifice if they want.

  9. “…(As a) lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…” –Albert Einstein

  10. Bruce Cobb says:

    I voted count me out, and submitted my comments:
    “There is nothing at all unusual about climate today, nor is there any convincing evidence that C02 itself, let alone man’s measly contribution of 3% to it can, or ever has driven climate. It is primarily changes in the sun and oceans which drive climate.
    Any sort of climate agreement at Copenhagen is not only completely unnecessary, but could have disastrous effects on economies worldwide.”
    What are they gonna do? I double-dog dare them.

  11. JDN says:

    This looks like one of those polls that could go horribly wrong ;-)

  12. Tom Jones says:

    “The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.”

    What more proof could you possibly need?

  13. Jason Bair says:

    Better yet, try the link at the bottom for making your own message

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/send.aspx

    Invite your friends and family to be part of PROVE IT! First, choose a point that you think will motivate them:Choose a point that you think will motivate your friends and family.

    “Climate change has already started and we’re causing it. ”
    “Whatever the plan, it must be economically viable.”
    “Copenhagen must protect people who are most vulnerable to climate change.”
    “If greenhouse gas emissions keep rising, we will experience severe consequences.”
    “The UK wants the world to share its strong stance on climate change.”
    “Countries must share the global responsibility for tackling climate change.”

    How about none of the above?

  14. michel says:

    Guys, this is really silly. Of course they are not making a note of everyone who dissents from AGW with a view to putting them on lists. To do what with them?

    There is in fact quite a lot of very legitimate debate in the UK about climate. It seems to be generally agreed in official circles that AGW exists and is a threat and that carbon emissions should be limited. But after that, in terms of priorities and implementation, there’s a lot of fairly reasonable discussion. Ordinary people are probably a bit more skeptical – the British public is fairly bloody minded about some things, and don’t greatly care for being told what to do or think.

    Even in official circles you have real debates. For instance, does the probability (in the official view) of rising sea levels mean we should give up on sea defences, they being futile? Or does the probability of climate disturbances mean that food security is going to be a major problem, so we should reinforce coastal defences so as to preserve farmland? Conservative Party policy seems to be inclining to the latter. There are vigorous debates going on about windmills, about tidal barrages, about the tradeoffs with wildnerness protection and power generation. People express themselves fairly freely on these matters.

    You see that policy and evidence and prediction and their fit with a given view of climate is actually a very complicated set of issues, and there will be debate in the UK on lots of aspects of this for some time.

    However, it is true that the default position in the UK is to worry about Global Warming, to see it as a problem, and to see it as the UK’s duty to participate in international programs designed to alleviate damage from it. That is true. But I think you’d be hard put to find anyone seriously worried about what the Government will think of him if he expresses skepticism about AGW.

  15. Symon says:

    You’re misrepresenting the science museum. If you click ‘count me in’ they ask for the same information. This article is being disingenuous if it does not make this clear.

    REPLY: No they are responsible for the situation. If a visitor clicks “COUNT ME OUT” first. Then leaves is disgust, the vote becomes lopsided. They’ll never see the other option and how it is presented.

    They need to redo this language to be less threatening, IMHO. But I did add the screencap from the COUNT ME IN response to be fair. -A

  16. Phillip Bratby says:

    I see no evidence there. The Science Museum gives the same old unsubstantiated propaganda. The Science Museum used to be a good place to visit, which I did regularly when I was a student just round the corner (and it was free). It can’t be trusted anymore.

  17. MangoChutney says:

    count me out

    but it doesn’t seem that sinister to me

    perhaps i’m naive

  18. PaulM says:

    Well, I have clicked on ‘count me out’. After that you get invited to

    “Let us know what you think

    The Science Museum is planning an exciting programme of new climate change exhibits and events, including a major new gallery launching in June 2010.

    Tell us what you think about climate change, Copenhagen or PROVE IT!. Your comments will help inform what we do next. ”

    So I wrote them a little essay about climate change hysteria, exaggeration, lack of warming, failure of computer models etc.

    I wonder if I will get a visit from the Thought Police.

  19. Chris S says:

    I counted myself out last night without noticing the possible “menace” in their message.
    Still, given the Governments track record of incompetence, the thought police will be beating down the wrong door as I type.

  20. rbateman says:

    “Climate change has already started and we’re causing it. ”

    Agree. Climate Change Hysteria has started a stampede and panic, and is out to silence the opposition. They are already starting thier intimidating operations here, across the pond from the UK.
    However, today, the MSM refused to go along with the Administration’s plan to isolate FOX News from the White House interviews.
    If FOX can’t come, nobody will.
    My Advice: Forget submitting names and addresses to the phony poll.
    Throw a Tea Party instead ( or a Magna Carta Party), out in the open, where the public can see what happens. Do not fall for phony polls that seek to target individuals with midnight visits.

  21. Rick, michigan says:

    So lets see how many spam email addresses we can type in there in the shortest amount of time and have counted out. :)

  22. Tenuc says:

    Well I’ve ‘counted myself out’ and am pleased that the government is going to see my negative response to this plainly wrong science.

    I would recommend everyone who is sceptical about AGW does the same. You can also leave a comment if you feel it will do any good. It would be great if the sceptics outnumbered the rest in this pole :-)

  23. DarthRove says:

    I tried to count myself out. Gave them a false name “Whatta Lyingsackofsh**e” and a valid throwaway email. I was supposed to get a “confirmation email” that never arrived, but just got taken back to the screen where I can “Prove it!” and “Count myself in!” along with all the links to the “proof”.

    So what actually is happening with those who count out? I wonder.

  24. D Caldwell says:

    Steve S. wrote:
    “Moveon.org is advocating for boycotting FOX and other nonconformists for Obama and this may expand to a tit for tat boycott surge.”

    Not sure a boycott by the Moveon crowd would be noticed at FOX. They are not exactly FOX’s core audience. CNN looks conservative to them.

    Call me overly optimistic, but based upon what I am hearing where I live in the heartland, I think that the regular everyday folks on Main Street U.S.A. (aka voters) are slowly waking up to the reality of what’s going on.

  25. Johnny P says:

    We , the sheeple, get brainwashed by these overpaid winkers.

  26. NickW says:

    I voted “count me out” and submitted the comment:

    Your “How do we know humans are responsible” page says:

    “The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes.”

    I see no supporting evidence, so your assertion simply begs the question.

    Your poll seems aimed at getting the answer you want. Hardly scientific, and you are the science museum! I used to believe in AGW and could not understand why anyone would not believe in it. Then I looked into the arguments more closely. I am a working scientist with a degree in geophysics and I now believe most climate change is natural.

  27. Jim says:

    I am counted out, too. Anthony, why not publicise and encourage other visitors to WUWT to log their view via this poll too?

  28. Mickey Mouse just counted himself out three times…

  29. Mark_K says:

    Too bad it’s only in China that the government climatologists understand (from the article linked by Ron de Haan):

    It is easier to stay independent of the climate paranoia if one does not believe the planet is in peril. Xiao Ziniu, director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, told the British Guardian newspaper recently that “There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous….Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects….In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today.” He disputed the disaster warnings of the UNIPCC, saying, “The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”

  30. Alex Cull says:

    That’s me counted out. It’s now standing at 339 in and 328 out. The “outs” are catching up!

  31. wattsupwiththat says:

    Leif please advise if you get any confirming emails. I think perhaps they filter non UK IP addresses.

  32. paullm says:

    In the bottom right of the museum page http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx I found this inquiry:

    “Got an opinion?

    If you’re not convinced by the evidence, tell us what you think. ”

    I then submitted the following:

    “Try this for your map name: “Day After Tomorrow Map in 15 million – 100,002,060 years: possibly the next natural “Hothouse Age””.

    Are you fossils nuts? Check the AGW predictions! They’ve all been disproven, so far. AGW only exists in ill-based models that have failed. First YOU need to PROVE those failed predictions correct.

    Wy are you are eager to destroy your country just to enrich Al Gore’s and George Soro’s pockets – and over a giant fraud?

    You have my permission to print this response – internationally.”

    A bit blunt and brash – guilty. I did submit my email and will be making the most of my remaining hours or days.

  33. mrpkw says:

    Can we all use the names of well known AGW supporters?????

  34. Rhys Jaggar says:

    It’s well known in police states that voting counts are very different if the ballots are secret, thought to be secret but aren’t or are known NOT to be secret.

    In the UK right now, you wouldn’t say you were against global warming if you are ambitious. Unless the vote WAS secret.

    You will be ‘economically disadvantaged’, is the phrase I believe.

    The Labour Party doesn’t DO democracy. It just has to be seen to.

    It’s very sad that this country is so immature that political views count for more than competence.

    But they do.

    It’s why we’re headed toward bankruptcy.

  35. wattsupwiththat (10:27:57) :
    Leif please advise if you get any confirming emails. I think perhaps they filter non UK IP addresses.
    340 out, 339 in. No email [using my correct address] yet.

  36. Cassandra King says:

    The reason is simple to understand, the science museum wants funding and who now holds the science funding purse strings?

    The government now holds a sword of Damocles over every science group in the UK, they toe the party line and they get funds aplenty, they have the temerity to actually want to stick to the scientific method, they get nothing.

    Its Stalins hearts and minds campaign, when you have them by the balls their hearts will follow OR when you pays the piper you calls the tune.

  37. Jason Bair says:

    The outs are now ahead. Wonder how many are actually duplicates though.

  38. TerryS says:

    Re: michel (10:01:38) :

    > There is in fact quite a lot of very legitimate debate in the UK about climate.

    There is no debate in the UK. The powers that be have decided that man is to blame for climate change and no deviation from this viewpoint is allowed or tolerated.
    You can discuss/debate what the impacts are or how to remedy it, but you have to accept the underlying principle that man is to blame.

  39. paullm says:

    No email acknowledgment response from The London Science Museum (or MI5!), yet.

  40. NickW says:

    I’m in the UK and never got a confirming email after voting. Not yet, anyway, after 20 mins.

    I didn’t think of it in time, but it might be best to type in the address if you are going to vote, not just click on the link. A large influx on their web stats from WUWT might inspire them to some climate-type data adjustment!

  41. PSU-EMS-Alum says:

    “Then i got to the end and it was some rubbish displays on climate change, it felt like a step backwards.”

    If it makes you feel any better, the madness is not limited to climate change. The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia got rid of a wonderful room dealing with electricity and electromagnetism and replaced it with glorified posters talking about race, diversity, and discrimination.

    My annual membership expired 4 days later … I have yet to renew it.

  42. BarryW says:

    Given the threats made by major AGW supporters, with references to “trials” and “death trains”, concern over one’s safety should be expected. It would be irrational not to worry about how individuals or even the government might respond to those who disagree. Look at the Obama enemies list that is headed by Fox News.

  43. Al says:

    Your “before the jump” teaser is somewhat misleading; I was really expecting different treatment of the two poll options.

    I love your blog and the high quality work you do–but this post shows not even the best of us can bat 1.000.

  44. Tufty says:

    The ‘count me out’ count is now 362, compared to 340 for the ‘count me in’ count. Brilliant.

  45. Rudolf Kipp says:

    Wake up, America,

    and listen, what this guy has to say

    …we know, that no matter how spineless our poilitcians are here in europe and elsewhere.. as long as Americas first amendment remains inviolated, there will always be an oasis of freedom…

    From my european (german) point of view, I can not do more, than agree to him in the strongest possible way.

  46. John Galt says:

    crosspatch (09:43:57) :

    Now that I think about it, maybe it isn’t so bad. They only want a name and an email address. That is not enough to identify a person with as many people could share a first/last name. And the “name” could be something like “crosspatch”.

    At times like that, I use a name and email address that lets them know where I stand. It’s not something I can print here, but the email address usually ends with “@you.com.”

    You sometimes have to creative with the spelling to get past the obscenity filters. Try using a phonetic spelling.

  47. Juraj V. says:

    Counted out and left the following message:
    **********
    I will quote Finnish professor Atte Korhola:
    “Wen later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.”
    It is sad that UK, in the past the world leader of scientific advance has sunk so deeply, promoting that politicized junk science.
    **********
    So far, outists are leading 365:340 :-o

  48. Peter Plail says:

    I was counted out to. If you don’t hear from me on this blog again, you’ll know that I had a visit …. hang on, there’s a knock at the door and a blue light flashing outside.

  49. SJones says:

    I also voted ‘out’ and left a comment. Maybe they’ll send all us sceptics a copy of the government’s recent ‘scary’ ad and try and frighten us into acceptance!

  50. Robert Wood says:

    I told them that their institution had just become a propaganda arm of the government; that there is no man-made global warming; that the CO2 hyopthesis is broken.

    I expect they are going to receive a lot more traffic than anticipated :-)

  51. Frank K. says:

    If you poke around the “proof” documents, you come across some pretty interesting stuff. Here is their explanation of climate modeling:

    How do scientists predict future climate?

    Complex computer models can predict how greenhouse gas emissions will affect the climate in the future. Based on well-understood physical laws, they recreate the interactions between many processes that affect the climate. This allows scientists to simulate changes in elements of the climate such as rainfall, humidity, the rate of glacier melt and many others.

    Models split the world into millions of points on a 3D map, and divide time into thousands of intervals for each century. The state of the climate is calculated at a particular place from one point in time to the next. This builds up a detailed picture of the future climate around the world.

    Before making predictions, the computer models are used to simulate the past. This shows how accurately they can recreate the processes that determine the climate. If these simulations of the past accurately match what really happened, scientists can be confident about the models’ predictions of the future. Models can forecast the climate for hundreds of years to come.

    Calculating a century of climate change on some of the world’s fastest supercomputers can take months. Scientists run lots of models together to get a range of predictions.

    The amusing points:

    (1) Climate models are based on “well understood physical laws”!? Really? That would surprise most fluid dynamicists (and others) … I guess we don’t need any of those nasty “parametrizations” and unphysical numerical artifices – you know, mass fixers, shapiro filters, empirical precipitation models, ice models, vegitation models…

    (2) “If these simulations of the past accurately match what really happened, scientists can be confident about the models’ predictions of the future. Models can forecast the climate for hundreds of years to come.”

    I just don’t know what to say here – this is so ignorant of how numerical processes work. You cannot say you can predict the future just because you can hindcast, which is really all GCMs can do with any accuracy…

    (3) “Calculating a century of climate change on some of the world’s fastest supercomputers can take months. Scientists run lots of models together to get a range of predictions.”

    Translated to you and I, this should read “We need millions of your tax dollars to run these huge computer models that produce poor results, so please let us tax you more to pay for some new computers!”

    So there you have it, part of the “proof” for AGW! It’s enough to make anyone a true believer!!

  52. philincalifornia says:

    Well, I had some fun with my comment re. the soon not-to-be government.

    I’m anticipating that the real-time results of the poll may be pulled soon.

  53. John Galt says:

    I am among unknown number of people in the US who received unsolicited emails from the Obama White House. They had my correct name and email address and I received several political and propaganda messages, some supposedly from the president himself.

    If an individual or business sends unsolicited emails like that, it’s a federal felony, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. I am not aware of any exemption for the government, presidential aides or politicians.

    What are the applicable laws in the U.K?

    I see the statement that they won’t pass on your email address. But does this mean you are automatically enrolled in their mailing list?

  54. Duncan says:

    341 counted in so far 383 counted out so far

    I’m with you on this one, Mr. Watts.
    I don’t generally walk around with a tinfoil beanie on, but “give us your name and we’ll pass it on to the government” is spookie.

    I wish I’d thought of give Joe Romm’s name & address… that would have had me chuckling to myself all afternoon.

  55. AndrewWH says:

    The Science Museum. Ahh, I spent many a happy hour in my last visit in February, wandering amongst the exhibits of marvellous advances in technology; Harrison’s chronometers (no relation), primitive TV systems, steam pumping engines, cars, ships, planes, rockets and the IMO slightly confusing DNA display. Then I ended up on the top floor, which was mostly set aside for refurbishment.
    One thing that was operating was a computer game, where the object was to prevent a tornado from destroying your city by zapping it with your raygun, which would deflect and eventually dissipate it. However the other players in the game were also zapping away, which deflected the tornado in different directions, often back at the city you were trying to defend. Once our cities were battered to destruction the game was over and we were treated to a homily about the dangers of tampering with nature. What actually stuck in my mind was the game’s designer told us 1) Tornadoes ALWAYS do damage to a city when they touch down. 2) Every time a tornado dissipates, it respawns moving faster and is more powerful. 3) Eventually tornadoes will wipe out every city on the planet, regardless of whether we attempt to do anything about it.
    I left the top floor and went back to wandering about the steam engines, which are at least based firmly on reality. I know, because I used to have a toy one.

  56. John says:

    My name now logged with the government. :)

  57. Luboš Motl says:

    Can all the readers at least become “openly realist” and vote to be “counted out”?

    Or are you chicken? :-) I have included myself to “Count me out” just now. It would be good to convince Matt Drudge and flood the bastards with a few million of “Count me out” people.

  58. Robinson says:

    341, 393. Can we call it “The Watts Effect”?

  59. Jim B in Canada says:

    ok so now many more people in the survey are “opting out.” Will the science museum still send it to the government?

    My guess is this:

    1. The museum will say the data was “tampered with” and throw the poll out.
    2. The poll will magically have many many more opt in vote just before the poll closes.

    and of course the emails of those who opt in at the last minute will be never shown.

  60. Gary Hladik says:

    Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I’m not voting any poll that wants my E-mail address. Very bad things can happen when you give it out indiscriminately:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bender%27s_big_score

  61. Les Johnson says:

    346 “Counted In So Far”
    404 “Counted Out So Far”

    Including me.

    It will be interesting to see their response if these ratios hold.

  62. rbateman says:

    They don’t need your name or address to filter: They have your IP address. When you hit send they can tracert or ping you back to origin. They don’t even have to go that far, as soon as the route goes to a major node outside the UK (in Viriginia in the US), it’s exit the loop.

  63. paullm says:

    * 346 counted in so far
    * 404 counted out so far

    stretching the lead! I’m surprised they post these poll “results” – when will the modelers take over?

  64. We are watching the end of an era. Interesting times indeed.

  65. Marc says:

    The vote is actually pretty close; sounds like the voters understand science better than the folks at the museum…

  66. ThinkingBeing says:

    Ummm… the site is pretty clear, and it makes sense, and there’s no reason to doubt it. They say that they ask for the name and e-mail only to be sure that people are only counted once, and to send a confirmation, and that all they’ll send to the government are the final numbers.

    I mean, come on. What would the government actually do with this info? Track you down and put a sniper team on the roof of an adjacent building, to eliminate your potential opposition to the global plan of evil scientists to make a marginal living by hyping climate change which they know to be a crock but it’s so easy to fool people that simply didn’t pay attention in science classes in high school? Revenge of the nerds? Spare me.

    Talk about bizarre paranoia.

  67. Stoic says:

    I love the way we do science now in the UK!

  68. rbateman says:

    Route leaves the UK site to this one:
    193.63.111.143
    OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
    OrgID: RIPE
    Address: P.O. Box 10096
    City: Amsterdam
    StateProv:
    PostalCode: 1001EB
    Country: NL

    ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43

    NetRange: 193.0.0.0 – 193.255.255.255
    CIDR: 193.0.0.0/8
    NetName: RIPE-CBLK
    NetHandle: NET-193-0-0-0-1
    Parent:
    NetType: Allocated to RIPE NCC
    NameServer: NS-PRI.RIPE.NET
    NameServer: NS3.NIC.FR
    NameServer: SUNIC.SUNET.SE
    NameServer: SNS-PB.ISC.ORG
    NameServer: SEC1.APNIC.NET
    NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET
    NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET
    Comment: These addresses have been further assigned to users in
    Comment: the RIPE NCC region. Contact information can be found in
    Comment: the RIPE database at http://www.ripe.net/whois
    RegDate: 1992-08-12
    Updated: 2009-03-25

    ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-10-22 20:00
    Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN’s WHOIS database.

    So, if you know who RIPE works for….

  69. Yesterday I noted on my blog that if you voted Out – they thanked you by saying “…thanks for being part of PROVE IT! By adding your voice, you’re supporting a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”
    I note today they have dropped the second sentence…

  70. M White says:

    “Perhaps the “COUNT ME OUT” respondents get a visit from these chaps?”

    Experience says junk mail

  71. Barry Foster says:

    This is their “What effects are already being felt”:
    Earth’s rising temperature is causing knock-on effects. Rainfall patterns are changing. After three centuries of stability, sea level is now rising. Ice in the Arctic is melting further back year on year. Extreme weather, such as droughts and hurricanes, is becoming more common or more intense. The changing weather patterns are causing plants to flower earlier in the year and species to migrate as the climate in their habitats changes.

    Wow, talk about getting it wrong big time!

    I counted myself out, and gave them something to think about when they read it on Monday morning. Bunch of tossers, as we say over here in England. I note with great amusement that there are far more counted OUT than IN! Ha, ha.

  72. While..OT..Remember the warm “south pacific sea”?…see it now:

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

    Cold west, cold east, cold middle. Cheers Hansen boy!

  73. Mike Core says:

    Yes, I am afraid subtle hints at intimidation are standard operating procedure now. However this will backfire. On Monday I will ensure this link is emailed to as many deniers as myself. Mostly oilfield, mostly geologists and engineers and all hard nosed.

    Word will get out, from this site and others and count me out at first become an embarrasment and then probably be suspended.

    I counted out at 424.

    Shame they dont have a readers comments page.

    Welcome to our brave new world.

  74. hunter says:

    I can tell you for sure that James Hansen is now on recrd as doubting AGW.
    A phony name for a phony crisis.

  75. Vincent says:

    I’ve been counted out, and entered a lengthy tome on the reasons that AGW is flawed. I don’t suppose they’ll read it though – they’ve already planned their day after tomorrow exhibition, so I don’t expect to see rational thought intruding.

    Reading through their literature on climate change is like reading a school boy’s essay, so obvious are the flaws, appeals to authority and plain fawning over climate model specifications. As has already been posted here, these people make the oft repeated error of imagining that a successful hindcast implies predictive skill. In a different age they would be labelled “one born every day” suckers, but in todays Alice in Wonderland world, the nonsense the peddle is never questioned.

  76. Jason Bair says:

    I wont be surprised if they themselves start voting in to counteract the outs.
    Or maybe just falsify the numbers given to the gov’t. I dont trust them.

  77. Mike Core says:

    Is it my ageing eyesight, or have the just hidden the ‘count me out block’ while still showing ‘count me in’ as white on grey? Thereby a cursory glance would miss the count me out panel.
    Time: 19:40 UK.

  78. Mr Green Genes says:

    michel (10:01:38) :

    But I think you’d be hard put to find anyone seriously worried about what the Government will think of him if he expresses skepticism about AGW.

    There speaks someone who is happy that millions of people who have never even been charged with a crime have their DNA data stored on a government database, despite a court ruling that it is illegal.

    There speaks someone who is happy about the government’s plans that everyone should have to pay around £100 for a biometric ID card with over 50 pieces of information about them stored on the associated database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it.

    There speaks someone who is happy that anyone who wishes to have any contact with children will have to prove that they are no a paedophile, with data stored on a database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it, that data including totally unfounded, anonymous accusations.

    There speaks someone who is happy that the government plans that every child born in the UK will have all information relating to him/her entered onto yet another government database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it.

    There speaks someone who is happy that the government plans that every “client” of the National Health Service has every part of his/her medical history entered onto a government database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it.

    In short, the speaks a man whose mantra appears to be “If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”.

    I apologise for this rant but Michel is hopelessly naive if he believes that the current UK government is a benign group of people who have our interests at heart. THEY DON’T. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “The government is the problem, not the solution”

  79. Stephen Brown says:

    I have voted in this poll, in the “Count me Out” box of course. I have absolutely no fear of the Government gathering the personal information of their dissenting citizens to use against me.
    They’ll lose it, just like they have lost the personal data of millions of their citizens already.

  80. Lihard says:

    I’ve been reading this blog for a while now and really appreciate the climate sanity here. So thank you Watts for this site.

    As what goes for the poll on that uk site, anyone wanna bet the out wotes are up by 1000 after a few minutes?

    -Lihard

  81. Jon Jewett says:

    If you want to change people’s opinions, first you have to know what that opinion is.

    For example, suppose that you think that closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is a horrible idea. You can be targeted with a message that says: “The detention center is a cause of friction with our allies and by relocating it; the bad publicity will be put behind us”.

    That’s a lot more reasonable than saying we are going to just let them go. (In the past, many released inmates returnrd to terrorism and killing Americans.)

    That’s what those surveys are for: If you tell them why you disagree, they can target you with specific propaganda to get you to change your mind.

    I don’t know if that’s what they are going to do with it, but that is a technique used to target small groups of voters with common concerns. The power of the computer and digital printing has made it possible.

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  82. Stephen Brown says:

    At 20:00hrs on 23/10/2009 the score stands at 349 IN, 485 OUT.

  83. Jonathan says:

    Somebody is roboposting “OUTS”

  84. papertiger says:

    the 769th person counted out.

    And I thank you.

  85. Les Johnson says:

    A big jump – 349 In, 1388 out.

    Either someone has kicked in a ‘bot, or, I predict the SM will claim this, and take the votes down….

  86. Jason Bair says:

    Huge spike now.
    349 counted in so far 1496 counted out so far

    I have a feeling someone wrote some script as there’s no captcha in place.

  87. valiantdefender says:

    Unfortunately, such an idiotic poll DESERVES to be “roboposted”.

  88. Jeff Wood says:

    My submission in the comments:

    “First, the climate, and Earth’s temperature – as far as it can be ascertained – has always varied.

    Second, the probably provable warming from 1977 to 1998 is well within natural variation. See the MWP.

    Third, the land based surface stations which purport to show continued warming have been shown to be hopelessly contaminated by poor siting, urban heat island effects, and other drawbacks. Worse, the methods of collating and processing data, even the data themselves have been hidden from view. Where they have, finally, been exposed they have been shown to be seriously flawed. CF the recent Yamal expose.

    Fourth, the most reliable measurement of temperature we have, the satellite record, shows a cessation of warming in 1998, and a slight colling since.

    Fifth (and for the moment finally) the attribution of what warming we have seen to atmospheric carbon dioxide, a trace gas amounting to fewer than 400 parts per million, is completely implausible. In fact the record shows that for reasons which are clear to anyone who understands the solubility of air in water, CO2 follows temperature, it does not lead temperature.”

  89. DennisA says:

    The Director of the Science Museum is Chris Rapley, former Director of the £40 million a year budget, British Antarctic Survey. His last few years at BAS were occupied with proclaiming that the West Antarctic Ice Shelf was an awakening giant.

    Antarctic glaciers thinning fast
    BAS press release No: 03/2005 02 Feb 2005

    The contribution that rapid thinning of the Antarctic ice sheet is making to global sea-level rise is a cause for concern according to Director of British Antarctic Survey, (BAS), Professor Chris Rapley. Speaking this week at a conference hosted by the Met Office in Exeter he summarised the latest understanding from one of the frozen continent’s most remote and inhospitable corners.

    Professor Rapley said,“Satellite measurements tell us that a significant part of the West Antarctic ice sheet in this area is thinning fast enough to make a significant contribution to sea level rise, but for the present, our understanding of the reason for this change is little better than hypothesis.

    The last IPCC report characterised Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change. I would say that this is now an awakened giant. There is real cause for concern.”

    He made big headlines especially in the UK Independent: “The head of the British Antarctic Survey, Professor Chris Rapley, disclosed that the vast West Antarctic ice sheet, previously thought to be stable, may be beginning to disintegrate, which would cause a sea-level rise around the world of more than 16ft”

    Strangely he didn’t seem to know what research his own scientists were doing; this very next press release came out just 3 weeks after his statements at Blair’s Exeter scare fest on Dangerous Climate Change.

    Antarctic ice shelf retreats happened before:
    No: 4/2005 23 Feb 2005
    The retreat of Antarctic ice shelves is not new according to research published this week (24 Feb) in the journal Geology by scientists from Universities of Durham, Edinburgh and British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

    A study of George VI Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is the first to show that this currently ‘healthy’ ice shelf experienced an extensive retreat about 9500 years ago, more than anything seen in recent years. The retreat coincided with a shift in ocean currents that occurred after a long period of warmth. Whilst rising air temperatures are believed to be the primary cause of recent dramatic disintegration of ice shelves like Larsen B, the new study suggests that the ocean may play a more significant role in destroying them than previously thought.

    The University of Durham’s, Dr Mike Bentley, one of the leaders of the project said,‘We know that rising air temperatures can break up ice shelves but there has been a suspicion for some time that the role of the ocean may have been underestimated. This is some of the first evidence that a shift in ocean currents can actually destroy ice shelves. In this case it’s possible that a preceding warm period may have primed the ice shelf to disintegrate when the ocean currents shifted.’

    Of course, that didn’t make the papers.

  90. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    Sent to WHO in the government is the real question.

  91. Stephen Brown says:

    At 20:15 on 23/10/2009 it’s now 349 IN and 1508 OUT!!!

  92. Phillip Bratby says:

    349 in, 1518 out. Will they work out why the change?

  93. valiantdefender says:

    I think Global Warming is causing a rise in the “Count Me Out” levels.

  94. DaveE says:

    Think it was yesterday I mentioned first that I had not only voted Count me OUT but also left a comment.

    The 2 things I remember quoting were Harold Dennys account of drifting within 300Nmls of the North pole in 1938 on Dec 12th & later getting frozen in on the 18rh. Also the fact that the breaker was free again in mid Feb 1939, also reported by Denny.

    I also quoted Soden & Held “Quantifying Climate Feedbacks using Radiative Kernels”, which effectively says models are bollocks.

    What I, (half jokingly), said here on WUWT, was, something to the effect that I was expecting a call from the climate police as I did not hide my identity nor use a proxy server.

    Personally, I couldn’t give a stuff what they think or do!

    DaveE.

  95. Moliterno says:

    I just got counted “out” and left the following suggestion for exhibits:

    I’d like to see an exhibit about scientific theories that have been proved wrong, which is what I expect from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory. It will fit nicely with Eugenics, Lamarkian adaptation, and the Piltdown Man.

  96. marchesarosa says:

    I detect a slight paranoia amongst some posters and a failure of the funny bone. This is what it says in small print after threatening to shop us to the government:

    * We won’t pass on your name or e-mail address. We’ll just use it to send you a confirmation email, and make sure that we only count people once.

    I voted OUT and left this comment:

    “Temperatures are no longer rising but CO2 is; the sun has gone quiet permitting more galactic cosmic radiation to affect the planet; many different scientists are now turning their attention to CLOUDS as providing NEGATIVE feedback to the tiny amount of warming due to extra CO2 in the atmosphere (rather than the runaway amplification promoted by the catastrophists); Antarctic sea ice extent is now the greatest on record; Arctic ice seems to be recovering from its recent summer lows; the sea level is NOT rising more than its millenial trend and the oceans’ temperatures are NOT warming rather “oscillating” as normal; Atlantic hurricanes this year have been very few in comparison with years in the first half of the 20th Century; islands and areas claimed to be suffering inundation because of sea-level rises are in fact SUBSIDING due to plate tectonic activity and ice-age rebound; the concept of “global” temperature is a nonsense because of inadequate recording over time and space and because of the impact of urban heat islands – the majority of measuring stations used by the IPCC are located at airports; so-called “consensus” scientists are unwilling to reveal their data and methods to other researchers who wish to investigate their claims; the Mediaeval Warm Period was warmer than today and the Little Ice Age cooler; and lastly, trees ARE NOT to be confused with thermometers!”

    If someone is actually soliciting your opinion it seems churlish not to respond in good faith, especially when it is an organisation like the Science Museum which is a well-loved British institution.

    Toodle-oo!

  97. Frank Kotler says:

    I’m ashamed. I went to their site yesterday(?) – from “tips and notes” – and voted “out”, but allowed myself to be intimidated into backing out. Emboldened by the reminder that the jack-booted thought police will probably come to the wrong house, I just went back and voted. Left ‘em a message that I didn’t see any “evidence”. Thanks, guys! (quite a difference in poll numbers since yesterday!!! They must wonder Watts up?)

    Best,
    Frank

  98. Tom in Texas says:

    I’m out. 349-1540

  99. Stephen Brown says:

    It’s now 2040 on 23/10/2009 and the count stands at 1541 OUT. I have been watching the site for anbout 25 minutes and doing the F5 refresh every couple of seconds (my aching finger!).
    It would appear that there’s no robot posting. The changes are appearing at random time intervals ranging from a couple of seconds to two minutes or more.

  100. DaveE says:

    wattsupwiththat (10:27:57) :

    Leif please advise if you get any confirming emails. I think perhaps they filter non UK IP addresses.

    I still haven’t got my confirming email Anthony & I AM UK based.

    DaveE.

  101. Stephen Brown says:

    Final post at 2045hrs.
    It’s now 350 IN and 1553 OUT

    Let’s see what tomorrow brings. BTW,I have voted, using a valid UK e-mail address and I have received no ‘validation’ e-mail.

  102. SandyInDerby says:

    Well I am hoping nothing untoward happens, I voted count me out. But I did abandon the first attempt and check the same information was requested for a Count Me In vote.

    I then complained to the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) about the child scaring anti-warming/change adverts which my taxes are paying for. No point in doing things by half.

  103. John Peter says:

    Just counted myself out and gave reasons. Results so far 350 counted in and 1557 counted out. We seem to be doing well. I guess this thing will just be buried quietly.

  104. Dr A Burns says:

    The science museum link states:
    “Scientists can tell the extra carbon dioxide around the Earth comes from fossil fuels by looking at the type of carbon.”
    It was my understanding that 1-4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere has a fossil fuel origin, based on C14 studies. Unfortunately I can’t find my reference for this. Is this figure correct ?

  105. Gino says:

    Mr. Bradbury would be proud.

  106. Stoic says:

    Dear All,

    I suspect this is becoming a newsworthy story that will interest the MSM – government embarrassment etc. Can I suggest that anyone with MSM contacts phone them now so that it may have a chance of hitting tomorrow’s papers. Last time I looked at 21.00 BST the score was 352 to the church of AGW against 1573 sceptics.

    Regards

    S

  107. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    This would be a good story on The Register. Get emailing people.

  108. Mark Fawcett says:

    Just added my “out” vote.

    353 / 1585 now…

    Cheers

    Mark

  109. Mike D. says:

    353 counted in, 1589 counted out, as of 2 minutes ago.

    Pretty funny. Teach those yahoos a lesson about web polls.

    Hope it makes the BBC. Headline should read:

    Climate Outies Swamp Innies in Alarmist Museum Poll

  110. the_Butcher says:

    Wasn’t it settled already, we are doomed.

  111. Juraj V. says:

    1603/353.. which of you lads used Hansens´s NASA e-mail??
    :-D

  112. NickB says:

    Dr A. Burns (12:51:22),

    I hope this helps:

    “Segalstad (1992; 1993; 1996) concluded from 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations, in accordance with the 14-C data, that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth’s interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important; and the sum of burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic releases (4%) much less important, than assumed (21% of atmospheric CO2) by the authors of the IPCC model (Houghton et al., 1990).”

    Source:
    http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

  113. michel says:

    Mr Green Genes (11:44:23)

    There are many reasons to be concerned about civil liberties in the UK, real reasons, and some of the things you mention are among them, though there are more, some more serious than the ones you allude to, and no, I and many of my acquaintance are not at all happy about recent trends. You did not mention, for instance, the very disturbing arrest of Damien Green. I do not take the same attitude either to all the items on your list; some are more alarming than others.

    However, one of the things I am not concerned about is that responding to a Science Museum poll on whether I believe in Global Warming may get me onto some government enemies list or other.

    And no, I do not think that the innocent have no reason to fear. I just think that there’s no evidence that the UK government thinks that people expressing opinions about the scientific basis for AGW is a security issue. You are far more likely to get on government lists if you join protests against power stations, attend climate camps, take up animal rights, demonstrate against the G8, all that sort of thing. Because they are not actually total idiots, and they do not have unlimited time and energy to worry about every personal opinion everyone may hold. And they have something very real to worry about in the background: terrorism.

    You are right that there is a sort of uneasy consensus in the UK, where it is ‘not done’ to express reservations in public, but in private you find lots of reservations, including from opinion formers. The further away from Westminster you go, and the further away from the devout Labour Party membership, the more scepticism you find. But even within that, there is a lot of vigorous debate about policy implications, and its funny, as in the sea defence matter, that people who think identically about warming can take exactly opposite views on many of them. And the reverse, by the way – people who think differently on warming often end up agreeing on policy.

    As for example, its warming, sea defences are consequently under threat, therefore we must act now and strengthen them. And, no, of course its not warming, but sea defences are in disrepair, and we must act now and strengthen them.

    Under the surface, a lot of what this is about is not the reduction of emissions, but UK energy security, which is a nightmare. That is why I think joining the Kingsnorth protests probably really would get you on lists, and quite right too.

  114. DaveE says:

    Mr Green Genes (11:44:23) :

    michel (10:01:38) :

    But I think you’d be hard put to find anyone seriously worried about what the Government will think of him if he expresses skepticism about AGW.

    There speaks someone who is happy that millions of people who have never even been charged with a crime have their DNA data stored on a government database, despite a court ruling that it is illegal.

    Tell me about it!

    Remember dabs & mugshot too!

    I’m there, pulled on sus!

    DaveE.

  115. Pops says:

    I have a dozen quite legitimate e-mail addresses (personal and business) and I’ve just used each one to be “counted out.” From what Mike D. just reported, I can see the site being quietly closed very shortly.

  116. evanmjones says:

    Don’t do that. Both sides should play fair.

  117. rbateman says:

    If they took the temperature of the globe the way this poll is shaping up, we’d all be busy talking about more important things, rather than going to the mat with Big Environment.
    Like sending a fleet of trawlers out into the Pacific Gyre and fishing up that mass of swirling plastic. Put that $100B invested into Carbon Bubble shares to work. Mop it up.

  118. Justin says:

    I counted out, with a real e-mail addy. And responded.

    W@nkers, they must need some funding for something.

    # 353 counted in so far
    # 1624 counted out so far

  119. Robert E. Phelan says:

    353 to 1633. I would have preferred, though, that “our side” didn’t resort to ballot box stuffing. It would be so cool to see those numbers represent real votes.

  120. valiantdefender says:

    Respectfully, “evanmjones”, when have the catastrophists ever played fair?

    [REPLY - In order to have the right to complain, we must play fair, regardless. Besides, having the moral high ground has serious advantages of its own. I doubt we can prevail without it. ~ Evan]

  121. Trevor says:

    354 Counted In, 1637 Counted out. Added my thoughts to the out.

  122. Ray Donahe says:

    Like others above I “Counted” myself out. Dropped a short explanation also. Let us not spam this site – allow the “outs” to prevail legitimaly.

  123. Pops says:

    I think they’re not accepting none-UK votes. I live outside the UK and I haven’t had one confirmation e-mail yet. Perhaps tomorrow.

  124. E.M.Smith says:

    Um, if you have a generic “dial up” account for nearly no money as part of your service (often included as a free backup) and a decent low cost long distance plan, you can dial a UK phone number and get a UK IP address…

    Not that I would ever have a long list of phone numbers from all over my providers network so that I can “be” anywhere I want to be… no sir, that would be wrong. Effective, but wrong.

    Yes, it is slow, but there are times…

    One of my favorite things to do is send email to a friend in Florida from the Florida dial up node I use when visiting him. Yeah, he’s a computer geek too and appreciates the irony… “But I’m there in spirit! … and in IP.”

    With my “free long distance” it really makes no difference what hub I use. AND you get to see the “customized for your location” local ads and know who’s looking at your IP and who is not. (And frankly, having a few “odd ball” IPs mixed in with home, work, and the Starbucks Hot Spots adds a certain spice to the database of anyone collecting such information… “Now how did he get from New York to Atlanta in 10 minutes?!”)

    I know, geeks are easily amused… But it’s like delivering coffee to the guys watching your house. It says “Hi, know your there, want a donut too?” ;-)

    (FWIW, we once tracked a “probably Russian based on plodding by the book hacking style” guy who bounced off two other sites, hit our front door router but could not get past the firewall, then used our “honeypot” machine to hit a military base in Hawaii.

    We called up their admin contact phone number that we dug out of their router [it was an modest hack...] to tell them they were being hacked. The response? “How did you get our phone number, this is a secret site! Who have you told?”. Not real interested in the fact they were actively being hacked, but worried someone would find out they had an internet connection that was not supposed to exist.

    Sigh. We told them what they needed to know, even though they didn’t want to hear it, then hung up. Called the FBI to tell them there was a break-in in progress at a secure facility. They told us “The guy who handles that is out until next week. Do you have a number he can call when he gets back?” I hope things are better now, a decade+ later … We shut down the guys access once it was clear nobody cared. He could go bounce off somewhere else. So this kind of thing is a handy thing to understand…)

    Haven’t voted yet. Trying to decide who and where I want to be 8-)

  125. francisco says:

    Voted “count me out” and commented:

    “Proponents of the idea that the activities of human beings are causing undesireable climate changes are wrong on several counts.

    They claim that the issue is scentifically settled when it is not, ignore evidence contrary to their hypothesis, and demonize their opponents. They claim that a consensus of experts supports their position, even though that is not true, acting as if scientific matters were decided by a vote
    instead of by comparing the predictions of theory to observation and experiment. All their alarmist predictions result from models with great uncertainties in the data input and the dynamic relationships of climate influences, and which have made predictions subsequently shown to be overstated or false when compared to reality.

    Even if AGW turns out to be true, supporters of the idea have failed to produce a cost-benefit analysis that shows that their remediation proposals will result in a net benefit. It is a definite possibility that following their prescriptions will instead cause death and impoverishment.”

  126. Emil says:

    voted OUT, at 354 IN / 1640 OUT … no UK IP, no confirmation mail arrived.

    Not that I had plans, but will I see a visa if I’ll ever need one :-P ?

  127. DaveE says:

    Pops.

    I’m UK & still not got a confirmation email

    DaveE.

  128. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Added my vote, too…. it looks like they may have accepted the vote, but there is no confirming e-mail yet… wait, I hear helicopters…

    It would be nice to know if those votes represent valid one-time and eligible votes or not. And I completely agree with Evan Jones… it is vitally important to maintain the higher moral ground.

  129. Robinson says:

    My email address is UK and I didn’t get a confirmation, although I’m sure my vote counted. I fully expect it to get stuffed by the other side once they reaslise they’re going to lose the vote.

  130. Tom in Texas says:

    “Haven’t voted yet. Trying to decide who and where I want to be 8-)”

    Has big Al voted yet?

  131. Robert E. Phelan says:

    How soon do you suppose before the warmistas tweak to this one and call out the trolls?

  132. Indiana Bones says:

    Bruce Cobb (09:55:04) :

    I voted count me out, and submitted my comments:
    …Any sort of climate agreement at Copenhagen is not only completely unnecessary, but could have disastrous effects on economies worldwide.”
    What are they gonna do? I double-dog dare them.

    Dog dares are no longer allowed as they have been exchanged for edible, low carbon pets like chickens, ducks and rabbits. But thank you for your e-mail address… we’ll keep it on file.

  133. Symon says:

    Symon (10:03:29) :

    You’re misrepresenting the science museum. If you click ‘count me in’ they ask for the same information. This article is being disingenuous if it does not make this clear.

    REPLY: No they are responsible for the situation. If a visitor clicks “COUNT ME OUT” first. Then leaves is disgust, the vote becomes lopsided. They’ll never see the other option and how it is presented.

    They need to redo this language to be less threatening, IMHO. But I did add the screencap from the COUNT ME IN response to be fair. -A

    I’m sorry Mr. Watts, but I still don’t see what point you are trying to make. It’s the same for both sides, so where’s the bias you perceive?
    To paraphrase your reply, what if a visitor clicks “COUNT ME IN” first. Then leaves in disgust, the vote becomes lopsided. They’ll never see the other option and how it is presented.
    Anyway, thank you for adding the other screencap.

  134. Konrad says:

    I counted out, and added a full page vent to comments. I’m not sure if this will carry much weight as I am not a UK citizen. However I have no problem supplying an email address as I am happy to be identified as a climate realist. I would encourage others to give an email address as well as adding comments. It would be good if those organizing this propaganda at the museum could see the commitment and scientific literacy of the skeptic community. While my vent in comments was about the science, I did end with a comment on the ultimate futility of such propaganda exercises.

    “Only humans can be swayed by propaganda, Nature doesn’t care. At present Nature is not cooperating with the alarmist hoax. Even if humans are stupid enough to destroy democracy at Copenhagen, how long will the new regime last in an extended solar minimum? No amount of over heated propaganda will help heat your house in winter.”

  135. vigilantfish says:

    After some hesitation due to not being a British national I also counted myself out and left a comment about the skewing of the survey through the exclusion of historically relevant climate information.

  136. Pops says:

    “…it is vitally important to maintain the higher moral ground.” And that’s precisely the attitude that has brought us to the situation we find ourselves in just 50 + days from the great Copenhagen warm-fest. Fight fire with fire, or you’ll end up getting your nuts roasted IN the fire. The numbers may be reversed by this time tomorrow anyway (if the site is still up) but that will only prove what a joke, and waste of tax-payer’s money, it is… was. Talking of nuts, what head-case picked Copenhagen for a December meeting about global warming? I’ve been there in December and it’s freezing. Surely they should be meeting in Sydney, Australia?

  137. philincalifornia says:

    rbateman (13:48:02) :
    Like sending a fleet of trawlers out into the Pacific Gyre and fishing up that mass of swirling plastic. Put that $100B invested into Carbon Bubble shares to work. Mop it up.
    ———–
    Yeah, the lady who posted about that “plastic soup” a few days ago sure as hell created a lasting impression on me, and I’m sure others, with that one (she might be surprised to know). I found those pictures astounding.

    Now helping to clean that crap up is something I could get behind and support. The Out/In score may indicate that it’s getting close to the time when WUWT posters may be looking for other ways to help tackle the real pollution problems.

  138. Alex Cull says:

    Now standing at 357 “in” and 1710 “out”. I went back and commented; my concluding paragraph was:

    “Suffice it to say that I think the current drive to throw vast amounts of money and resources into “tackling climate change” is misguided. Tragically, much money that could have been spent on genuine problems, such as improving infrastructure in the developing world, will probably be wasted, before the tide begins to turn and a more honest, less blinkered assessment of the Earth’s climate gets under way.”

    The Government have my e-mail address already, and are aware of my opinions about AGW. If they are compiling some sort of Dodgy Dossier of Denialist Doom, I’m probably already in it!

  139. Mildwarmer says:

    The only dodgy issue bigger than the AGW con (CON!) is the idea that the so-called “scientists” know more about science than the rest of us. Just remember that Einstein was NOT a scientist, but a patent clerk. And I know some clerks (not just working on patents) who have a better idea of the inner workings of the Universe than any so-called scientists.

    So to all you so-called skeptics (as opposed to the honestly skeptical), I say this: Rome wasn’t built in a day. It takes two to tango, right? And when the fat lady sings, beware of the PC thought police!!!!

  140. evanmjones says:

    I’m sorry Mr. Watts, but I still don’t see what point you are trying to make. It’s the same for both sides, so where’s the bias you perceive?

    It goes something like this (Note, this is an analogy, not a direct comparison.):

    Vote “Up with the Powers That Be” or “Down with the Powers That Be” — and both responses are labeled “Will be reported to the Powers That Be”.

    What’s unfair about that? Same message for both sides, isn’t it?

    As for me, there’s little difference. After my articles in the Register, I’m on the bad list anyway.

  141. Peter S says:

    I counted myself out.

    Chris Rapley in the Telegraph article:
    “Climate change is real, driven by humans and potentially threatening… so discipline is required, worldwide”

    This is the first time I have seen the ‘D’ word introduced into the GW alarmism… though I’ve been waiting for its inevitable appearance.

    Chris fails to say who is going to administer this discipline, what will happen to those who are considered undisciplined and which historical political group ‘requiring discipline, worldwide’ is so inspiring him.

    Perhaps he’ll tell me in the Science Museum’s return email.

  142. paullm says:

    * 357 counted in so far
    * 1718 counted out so far

    and still no confirmation….this could become quite embarrassing.

  143. Ripper says:

    I shamelessly plagerised and expanded tallbloke’s excellent post the other day and sent in this in the comments.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re…1-chapter9.pdf
    Here’s the key passage as most see it:

    In all simulations shown in Figure
    6.13, the late 20th century is warmer than any other multidecadal
    period during the last millennium. In addition, there
    is significant correlation between simulated and reconstructed
    variability (e.g., Yoshimori et al., 2005). By comparing
    simulated and observed atmospheric CO2 concentration during
    the last 1 kyr, Gerber et al. (2003) suggest that the amplitude
    of the temperature evolution simulated by simple climate
    models and EMICs is consistent with the observed evolution
    of CO2. Since reconstructions of external forcing are virtually
    independent from the reconstructions of past temperatures, this
    broad consistency increases confidence in the broad features of
    the reconstructions and the understanding of the role of external
    forcing in recent climate variability. The simulations also
    show that it is not possible to reproduce the large 20th-century
    warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which
    solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used (Crowley, 2000;
    Bertrand et al., 2002; Bauer et al., 2003; Hegerl et al., 2003,
    2007), stressing the impact of human activity on the recent
    warming.

    So by ignoring all the studies whose reconstructions show a warmer medieval warm period, they are able to claim that the models and the reconstructions mutually reinforce each other. And by downplaying medieval temps, they can claim a good correlation with co2 and therefore the AGW hypothesis is strongest in explaining C20th temp rise.

    Mann is debunked,
    Briffa is debunked.
    The IPCC has ignored 180 years of co2 records
    There is considerable doubt about how a global temperature reconstruction can be accurate especially before 1958 when there were only 20 thermometers in the bottom 40 degrees of the globe.

    What’s left?”

  144. evanmjones says:

    The nays continue to pile in. 357 – 1735 at last count.

    Heck, I think there has been a small amount of warming and that man is partially responsible (though mostly via non-CO2 means). But I wasn’t in favor of “measures” even when the economy was good. And especially not now.

  145. Nigel Brereton says:

    I’m out with comments name and email posted.
    Lets see whether any headlines come from this poll?

  146. Dave Johnson says:

    I’m in the UK and voted at 3pm. So far there has been no confirmation e-mail

  147. Mildwarmer says:

    I’m with the BNP on this one!

  148. son of mulder says:

    * 357 counted in so far
    * 1746 counted out so far

    Ive just plotted the counted out votes vs time and they look like a hockey stick standing on it’s blade

  149. John Cooke says:

    That’s me counted out too, with an appropriate comment about the bad science currently fuelling the AGW case.

  150. Dr A Burns says:

    “…at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources”

    Thanks NickB

    I had seen other references claiming atmospheric CO2 was as low as 1% fossil fuel derived. Any other pointers appreciated.

  151. Mike McMillan says:

    Well, I didn’t vote. I’ve got enough check marks after my name on government lists as it is.

    Love the picture of Oskar Werner as Fireman Montag.

  152. Craigo says:

    And the counted outs keep climbing! Ouch.

    The influence of the blogosphere may yet save us from this madness.

    Keep waving the flag Anthony.

  153. Tom in Texas says:

    359 counted in so far 1781 counted out so far

  154. S Denny says:

    I counted myself out and got carried away screeching the following:

    “Climate has always changed, and always will. Going back to its original name, ‘Global Warming’ doesn’t make it any easier, as the planet stopped warming ten years ago. Get over it and move on!! People are more aware of their effect on the environment – just accept that as a victory. Stop pushing this propaganda down the throats of UK citizens and (horrifically) UK school children. It’s obscene, and everyone involved in the climate change scam are the lowest of the low. They will be a joke to their descendants, but they are disgusting criminals to their peers.

    An echelon of “scientists”, “climate change ministers” and “environmental correspondents” want to keep their jobs getting money for nothing until they retire. The consequence of this for the rest of the population is having a climate change caused by humans myth forced upon them, leading on to carbon taxes and a personal carbon allowance, which is just a roundabout way of gaining control back over the masses, which was lost when they demanded the rights that they had fought for in WW2, (after their fathers had demanded the same rights after WW1 and were laughed at).

    In short, Science Museum, get on with being a science museum and leave global warming to politics, as that is what it is, as any REAL scientist knows.

    Oh, and you can give my name to the Government. Even although they are flirting with climate change fascism, they haven’t quite got into bed yet, and when they do I’ll no doubt be out shooting non carbon neutrals with the rest of the sheep, (unless my backbone and my disgust of this eco-fascism stays firm).”

  155. Kevin Marshall says:

    Sorry to insult you chaps on the other side of the pond, but this “count me in” or “count me in” business is not proper English – it is American-English.
    In voting in the negative, I pointed out an essential part of the traditonal English culture is fair play and hearing both sides of the argument. All this talk about urgency, consensus and castigating the opposition as being biased due to being bribed by oil companies is simply not cricket!
    The Science Museum is a fantastic institution that has inspired many to study the various branches further. As I child I visited a number of times, getting lost in the many rooms, absorbing huge amounts. The “Prove it” site is an affront to one of the world’s greatest museums and should be taken down.

  156. BarryW says:

    Given that count, what are the odds they’ll actually send the vote in? 50 Quatloos says they don’t.

  157. SunSword says:

    * 361 counted in so far
    * 1807 counted out so far

    However I must admit — I counted out as “John Smith” at notme@yahoo.com.

  158. evanmjones says:

    No cheating, please. I stridently disapprove.

    A win isn’t a win unless it’s a win. And that’s all there is to it.

  159. Tom in Texas says:

    “Well, it has surpassed 5:1″

    But it would only be a little better than 2:1 if it wasn’t for Lihard (11:46:46)

  160. evanmjones says:

    I don’t dispute that the link here has probably had an impact.

    On the other hand, they themselves say:

    Convinced? Want to spread the word? Invite your friends and family to be part of PROVE IT! Follow the three steps. Pick a point. Choose the evidence to back it up. Then send it on.

    Turnabout (without cheating) is fair play?

  161. tokyoboy says:

    I counted out. But the vote was valid from outside UK??

  162. Paul Coppin says:

    ” valiantdefender (13:52:24) :

    Respectfully, “evanmjones”, when have the catastrophists ever played fair?

    [REPLY - In order to have the right to complain, we must play fair, regardless. Besides, having the moral high ground has serious advantages of its own. I doubt we can prevail without it. ~ Evan]”

    With regard to this exchange, I submit the following comment taken from another blog about another topic, and yet is quintessentially on point (bold emphasis at the end is mine, and is the money quote):

    (by “EBD” on SDA)
    “Should every blog comment be viewed as a contribution to a debate that is delivered and measured for merit according to particular rules of order? In a perfect world, yes, but on the other hand it wasn’t a Harvard debating team that stormed the beach at Normandy; those footprints were the end-product of an aggregate social force informed not by eloquence and Robert’s Rules but rather by belief and collective anger – yes, anger – and animus. Is that motivation just? Not necessarily, but on the other hand, to pretend that one’s enemies will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one’s decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit.

  163. Roger Carr says:

    Paul Coppin (19:20:13) : “… but on the other hand, to pretend that one’s enemies will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one’s decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit.“

    I hear an echo in my mind: “Good guys finish last. A shame; but a reality.

  164. Ubique of Perth WA says:

    Counted myself out and told ‘em why. 362 in vs 1857 out.

  165. Geoff Dawson says:

    I did visit and left then a couple of messages,regarding water vapor/carbon dioxide also read a book entitled “1984″

    I’ll see what happens,probably nothing.

  166. Scott R says:

    0ut……now 362 in v 1862 out – it appears to be going horribly wrong for them

  167. par5 says:

    I’m out. Score is now 362 in – 1870 out

  168. Angry Exile says:

    Better than the Youth Decide thing we got here in Oz. At least this offers the opportunity to disagree rather than the options (paraphrasing here) of do you want moderate and difficult emission reductions, ambitious and impractical reductions, or realms of fantasy reductions. Incidentally, I clicked the least insane option just so I could write a comment about the ridiculous bias and said that if offered a stop-worrying-business-as-usual option I’d have gone for that. Predictably they’ve spammed the disposable email I used with messages thanking me for my support and promoting assorted eco-guff.

  169. Annabelle says:

    I counted myself out, but expected to get an email asking for confirmation. This email never arrived. Did other people get an email, or is this normal?

  170. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    I think a better saying is ” good guys are the last to finish” Remember it takes time to do a good job. Fakers finish up early.

  171. O. Weinzierl says:

    I left them a message at: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/contact_us.aspx

    “great way to get a list of people to put in concentration camps in an upcoming eco-fascist regime

    p.s. I’m a geologist, you can’t fool me”

  172. O. Weinzierl says:

    I also got no email, but it’s 368 / 1945 now^^

  173. Patrick Davis says:

    You it doesn’t matter what the polls say, and what people want, the decision has already been made.

  174. dodgy geezer says:

    I counted out, with my real address.

    Don’t spam them, bros! We are strong enough to play fair, and it gives them an excuse to reject the ‘survey’, by saying it was hijacked.

    I also have not received a confirmation e-mail. If I don’t after a day or so, I will send my comments (which I have saved) to the museum director and the curator of the exhibition, on the assumption that my e-mail did not get through.

    I encourage everyone else to do likewise….

    369 in, 1954 out. When will there be 2000…?

  175. Jordan says:

    Presently 360-1961.

    A couple of comments on some of the above posts.

    I do not see anything which limits the voting to people in the UK. Why should it – we are told this is an international problem which requires internaltional co-operation. Would be a bit rich to ignore the views of people we’d expect to co-operate with.

    On commenting and voting, it is possible to leave a comment without necessarily voting – see the link “tell us what you think” to the bottom right of the home page.

    I made various comments about the state of the science, and not accepting models as substitute for good empirical science. I adding that nobody would have their child vaccinated against swine flu on the evidence that somebody said the outcome had been demonstrated by a computer model.

    Also note this comment at the top of the page “about this project”:

    “The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.”

    I asked them to cite the scientific literature that they found most compelling in reaching that conclusion (not articles reporting model results).

    Anyway, I think an overall count-me-out will be ignored on some excuse like having been hikjacked by a concerted no campaign. I voted count-me-out.

  176. Stargazer says:

    I am out.

    looks like they might have to wonder why there are more out than in.

  177. Stargazer says:

    Here is what I wrote..

    Of those ‘challenging’ AGW theory.
    Very few of us ‘deny’ that the climate changes and has ‘warmed’ in recent times.
    Most of us know that climate change happens !!!

    The world temperatures have been falling for 11 years now. This is Climate change in action !!! . It warmed, and now it is cooling.

    Here is an analogy.. A volcano erupts on a ‘regular basis’…

    We ‘know’ this because we can sample the strata laid down by the volcano over very long periods of time, and find that it erupts cyclically over that long period.

    But along comes the IPVC (International Policy on Volcano Change) and the AVW (Anthropogenic Volcano Warming) who tell us that next time the Volcano
    erupts, it will be ‘our fault’ and will be ‘unprecedented’… we are doomed.

    Billions, nay, Trillions are spent showing us ‘the error of our ways’ and how we are ‘causing’ the eruption… and when ‘deniers’ point out that the volcano is not ‘unprecedented’ and ‘how can we possibly have caused the volcano to erupt in the past’ (look at the record) not our fault, as it has erupted many times before (without ‘our help) We are accused of ‘denying’ the facts when we say past evidence shows it is a ‘natural’ volcano eruption, was then, is now!

    Well the Climate over the past 12,000 years of the current interglacial, has (at least 11 times), been as warm (or warmer) than ‘now’ (up to 2 deg.C warmer)… and we have had cold periods, up to 2 deg.C cooler than now. That is a 4 degree overall ‘change’, sometimes in as little as a decade.

    AGW is only talking about less than 1 deg.C OVER 150 years… (and they ‘choose’ the end of the last cold period to start from !)

    All the World temp. has done over the past 150 years, is to get back (almost) to where it was before the last LIA (little ice age) happened

    These periods are cyclic, and evidently not caused by ‘us’ nor Co2. They were/are NATURAL, And the whole point is this….

    Whatever mechanism nature itself ‘uses’ to have made these ‘swings’ has not gone away ‘just for us’ in this time period.

  178. Rowgeo says:

    I align myself with the comments of Kevin Marshall (17:30:32)

    This barefaced exercise in political eco-fascist advocacy is an affront to the superb heritage of british science, of which the Science Museum is the ultimate curator (plus 386/2021 suggests they have shot themselves in the foot). This ‘Prove It’ campaign should be removed with immediate effect and replaced with an apology. For educational purposes, climate change can be presented by the Museum in a factual and balanced way, in the true tradition of scientific professionalism. I consider that the reputation and dignity of this once great institution has been irrevocably tainted by it’s ill-judged partisan foray into a crumbling quagmire.

  179. John Silver says:

    I Counted me In as Josef Jughashvili. hehehe
    hehehe

  180. Mr Green Genes says:

    michel (13:36:32) :

    Mr Green Genes (11:44:23)

    There are many reasons to be concerned about civil liberties in the UK, real reasons, and some of the things you mention are among them, though there are more, some more serious than the ones you allude to, and no, I and many of my acquaintance are not at all happy about recent trends. You did not mention, for instance, the very disturbing arrest of Damien Green. I do not take the same attitude either to all the items on your list; some are more alarming than others.

    Fair enough. As I said, it was a bit of a rant (memo to self, remember to drink the wine after you post, not before and during!) and I apologise if it appeared to be aimed at you personally.

    You are probably right in everything you say, but, as someone who has had his identity stolen from a government database, I am somewhat paranoid, particularly over data demanded by the government which has no relevance. My simple question is “why do they want this, except for some nefarious purpose?”.

    Anyway, back to the topic, I will be dropping by to register as an “out” shortly, since my paranoia levels are lower in daylight!!

  181. coddbotherer says:

    I have to say I am astonished but pleased to have set off this show of disapproval for the Science Museum’s Prove It poll. I admit that I wasn’t very keen on voting but I’ve got caught up in the excitement and have now done so.

    But I wanted to go a step further and add a comment. Thinking about what I wanted to say has focussed my attention on the direct evidence for the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I can’t recall ever having seen anything written about how one tests its effectiveness in the laboratory. All that I have seen presumes CO2 is potent and then tries to infer its potency from the temperature record, which plainly presumes the consequent. What would people posting here suggest I read (ideally in the peer reviewed literature)?

  182. john ratcliffe says:

    Just got myself counted out ( hope i wasn;t boxing).

    Score now 393 in vs 2077 out.

    A graph of these results vs time might be a pretty thing to see. How do you represent a sledge hammer on a graph?

  183. Richard Mackey says:

    After counting me out, I posted this:

    Science has long ago established that our climate changes. Our climate is dynamic: this is a well known truth. There are four broad competing, but not mutually exclusive, explanations for our planet’s climate dynamics:
    (a) Solar and related processes. This includes irradiance, matter, electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
    (b) The internal oscillations of the climate system itself.
    (c) Humanity’s re-engineering of the planet, especially since the 17th Century.
    (d) Humanity’s production of various substances such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

    The weight of direct observational evidence is in favour of (a). There are literally 1,000s of papers published in the highest quality peer reviewed scientific journals that corroborate this category of explanations. See for example:
    See the websites of:
    http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta
    http://www.cdejager.com/about
    http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

    Here is a small sample of peer-reviewed published science corroborating the hypothesis that the Sun is largely responsible for our planet’s climate dynamics.
    Ruzmaikin, A., 2007. Effect of solar variability on the Earth’s climate patterns. Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.076; published online 3 March 2007.
    Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J. and Yung, Y., 2006. Is solar variability reflected in the Nile river ? Journal of Geophysical Research v. 111 D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462 published 11 November 2006.
    Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J., Jiang, X., Noone, D. C., Waple, A. M. and Yung, Y. L., 2004. The pattern of northern hemisphere surface air temperature during prolonged periods of low solar output. Geophysical Research Letters, v 31, L12201, doi:10.1029/2004GL019955, 2004.
    Salby, M. L. and Callaghan, P. F., 2006. “Evidence of the solar cycle in the tropical troposphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D21113, doi:10.1029/2006JD007133, 2006.
    Morner, Nils-Axel, 1987. Short-term paleoclimatic changes: observational data and a novel causation model, Chapter 14 in Rampino Michael R., Sanders, John E., Newman, Walter S., and Konigsson, L. K., Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Essays in honour of the 70th Birthday of Rhodes W Fairbridge. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA .
    Morner, Nils-Axel, 1995. Sea level and climate – the decadal-to-century signals, chapter 36 of Finkle, Charles W. Jnr 1995. Journal of Coastal research Special Issue No. 17: Holocene Cycles: climate, sea levels and sedimentation, A Jubilee Volume in Celebration of the 80th Birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge pps 261-268.
    Kuroda, Y. 2003. Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900 1999. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(4), 1175, doi:10.1029/2002GL016584.
    Kuroda, Y., Coughlin, K. and Arakawa, O. 2007. Possible modulation of the connection between the Pacific and Indian Ocean variability by the solar cycle, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L03710, doi:10.1029/2006GL027827.
    Kuroda, Y., and Kodera, K., 2005. Solar Cycle modulation of the Southern Annual Mode, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L13802, doi:10.1029/2005GL022516, 2005.
    Labitzke, K., 2007. Effects of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Chapter 18 in Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer; pps 445-466.
    Labitzke, K., 2006. Solar Variation and Stratospheric Response. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 247-260.
    Kodera, K., and Y. Kuroda, 2003. Regional and hemispheric circulation patterns in the northern winter, or the NAO and the AO, Geophyical Research Letters, 30, 1934, doi:10.1029/2003GL017290, 2003.
    Kodera, K., and Y. Kuroda, 2002. Dynamical response to the solar cycle. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D24), 4749, doi:10.1029/2002JD002224,
    Feynman, J., 1982. Geomagnetic and solar wind cycles, 1900-1975 Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 87, pps. 6153-6162. 1 Aug. 1982.
    Feynman, J., 2007. Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture? Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.077.
    Feynman, J. and Ruzmaikin, A., 2007. Climate stability and the development of agricultural societies, Climatic Change Vol 84, Nos 3-4. doi10.1007/s10584-007-9248-1.
    Bengtsson, L., 2007. On the response of the climate system to solar forcing. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer.
    Bochnicek, J., Hedjda, P., Bucha, V. and Pycha, J., 1999. Possible geomagnetic activity effects on weather. Annales Geophysicae 17, 925-932.
    Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M. N., Showers, W., Hoffman, S., Lotti B, R., Hajdas, I., and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science 294 No. 5549, pps 2130-2136; doi:10.1126/science.1065680, 2001.
    Bonev, B. P., Penev, K. M., and Sello, S., 2004. “Long-term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century”. The Astrophysical Journal 605, L81-L84, 2004 April 10.
    Bronnimann, S., Ewen, T., Griesser, T. and Jenne, R., 2007. Multidecadal signal of solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th Century. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 305-317.
    Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2005: Empirical Mode Decomposition of Climate Variability in Hilbert-Huang Transform: Introduction and Applications; edited by N. Huang and S. Shen; World Scientific Publishing.
    Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2004a. 11-year solar cycle in the stratosphere extracted by the empirical mode decomposition method. Advances in Space Research 34, 323-329.
    Coughlin, K. and Kung, Ka Kit, 2004b. Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. Journal of Geophysics Research, 109 D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.
    Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2001. QBO signal found at the extratropical surface through northern annular modes. Geophysics Research Letters, 28, 4563-4566.
    Currie, R. G. 1987. Examples and Implications of 18.6 and 11 year Terms in World Weather records, Chapter 22 in Rampino, Michael R., Sanders, John E., Newman, Walter S., and Konigsson, L. K., Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Essays in honour of the 70th Birthday of Rhodes W Fairbridge. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA .
    Currie, R. G. 1995. Variance contribution of Mn and Sc signals to Nile River Data over a 30 8 Year bandwidth” Ch. 3 in Finkl, Charles W., (Editor) Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 17, Holocene Cycles: Climate, Sea Levels, and Sedimentation. A Jubilee Volume in Celebration of the 80th Birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. Coastal Education and Research Foundation.
    Da Silva, R. R., and Avissar, R., 2006. The impacts of the Luni Solar Oscillation on the Artic Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L22703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023418,2005.
    Duhau, Silvia, 2006. Solar Activity, Earth’s rotation rate and climate variations in the secular and semi secular time scales, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Vol. 31 pp 99 to 108.
    Perry, Charles A. 1995. USA Association between Solar-Irradiance Variations and Hydroclimatology of Selected Regions of the USA Proceedings of the 6th International Meeting on Statistical Climatology, 19-23 June, 1995, Galway, Ireland.
    See http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/homepage.galway.html
    Soon, W. W.-H., 2005. Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature for the past 130 years, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429.
    Yndestad, H., 2006. “The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate”, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Journal of Marine Science, vol 63, pps 401-420.
    Cerveny, R. S. and Shaffer, J. A., 2001. The Moon and El Nino, Geophysical Research Letters vol 28, No. 1. pps 25-28.
    Lambeck and Cazenave (1976), “Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climatic Change” published in 1976 in the Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society Vol 26 Issue No 3 pps 555 to 573, reported that there is an established relationship between the Earth’s decadal variable rotation and climate dynamics. As LoD shortens, (i.e. the Earth rotates faster) the planet warms; in contrast, as LoD lengthens, the planet cools. There is a time lag of most likely six years between the change in the Earth’s rotation and global temperature changes. Their paper is available here: http://rses.anu.edu.au/people/lambeck_k/pdf/37.pdf Stott, Peter A., Jones Gareth S., and Mitchell, John F B., “Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?” Journal of Climate Vol 16 pps 4079 to 4093 15 December 2003. It is to be noted that the methodology used by Stott et al has two key shortcomings in the way it takes the role of the Sun in climate change into account. One is that although it contains a more accurate measure of the several elements of solar output, specifically allowing for greater variation in ultraviolet than total radiation, it does not contain measures of all of the elements of solar output. The other is that although the interaction between solar output and climate is known to be non linear, the methodology only allows for linear relationships. In addition, although the climate models used by Stott et al are more complex than those of the IPCC, they are still highly simplified and subject to many of the critiques made by Professor Leroux in his recent book, Global Warming Myth or Reality: The Erring Ways of Climatology Springer Praxis Books in Environmental Science. 2005.
    Lockwood, M., Stamper, R., and Wild, M. “A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years”, Nature 399, 437 – 439 (03 June 1999); doi:10.1038/20867
    Meehl et al. (2003) “Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the twentieth century”, Journal of Climate, 16, 426-444. See http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_solar.pdf
    Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Schussler, M., and Mursula, K., “Solar activity, cosmic rays and the Earth’s temperature: a millennium scale comparison” Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 110, pps 1 to 23, 2005. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A., “Solar Irradiance Variations: From Current Measurements to Long Term Estimates” Invited Review. Solar Physics, Vol 224 pps 197 to 208. 2004. Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Schussler, M., and Beer, J., “Unusual activity of the Sun during the recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years” Nature Vol 431 pps 1084 to 1087, 28 October 2004. (See also in the same issue a highlighted summary article in Nature’s News and Views “Spots from Rings” by Paula J Reimer Nature Vol 431 pps 1047 to 1048 28 October 2004. Solanki, S., and Krivova, S. K., Solar Variabilty and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850”. Advances in Space Research Vol 24 pps 361 to 364 2004. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A., “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 108(A5), 1200 doi: 10.1029/2002JA009753, 21 May 2003. Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Schussler, M. Mursular, K., and Alanko, K., “Millenium Scale Sunspot Representation: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s.” Physical Review Letters Vol 91, 211101, November 2003. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A. “Solar Total and Sprectral Irridance: Modelling and a Possible Impact on Climate” I Wilson, A. (ed) Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth’s Environment. ESA SP 535. European Space Agency 275 2003. A Power Point presentation of the findings of Solanki and co workers can be found at http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/abstract104.html
    Willson, Richard C., and Mordvinov, Alexander V., “Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 – 23” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 30, No. 5, 119, doi:10.1029/2002GL016038, 2003.
    See the publications at http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm_print.htm . Scafetta, N., and West, B.J., “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32 L18713, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023849. 28 September 2005. Scafetta, N., Grigolini, Imholt, T., Roberts, J., and West, B. J., “Solar turbulence in earth’s global and regional temperature anomalies” Physical Review E 69, 026303. 26 February 2004.
    See the proceedings of the international scientific conference, Solar Variability and Earth’s Climate, in June/July 2005 in Rome, published in the Journal of the Astronomical Society of Italy, Memorie Della Societa Astronomica Italiana Vol 76 n. 4 2005. The papers can be found on the website http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/index.html. See especially Brekke, P., “Closing Remarks on the Sun influence on climate change”; Georgieva, K., Bianchi, C., Kirov, B. “Once again about global warming and solar activity”; and Ponyavin. D. I., Barliava, T. V., Zolotova, N. V. “Hypersenstivity of climate response to solar output during the last 60 years”. Labitzke, Karin “On the Solar Cycle QBO Relationship: A Summary” Journal of Atmospheric, Solar and Terrestrial Physics Special Issue Vol 67 pps 45 to 54 2005; Labitzke, Karin, Kunze, Marcus and Bronnimann, Stefan, “Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region 20 years later” Meteor. Z TBA; Coughlin, Katie and Kung, K., K., “Eleven year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere” Journal of Geophysics Research Vol 109 D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873, November 2004; Cordero, Eugene C., and Nathan, Terrence R., “A new pathway for communicating the 11 year solar cycle signal to the QBO” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32, L18805, doi:10.1029/2005GL023696. September 2005. R. Abarca del Rio, D. Gambis, D. Salstein, P. Nelson, and A. Dai, “Solar activity and earth rotation variability” Journal of Geodynamics Vol 36 pps 423 to 443. 2003; doi:10.1016/S0264-3707(03)00060-7. C. J. Butler, and D. J. Johnston, conclude: “Our data strongly support the contention that solar variability has been the principal cause of temperature changes over the past two centuries”. “The Link between the Solar Dynamo and Climate – the Evidence from long mean Air Temperature Series from Northern Ireland” Irish Astronomical Journal, Vol 21: pps 251 to 254; 1994. USGS website : http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/
    Scafetta, N., Grigolini, Imholt, T., Roberts, J., and West, B. J., “Solar turbulence in earth’s global and regional temperature anomalies” Physical Review E 69, 026303. 26 February 2004. See also http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm_print.htm . Scafetta, N., and West, B.J., “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32 L18713, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023849. 28 September 2005.
    White, W. B., Lean, J., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D., “Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance” Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 102, pps 3255 to 3266, 1997. Reid, G. C., Solar total irradiance variations and the global sea surface temperature record”. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 96 pps 2835 to 2844, 1991. Harrison, R. G., “The global atmospheric electrical circuit and climate” Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 25, Numbers 5-6, November 2004, pp. 441-484(44) DOI: 10.1007/s10712-004-5439-8. see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506077. Barkin, Yu. V., and Ferrandiz, J. M., “Tidal Elastic Energy in Planetary Systems and its Dynamic Role”, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions Vol 23, No. 4, pps 369 to 384, August 2004.
    Yasuda, I. (2009), ‘The 18.6-year period moon-tidal cycle in Pacific Decadal Oscillation reconstructed from tree-rings in western North America’, Geophysical Research. Letters, 36, L05605, doi:10.1029/2008GL036880.

    Good access to the published science about (b) can be found within:

    Bengtsson, L., 2007. On the response of the climate system to solar forcing. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer. Delworth, T.L., and Knutson, T.R., 2000. Simulation of early 20th century global warming. Science 287, 2246 2250. Tsonis A A , K Swanson & S Kravisov 2007 . A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophysical Research Letters 34 L13705; doi:10:1029/GL030288.

    Good access to the published science about (c) can be found at:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com

    In relation to (d) there are published model simulations and speculative papers but no actual direct observational evidence.

    The hypothesis is actively promoted by a political committee of the United Nations. Because it has been heavily promoted by politicians and others for ideological purposes it now dominates discussions which principally take place in a political, ideological and even semi-religious context. As a result, the entire debate about our planet’s climate dynamics is dominated by political and ideological, not scientific, considerations. In this environment, scientific institutions, such as the Science Museum have a special responsibility to present science free of politics, ideology and religious considerations. Regrettably, the Science Museum is not presenting the science of our planet’s climate dynamics; it is presenting political and ideological propaganda dressed up in science. It is presenting pseudo-science of the worst type. Why would a reputable scientific agency do this? Please, in the name of science cancel this absurdity and replace it with a scientific account of our planet’s climate dynamics. Please contact me directly for assistance to do this.

  184. Stephen Brown says:

    24/10/2009 at 1350hrs (UK time) the tally stands at 405 IN and 2122 OUT

  185. Brute says:

    It looks as if the Science Museum website poll is receiving many more “out” than “in” votes.

    For all the United Kingdom citizens, here’s a petition addressed to Downing Street to have your voice heard.

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/

  186. Andreas says:

    Here’s my contribution on why wanting to be counted out:
    There is no evidence for human influence, since all the CRU Data is contaminated and biased to fit in the pre-set hypothesis of global warming. But there is no warming, the is cooling for at least 5 years, despite increasing CO2. The UK Met Office,Hadley, CRU and all the other alarmists deny. Their “corrections” of temperature data are simply pathetic. The alarmists phantasize about ice-loss in the arctic, but the arctic ice is building up for two years, as is the Antarctic for decades. There are many more reasons not to believe the warming crap, just visit e.g. wattsupwiththat.com.

  187. coddbotherer says:

    There’s more (and yet less). Check out http://www.mad.co.uk/Main/News/Disciplines/Design/Articles/c03123d569b646f9bf2054ad5dce21e1/Exhibit-at-Science-Museum-focuses-on-climate-change.html.

    I thought this statement was most telling: “‘Rather than using arguments about recycling or not, we were trying to get a broader vision of climate change,’ says Rogers.” Evidently the entire exhibit is bogus, not just the website.

    What kind of museum did they say it was again?

  188. anna v says:

    I counted out, full name and e-mail and reasons in a nutshell.

    # 410 counted in so far
    # 2247 counted out

    It will be interesting to see if the pro AGW blogs will be able to raise the numbers for in.

  189. Tenuc says:

    Brilliant :-))

    # 415 counted in so far
    # 2343 counted out…

    Please keep up the good work and spread the word.

  190. Robert E. Phelan says:

    The For-Against ratio seems to be inching toward 1:6… gone horribly wrong indeed. I would still urge “our side” to avoid “vandalism” and “ballot-stuffing” – using names like Mickey Mouse or Joseph Stalin simply discredit us.

    This foray by the Science Museum into Lysenkoist Science is a disturbing development. They need to be made to re-evaluate what they are trying to pass off as science, themselves, and their opinion of the level of public intelligence.

  191. Robert E. Phelan says:

    And thank you, Richard Mackey, for that reading list.

  192. Stoic says:

    I really hope that the site is not being spammed.

    At 16.12 BST the count was 416 in, 2401 out. Since the votes are going up steadily in the ratio of between 5:1 to 6:1, I guess that this is a genuine response – perhaps a statistician could give a view.

    I have alerted my local MP.

    Unfortunately we have a serious problem in the UK because all 3 main political parties have bought into CAGW and we run the risk of running out of electrical power around 2015. Indeed David Cameron (Conservative opposition leader) was careful to insist that he was a true AGW believer at a seminar held recently with Black Swan guru, Nicholas Taleb. Taleb declared himself “super-green” whilst not necessarily believing in the “anthropogenic thing” and Cameron jumped in to insist that he was of the faith.

    Regards

    S

  193. Smokey says:

    The Times says 0bama isn’t going to Copenhagen. Some of the comments are interesting:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6888165.ece

  194. martin brumby says:

    I have read the comments (as usual) with interest and some amusement. Of course, hypochondriacs do get ill sometimes and, I guess, paranoiacs might get a 2:00am knock on the door. But I agree with the comment that the “Powers that Be” have better things to do than to follow up on those whom they consider to be just irritating cranks. Start mixing in death threats with the comments and it will be different! And you don’t need to fill in a “count me out” vote in this pathetic “poll” from the Science Museum, (who should be thoroughly ashamed for having traduced the very idea of “science”). The security services / police will certainly keep tabs on those who regularly visit Jihadist and child porn sites and, personally, I’m glad they do so. If they want to list people who regularly visit WUWT and CA and a dozen more Climate / political sites then I will have been on that list for long enough, anyway.
    As it happens I’m on holiday in Romania and spent an absolutely fascinating couple of hours going round the Museum for the December 1989 revolution against Ceausescu and Communism in Timisoara. The heros who laid down their lives for freedom weren’t scaredy cats when the time came to be counted. OK, there is a difference between Al Gore or Prince Charles (and the whole silly gang of them) and Ceausescu.
    But never forget how many of the eco-fascists who have tirelessly promoted the AGW hoax have the same mind set and many of the same objectives as the old supporters of Ceausescu, (although Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Che were always more ‘popular’ in the West).
    The price of Liberty may well be eternal Vigilence. But sooner or later you may well also have to “be counted”.
    Entering false details in this silly poll will help only those who seek to rubbish the result.

  195. geoffchambers says:

    The Times has an article on this at
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
    which contains the following quote-of-the-week:
    he [Ed Miliband, Climate Change Secretary] said that it was also vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. “If Martin Luther King had come along and said ‘I have a nightmare’ people would not have followed him.”

  196. tallbloke says:

    Heh, the Watts effect in action:

    * 420 counted in so far
    * 2503 counted out so far

  197. sagi says:

    420 vs. 2507 and growing.

  198. Stoic says:

    423 vs.2545 >6:1 against

  199. geoffchambers says:

    In the Times article from which I quoted the Martin Luther King remark above, I’ve just noticed this:

    “Chris Rapley, the director of the Science Museum, said that a last minute decision had been made to create the exhibition in August after a briefing at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
    ‘We realised that public interest had flattened out and yet here we were approaching the most historic negotiations in human history,’ he said. The museum had not been planning to run a climate change exhibition until 2011”.

    So the Director of a major museum is taking orders directly from a government department, and sees nothing wrong with this. And if the Ministry of Defence called him in to talk about an exhibition pushing the new Trident Missile? Chris Rapley is clearly unfit for the job of museum director.

  200. P Wilson says:

    coddbotherer (06:32:19)

    Its a museum of scientific artefacts, who seem be be making Wallace and Gromit, speed dating, and climate change as their dynamic new image.

  201. Stephen Brown says:

    24/10/2009 at 1845hrs (UK time) 433 IN and 2700 OUT!!!!

  202. Stephen Brown says:

    For information the Science Museum poll does NOT allow comments which contain more than one link, so be careful.

  203. Alec J says:

    Just added my penny’s worth to them:

    “I have just had a look around the your site on the “Prove it” campaign. I am pretty disgusted as there are “Facts” which are downright wrong, and other statements which are highly misleading, most notably the statement “Ice cores reveal that carbon dioxide and temperature have been tightly linked throughout history.” They have, but as you should be aware, the peak in CO2 levels has always been hundreds of years after the temperature peak. This FACT should have been clearly stated, not the sophistry you have employed.

    I am also highly disturbed to read in The Times that this exhibition appears to have been arranged at very short notice at the behest of a government department. Would you have been so quick to mount an exhibition on the Trident replacement program if the MoD had so asked?

    I am deeply saddened by this politicisation of your remit. It is likely that I will take further action.”

    I’m not sure what further action I can take? Having read through some of the pages, there is so much which is downright dishonest, and if not that, highly misleading. Would the Public Accounts Committee in the HoC take any action?

    I’ve been wondering whether to stand against Gordon Brown (neighbouring constituency) at the election next year as a “Climate Sense” candidate – if only to get the free mailing into every household to try to dispel the idiocy, and get the people some other source of info than the MSM.

  204. AdrianS says:

    I signed the science Museum vote— count me out, and havent had an email back yet.
    I signed the goverment one about the Advert waste and got and email staright back.
    Probably have a mob of green protestor around in the morning to re-educate me about my envirothought crimes—- well they can listen to my Harley Davidson.
    If I truely beleived we were in peril I would cut right back on CO2 ( but I’m not bad anyway car does 45mpg, house is double glazed, cavity wall insulation, energy saving bulbs in most light) but all I see is lies , spin and an NGO gravy train

  205. Robert E. Phelan says:

    This poll is starting to look very strange. A quick search on Yahoo or Google shows that the opening got fairly wide coverage with a lot of sites linking directly to it. The coverage does not generally seem to be negative…. I’d love to know whether these numbers really represent a popular backlash or whether there are a few skeptic trolls driving up the numbers, or….?

    Screen captures of this page are probably in order because it just may disappear Monday morning.

  206. F1yingwellie says:

    Is Tom in Texas the only one !

  207. Stephen Brown says:

    24/10/2009 at 1945 (UK time) 441 IN and 2800 OUT.

  208. AdrianS says:

    Signed the Museum site with a count me out several hours ago— still havent had an email back. Probably have the climate Stazi around tomorrow to put electrodes on my bits to re-educate me!

  209. Robert E. Phelan says:

    That in/out counter is becoming appalling. The Foreign Secretary and his brother, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, appeared at the opening of this thing and put their prestige behind it. If this exhibit and poll were so damned important why didn’t the morons who put the poll together make sure that voting would be restricted to UK residents and that there would be one vote per person?

    UK residents should be howling about the politicization of science, not to mention the gross incompetence of the people doing the politicizing. If you’re going to try a pull a Yamal, at least consult with Keith Briffa to see how you can keep it plausible and under wraps for a decade.

    Alec J. : by all means, Run, Alec Run!

  210. DaveE says:

    2 days & still waiting for my confirmation email.

    I guess they may have bitten off more than they can chew.

    DaveE.

  211. Mr Lynn says:

    Count me out, too!

    I posted this comment:

    There is NO evidence demonstrating anthropogenic global warming. The IPCC decided what conclusion they wanted, then cherry-picked studies, data, and modeling assumptions to get that result. That isn’t science; it’s fraud.

    /Mr Lynn

  212. geoffchambers says:

    AlecJ
    A Climate Sense Party is a brilliant idea. Register it straight away with the Electoral Commission or whatever, and counrt me as a founder member. To complain about the Science Museum, you could try writing to some of the trustees, who are listed at
    http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/boardoftrustees.asp

  213. Adam Gallon says:

    Vladimir Illych Ullyanov, thanks for being part of PROVE IT! There’s still lots more you can do…

    Well, with the score at “449 counted in so far 2937 counted out so far” & having voted out under my real name & e-mail, I thought I’d give the Holy Church of Warming a bit of a helping hand.
    Lenin’s e-mail is VIU@Kremlin.ru if you wish to contact him!
    “PROVE IT!” ? hmm, I think they should retitle that to “BELIEVE IT!”

  214. Lihard says:

    As I tested the poll earlier it showed that the poll has been costructed rather poorly.

    The java scripts which handle the polling don’t do any duplicate vote checking. So it doesn’t check for duplicate names, email addresses or ip addresses. And the email addresses don’t have to be valid or the names make any sense at all. So anyone can vote unlimited times and for example put 007 for the name and your@system.sucks as email ;)

    As a result this poll is as valid as the Mann made papers.

    I also suspect that there isn’t any automated email confirmation built into the scripts. And I would also like to remind anyone who has sent any comments through the web site that there’s a possibility that your comments won’t be sent anywhere.

    In the mean time I’ll try to resist the urge not to make the poll end at 0 to 1 000 000 ;)

    -Lihard

  215. Tom in Texas says:

    F1yingwellie (11:46:00) :

    Is Tom in Texas the only one

    The only one what?

    The only one to notice the Lihard 1000 vote jump?

  216. evanmjones says:

    If someone stuffed 1000 votes into the ballot box, you can be 100% sure that will wreck everything. If so, they will surely notice and will invalidate the entire poll. I really hope that is not the case. Cheating always nets out to self-destruction in the long run. It always catches up. Not only is it dishonorable, but it is foolish.

    I think Lihard was only saying that now WUWT was linked to it, the vote tally would sharply increase. Honestly and fairly. That had durn well better be the reason–and I am quite sure I speak for Anthony and the moderator crew in this.

  217. Stephen Brown says:

    24/10/2009 at 2345hrs (UK Summer Time) it was 454 IN and 3000 OUT!!!!!

  218. Stephen Brown says:

    @evanmjones
    I spent a fair amount of time last night, just after the OUT vote started to take off watching the Science Museum poll site carefully. I refreshed the screen every 2-3 seconds to see if there was any easily discernible pattern to the vote increase. I could see none. Sometimes the votes went up by one or two per screen refresh, at other times it would be a minute and a half before a new vote came in.

  219. Tom in Texas says:

    11:35:24 424 Outs

    11:46:46 Lihard: “As what goes for the poll on that uk site, anyone wanna bet the out wotes are up by 1000 after a few minutes?”

    11:57 485 Outs

    12:02 Somebody is roboposting “outs”

    12:07 769 Outs

    12:08 1388 Outs

  220. Lihard says:

    evanmjones, no I wasn’t saying that it would be the Watt’s effect. Didn’t you read my second post? The polling system is so poorly done that there wasn’t any change to begin with it to have any validity.

    Anybody can vote as many times they like. The poll is made with the same “high” standards as anything AGW is associated with. If I would put time to it and resolve the underlying technical mechanisms of the scripts I could even make the poll count to go downwards. That’s assuming I could increase the vote count so much that it would start again from zero.

    -Lihard

  221. evanmjones says:

    Oh, great. Unless they can filter it out, that is going to invalidate what would have been a solid win.

    God, I hate cheating. Cheaters always lose in the long run and they mess things up for everyone else. On both sides.

  222. evanmjones says:

    Didn’t you read my second post?

    Not when I posted, no. That sucks.

    Maybe they can count only the votes that included commentary?

  223. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard, all you’ve done is shown that you’re smarter than they are. Enjoy your triumph.

  224. Lihard says:

    I suspected somebody wouldn’t like my stuffing of the ballot box. But I highly suspect that there are others too who have made multiple votes intentionally, though I have had the biggest say on things atleast for now.

    There’s also the fact that if you push the “count me in/out” button multiple times before it loads the next screen it registers that same amount of votes. So there are possibly many who have made two votes without knowing it. That’s how badly the polling system has been made.

    It could’ve well have been made by the “expertise” of David Milibands brother who seems to have something to do with the poll.

    -Lihard

  225. Philip_B says:

    454 counted in so far 3009 counted out so far

    I too told them that the empirical data shows a very weak warming effect from CO2 and we don’t have a good enough theoretical understanding to make any worthwhile predictions.

    Perhaps they will get the message, but I doubt it. In the Warming camp, belief is far more important an honest appraisal of the science.

  226. evanmjones says:

    No you haven’t had the biggest say. All you’ve done is to ensure that you have no say at all. And that none of us have any say. I think the “outs” could have outvoted the “ins” fair and square. But that’s no longer possible.

    It’s all wasted. And the skeptics get a black eye. I am ashamed.

  227. philincalifornia says:

    evanmjones (16:29:37) :

    It’s all wasted. And the skeptics get a black eye. I am ashamed.
    ——

    ….. and now we’re even more obviously funded by big oil too.

  228. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    We were all pretty sure it was a badly done poll, but if they kept any records other than those two counters, you just gave them evidence that skeptics are just vandals. I just posted two “count me in” votes in a row which seem to have been accepted, but you didn’t bother to check to see if the scripts on that side of the poll were any more sophisticated, did you? They may well be tossing duplicate warmer votes but not duplicate skeptic votes. Next week’s Monbiot article may prove interesting indeed.

  229. Tom in Texas says:

    evanmjones

    We’ll get our say in January for Best Science Blog 2009.

  230. evanmjones says:

    I have, of course, contacted sciencemuseum and informed them of this. Perhaps they can separate out the invalid votes. (Or not.)

    This has upset me very much.

  231. Lihard says:

    I do understand what you are saying but I think you’re taking it too seriously. The vote counts have been so low that I think it wouldn’t have made any impact in either direction.

    And if you are worried about this thing there’s a high change that the results won’t be nulled, because they propably don’t even store the names and email addresses anywhere. It seems that way keeping in mind the quality of the scripts.

    -Lihard

  232. Robert E. Phelan says:

    evanmjones (16:43:51) :

    I agree with you. You did the right thing. Keep in mind, though, that Lihard confirmed what a lot of us were beginning to suspect even without his contribution: that the poll was just too shoddy. For a survey that was supposed to convey the wishes of UK residents to Her Majesty’s Government, allowing non-UK residents to vote and allowing multiple votes and failing to send the confirmatory e-mail is just too slack. This whole thing stinks. Just like the Lorax flap at Steve M’s not so long ago….

    If that exhibit and poll, which involved two UK governmental ministers, was so damned important, why didn’t they do a better job with it?

    I’ll have a supply of tin-foil hats ready for sale and distribution shortly.

  233. jeez says:

    Expect this to heat up Monday as AGW bloggers jump on the bandwagon.

    Since Anthony made this post, outs are “out” voting ins by 22 to 1, but I think that is primarily a consequence of the visibility on this site and a reasonable number of votes as compared to the number of regulars here.

  234. evanmjones says:

    Oh, it’ll heat up, alright. And we’ll likely be in the hot-seat.

    I don’t give two hoots if the poll was too shoddy. It’s not going to win over a judge if you plead that the bank was so poorly guarded that it really wasn’t such a bad thing to rob it.

    REPLY: “And we’ll likely be in the hot-seat.”

    Since when haven’t we been here? WUWT gets trashed daily, yet keeps growing. Looks like another record month in October, and this is before “adjustments”. Heh, ya know it might be funny to take my site data and run it through NCDC’s algrothms, then post that as the “real” measure of WUWT… just to see what pops out. – A

  235. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Evan, your conduct here has been above reproach. You have constantly advocated honesty, fair play and even magnanimity. You have nothing to be ashamed of. All I was attempting to point out was that it is possible that the whole poll may have been nothing more than an elaborate honey-trap, which underscores the point you made several times in this thread: honesty is not only moral, it keeps you from getting tripped up later…. especially when clever people of mischievious intent are trying to trip you up.

    I giess it shopws that the AGWr’s do not have a monopoly on Jihadists.

  236. Philip Johns says:

    Oh Dear.

    It’s pretty much as I suspected from a cursory reading of the reports of the count from this very site. The site launch was on Oct 22nd. A day later Mr Watts wrote …

    Future presentation of results to the government: “The results show overwhelmingly that people agree with us. Hardly anyone chose COUNT ME OUT.

    But what has occurred? One day after the launch the count stood at 333 ‘Count me in’ to 234 out, a ratio of 1:0.7 Right now, the count stands at 461 ‘Count Me In’, and 3034 ‘out’, about 1:6.5. This is so far outside of the domain of every other similar poll in the UK as to redefine the word ‘outlier’.

    Sadly, we do not need to look far for the root cause …

    I tried to count myself out. Gave them a false name “Whatta Lyingsackofsh**e” and a valid throwaway email.

    Mickey Mouse just counted himself out three times…

    I have a dozen quite legitimate e-mail addresses (personal and business) and I’ve just used each one to be “counted out.”

    As what goes for the poll on that uk site, anyone wanna bet the out votes are up by 1000 after a few minutes?

    Shortly after that last WUWT post, in the space of 12 minutes, the ‘count me outs’ jump from 485 to 1496 in the space of just 12 minutes. Heck, might be a glitch in the site sofware, but surely more likely the scripted addition of 1,000 ‘votes’ by the poster who boasted in advance of what he was about to do.

    Hint to all riggers of polls:

    (1) Do not push your rigged results beyond the realm of plausibility .

    (2) Do not boast about having voted a dozen times. This has the double whammy effect of exposing your personal ethical system as worthless, and invalidating the poll.

    (3) If you are about to stuff 1,000 votes into the ballot box, it is probably unwise to advertise this fact in a public place. See (2).

    Now I voted in this poll. Being just one person, I used a single identity, expecting that my opinion would count for the same as eveyone elses’s. It appears I am mistaken. If I may quote… Wow, just wow. Who would think we’d see this sort of language and lack of sound judgment …?

    Oh Dear.

  237. Robert E. Phelan says:

    And Evan, Jimmy Stewart in “Bandolero” made the comment “…if I’d known that banks were THAT easy to rob, I would have have done it a long time ago…”

    ‘course, only Stewart, George Kennedy and Raquel Welch were left alive at the end, so I guess you’re still right….

  238. evanmjones says:

    Since when haven’t we been here? WUWT gets trashed daily, yet keeps growing. Looks like another record month in October, and this is before “adjustments”. Heh, ya know it might be funny to take my site data and run it through NCDC’s algrothms, then post that as the “real” measure of WUWT… just to see what pops out. – A

    All they have to do is homogenize . . .

    (Nonetheless, I am confident we can agree that poll rigging is clearly not to be tolerated.)

    it is possible that the whole poll may have been nothing more than an elaborate honey-trap

    Hmm. Not likely, I think. But not implausible.

  239. Roger Carr says:

    Roger Carr (20:51:54) :
    Paul Coppin (19:20:13) : “… but on the other hand, to pretend that one’s enemies will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one’s decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit.“

    (Me) ” I hear an echo in my mind: “Good guys finish last. A shame; but a reality.”

    Some back-tracking. My throwaway line (and it should have been “nice” and not “good”) was just that; a throwaway line, because in fact I fully endorse Evan’s take on this. At the same time I also endorse the quote (above), which Paul noted, as worthy of contemplation.

    I voted, once, under my own name… now wish I had not bothered.

    p.s. The full quote is, “All nice guys. They’ll finish last. Nice guys. Finish last.” –Baseball manager Leo Durocher, and is not even relevant. (Call me a clown… reformed…)

  240. DaveE says:

    Sad time for both sides.

    A poll so shoddy it was easily stuffed & some people willing to stuff the ballot.

    My vote is now worthless, thanks nameless

    DaveE.

  241. Robert E. Phelan says:

    For what it’s worth, sent this e-mail to sciencemuseum on their contact us page:

    Sirs:

    By now you must be aware that your on-line Prove It poll was seriously compromised. I voted “count-me-out” once under my own name, but after the individual who corrupted your poll revealed himself, I tested your polling system with two consecutive “count-me-in” votes, which were both apparently accepted.

    Leaving aside my distaste for your support of politicized, Lysenko-style “science”, as both a social scientist and computer systems consultant I respect data and am appalled by the shoddy manner in which your organization collected it. A few suggestions:

    1. State clearly the purpose of your poll and exactly which data will be used for that purpose.
    2. You stated that you would pass the results to the government:
    a. if the results had fairly resulted in a “count-me-out” majority, would those results have been passed on?
    b. it would be helpful top explain what you would do with the comments you requested from the “count-me-outs”;
    c. since the results were to be passed, presumably, to the UK government, foreigners such as myself should have been excluded from the voting. Checking the IP location of voters should be easy.

    3. No one, either inside the UK or iutside received the follow up e-mail. The explanation provided about ensuring one vote per person, frankly, makes no sense.

    4. Maintaining a confidential list of voter names, e-mail addresses and IP’s to verify non-duplication would be easy. Making the voting a two-step process, where the voter had to respond to a follow-on e-mail would be even more secure.

    5. Maintaining a list of non-acceptable names for screening: Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Mickey Mouse all claimed to have voted no, as did Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.

    7. Create a display page where interested persons can view the names who have voted. Given the politicized nature of the topic, a unified alphabetical list would be appropriate.

    8. Test the security of your poll before putting it on-line. Find a good hacker and pay him only if he succeeds in breaking into your system.

    If you people can’t even run an on-line poll, why should anyone consider your opinions on climate? If this poll was so important that you needed two ministers of HMG to introduce it, why didn’t you get it done right?

    I intend my suggestions to be helpful; if you find them so then I would be glad to be of further assistance. I am bitterly opposed to the position you have taken on “AGW” but I would not allow that to interfere with my professionalism.

    Oh, one last suggestion. Don’t even try to salvage the results of this poll. Wipe them, make the changes I’ve suggested and start again.

    Robert E. Phelan
    Adjunct Instructor of Sociology
    Business Systems and Automation Consultant

    The snark doesn’t show through, does it?

  242. R. Craigen says:

    I “counted myself out” (only once!). I also made an extended comment for them to read, including my “credentials” (BSc, MMath, Phd) — none of which I expect them to read, put any stock in, or in any case reply to or broadcast to the world. I guess I love wasting my time.

    I would discourage anyone from “ballot box stuffing” (’cause it’s dishonest) or from placing any weight on the outcome of this “ballot”, but one must note up front that the whole purpose of the museum’s “Prove It!” online feature was precisely that: For AGW proponents and “activists” to “rally the troops” for a grand show of force during the lead-up to Copenhagen. They say as much all over these pages: Tell your friends! Get them to Count themselves in! In other words, stuff our ballot box.

    They even make it easy with a “build my email message” feature so that people can easily mass-mail their friends with all their AGW alarmist talking points and urge them to “take action now” by visiting the site.

    I also wasted my time by reading through their “evidence”. For a “science” museum I must remark that there is an inordinate amount of pure politicking, pseudoeconomics and pseudo-social-science. There is no clear threshold where one begins and the other ends. I visited this museum some 25 years ago, when they really were an exhibitor of science and science history. When did they become a propaganda mill? It is very sad.

    Filtering out the politics and nonsense to get to the core of their “scientific” argument leads to further disappointment. They aren’t even very good apologists/propagandists, and the number of nonsequitors and goofs in their directories of “Evidence” boggles the imagination!

    Anyone wanting a good laugh — take the time to click through the “evidence” they’ve compiled.

    Greenhouse gases work like a blanket — no, even AGW advocates don’t claim this; GHG’s act radiatively, not convectively, like blankets. It’s a classical goof.

    “After three centuries of Stability, sea levels are now rising”
    “Ice in the Arctic is melting further back year on year.”
    “Extreme weather, such as droughts and hurricanes, is becoming more common or more intense.”
    “[The IPCC] are considered the most trustworthy group of experts on climate change in the world.”

    What a lark. There’s plenty more where that came from.

    It gets better! Click on their prominent link “About PROVE IT!”, then on “Our climate credentials” and see with what authority they speak.

    Dozens of PhD’s in climate-related science on staff, or consulting with them? Awards for innovated study of the climate? Peer-reviewed publications, or any kind of verifiably scientific work at all?

    (To give them some credit, they do list some “experts for advice on content” one page up from this — some of whom appear to have valid academic credentials)

    No. Their climate science credentials, by their own words, must be read to be believed. “Our credentials”, according to their account, consist of designing the PROVE IT! web page and science exhibit to “minimise its carbon footprint, without compromising on the experience”. They even list about 3 paragraphs of environmentally friendly ways they have done this. Using recycled materials, using a wood floor because “when trees are felled for timber, the area is replanted. This means there are still plenty of trees around to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere…”

    By the way, the current count on their site is:
    Count me in: 463
    Count me out: 3078
    The latter group leads by about a 6.6:1 ratio. For about every 2 “count me in”s there are 13 “count me out”s.

    I have watched both numbers grow for about 12 hours and it appears that the ratio has remained almost exactly the same the whole time. The robustness of this figure suggests to me that not a lot of ballot stuffing is going on (unless it is done to deliberately maintain a certain ratio — that’s possible I suppose).

    The museum promises to “Pass the results along to the government to let them know where you stand”. Is there a hope in Hell that they actually might?

  243. R. Craigen says:

    Further to my last long comment — It has struck me as highly likely that the strong “count me out” vote is partly attributable to the “build my email” feature. I know my first reaction is negative when I get this sort of thing from my acquaintances. There’s probably a good number of neutrals or tentative AGW believers who clicked “count me out” in response to prodding from an overzealous AGW-crazed “friend’s” mail.

  244. evanmjones says:

    No doubt.

  245. jeez says:

    This site gets about nine thousand regular visitors a day. It is not unreasonable that a couple of thousand legitimate (perhaps not UK based) came from this site over two days.

  246. evanmjones says:

    Mmm, yes. But in this case, the guilty party admitted adding c. 1000 votes.

    Robert E. Phelan: Good letter. (Mine was shorter and more direct.)

  247. jeez says:

    yeah, that’s why I said a couple thousand and not 3 thousand.

    Well, we have the integrity to leave our vote stuffer outed.

    It is hard to believe something that poorly constructed would be placed online at the science museum in 2009. It is reminiscent of pre 2k mistakes.

  248. wattsupwiththat says:

    Robert Phelan’s letter pretty well sums up my thinking on this issue. I could not have written a better letter myself. I’m going to elevate it to main post level as an addendum.

    [self snip - I've moved this commentary up to the main body along with Robert Phelan's letter]

  249. Robert E. Phelan says:

    evanmjones (22:26:58) :
    Mmm, yes. But in this case, the guilty party admitted adding c. 1000 votes.

    And Tom in Texas as well as at least one other commenter provided a time-line. R. Craigen (22:16:02) : has a good point about the blow-back from that build an e-mail feature…. even without the 1000 vote-stuff the “count-me-out” crowd is still way ahead… whether that is because there were more vote-stuffers, blow-backers or Watts referrals it’s damn near impossible to say. That whole site looks like a high-school kid’s computer project.

    The poll would have no value as a sample, but if they would just add a question about “how did you find us?” it would tell a lot about the topography of the battlefield, so to speak…. and would test R. Craigen’s hypothesis about the effectiveness of the build-an-email feature.

    Another question I have is why didn’t the warmists take up the challenge? They’ve never been slow to do so before. It may very well be that the AGW trolls look numerous because they turn up everywhere to argue…. but they are always the same trolls. While I’ve come to recognize a number of handles here, it seems to me that there are always lots of anti-AGW enthusiasts I don’t recognize. Maybe our enthusiasts really do outnumber their’s…..

    Evan made an interesting statement of principle earlier: “…. ballot stuffing is intolerable…” I think it was…. yet we seem to be tolerating it. The miscreant(s) has/have not been banned or shunned or sanctioned…. just a thought.

    REPLY: FYI I did look into “lihard” based on what little info given me by WordPress. Unfortunately his handle, email address, and possibly even his IP address (which WP autologs with each comment) are total fabrications. So banning him won’t do much good. All I can tell you is that according to the logged IP, the comments came from Finland. The real issue here is how poorly designed the poll code is. A 9 year old kid could skew it in an afternoon after school.

    BTW I’ve elevated you letter to an an addendum, as it speaks pretty well for me also. Thank you sincerely. – Anthony

  250. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Anthony:

    I didn’t see your last comment until after I’d posted mine. I suspect you might be able to say it better, but thank you. Quite frankly, I’ve learned a lot from you and your moderators here… you manage to balance quite a bit that would send me over the edge.

  251. F1yingwellie says:

    Tom in Texas (15:25:58) :

    F1yingwellie (11:46:00) :

    Is Tom in Texas the only one

    The only one what?

    The only one to notice the Lihard 1000 vote jump?

    Yes Tom,

  252. Robert E. Phelan says:

    When I mentioned shunning/banning, Anthony, I didn’t mean you – the last thing we need is to try and turn you into some kind of net-police… I was rather referring to the rest of us. From early on Evan Jones had the integrity to ask that we play fair. The rest of us, the commenters, would do well to emulate that. Too many of us are willing to over-look eye-for-an-eye statements. The anonymity of the web makes it easy to become extreme – but it also makes it easy to simply speak and some commenters need the anonymity. I decided I didn’t and my sometimes salty comments delivered from behind a nearly untraceable handle were not badges of courage… so I use my real name. I find the decency of Evan Jones inspiring.

  253. Justin says:

    Whatever the rights or wrongs about the way this poll has been conducted there are a few things to consider.

    If the votes for “count me in” ever finished higher than those votes for “count me out”, it would have been reported in the press, and in the Science museum literature, and on the gloating AGW sites.

    As it appears at the moment that “count me out” votes will be higher, no mention will be made anywhere. Except from AGW sites crying foul play, ballot stuffing, uninformed skeptics, big oil etc.

    Or they will probably only count votes at an arbitrary start point to show AGW support is growing over time…

  254. Turboblocke says:

    From the article above “I don’t condone ballot stuffing in any form.”

    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/05/wuwt-nominated-for-best-science-blog/, “Voting is now open, for anyone who wants to vote for any of the blogs below. A note about voting. Since you can vote once every 24 hours, this is a horse race. So to pick a winner, voting must be repeated until the poll closes next Tuesday at 5PM EST”

    Reply: If one is allowed by the rules to vote every day, then voting every day, by definition of the rules, is not ballot stuffing. Nice try. Go away. ~ charles the moderator.

  255. Alec J says:

    Has been picked up in the Sunday Telegraph. Note that the result of the poll is due to be published in December. It will be interesting to see whether it is published if the current vote ratio continues.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6425738/Science-Museums-climate-change-poll-backfires.html

  256. Jordan says:

    Let’s face it, the poll was never going to be credible. One or two people here have demonstrated, and others have made recommendations to help improve the situation. This was a service to the science museum and its poll.

    I agree with the sentiment about dishonesty and I voted only once, with comments.

    But those who showed that poll stuffing was possible also helped to show that nobody was ever going to take the results seriously. Having shown the how slack the poll was, the results were always going to be dogged by questions of vote rigging. Anybody who tries to use the results will be easily ridiculed.

    So our votes went from zero value to zero value. And two (or a thousand) votes with zero value still have zero value.

    As the poll is designed to favour the “count me in” side, there is another reason not to dignify it with respectability.

    The poll has given people the chance to communicate and express an opinion through the comments. It will help the recipients to appreciate there is another body of opinion with substantial concerns about the AGW hypothesis and what is being proposed.

    There will be significant value in those letters to the trustees of the science museum. Perhaps even, privately, a measure of sympathy/embarassment.

    I disagree with those who suggest the poll should have been restricted to UK residents. As I said above, this is supposed to be an international issue, requiring international cooperation. Why would anybody wish to deny a voice to our prospective partners?

  257. Robin Guenier says:

    Re anonymity, I agree with Robert E. Phelan that some commentators may need it. But I believe that most probably don’t and therefore, like Robert, should have the courage to use their real name. Strong, controversial and coherent comments that can be traced to their source are IMHO far more convincing that those delivered from behind a cloak of anonymity.

  258. anna v says:

    I do not see the 1000 votes excess in “in”

    # 494 counted in so far
    # 3277 counted out

    some filtering must be in place to catch stuffing.

  259. anna v says:

    Dr A Burns (12:51:22) :

    The science museum link states:
    “Scientists can tell the extra carbon dioxide around the Earth comes from fossil fuels by looking at the type of carbon.”
    It was my understanding that 1-4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere has a fossil fuel origin, based on C14 studies. Unfortunately I can’t find my reference for this. Is this figure correct ?

    As all the AGW claims, this one also is standing on shaky assumtpions: that the ratio of the absorption of of C12 to C13 ( the two stable isotopes) is disturbed by fossil fuels which release more C13 than found in nature.

    When one digs in and looks at the data, one finds this is shaky because there are algae in the oceans who preferentially release C13 and could affect the ratio. It is one of those urban myths that Spencer is expanding on in a different post. A bit of truth and a lot of hand of sleight.

    Let alone that if fossil fuels are not abiotic ( the dominant theory is that they come from remains of biota) there is no reason to assume that present day biota would have a different carbon cycle.

  260. geoffchambers says:

    Despite the obvious security weaknesses of this poll, I disagree with those who consider it worthless. Despite the odd vote from Mickey Mouse etc, the proportion of no to yes votes has held pretty steady at about 6:1., suggesting that the level of cheating is no worse than in an American Presidential Election. You could see the whole exercise as the Revenge of Al Gore … gone rather badly wrong.

  261. Emil says:

    There are 1,529 subscribers to whattsupwiththat on google reader alone. I think there are enough readers of this page only to make up for 3000+ votes.

  262. Turboblocke says:

    geoffchambers (06:49:49) :

    If you look at the screen shot at the top of this page, the voting was 333 in vs 234 out, before this article was published.

  263. Lihard says:

    I feel so distressed about this…

  264. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    I’m surprised to see you back. If you’re really distressed and want to make some kind of amends, post a message here with your real e-mail address and Anthony will undoubtedly contact you. You don’t have to reveal yourself to us, but you owe Anthony that much.

  265. Lihard says:

    I just tried to show how questionable the results of this poll would be. But somehow that was interpreted that I really wanted to change the outcome of the vote…

    -Lihard

  266. Mike Core says:

    Well it seems that either :

    This site’s readership is highly motivated and followed through – preferably with OMOV – the bedrock of Democracy, or vote stuffing has occurred and would damage our stance way beyond the naive scientists who put this poll together. And perhaps pro-AGW sites have not seen this yet and have not rallied troops to get voting.

    All it will take now is a passing AGW believer /journo to look in on the comments, see boasts about multiple voting and bang! Monbiot gets copied in on it and its in the Guardian next week.

    As nanny used to say: ‘It’s not clever and it’s not funny’.

  267. Mark Young says:

    This poll is worse than we thought!

    :O

    LOL!

    (apologies to who ever may have beaten me to this line–I haven’t read all the comments)

  268. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    You are wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin…. Please believe that what follows I mean kindly.

    First, we A-L-L KNEW the results of the poll would be “questionable”. No one here was naively taking it at face value and we didn’t need a demonstration of any kind to wake us up. This site is lousy with statisticians, engineers, scientists and academics. They know the limitations of self-selected on-line surveys run under the best of conditions. Anthony’s original post addressed that very issue – the set-up militated against a “fair” poll… and self-selected polls are statistically, and usually practically, meaningless.

    What was unusual here is that a large number of commenters took up Anthony’s challenge and volunteered their real names and e-mails to announce that they would not be intimidated. This poll was rigged to provide a large number of “count-me-in” votes to make a propaganda point. Any complaining that we did about validity and reliability and robustness and representativeness would have been dismissed as typical denier sour grapes. This time, without your help, it looked like the warmers would have some explaining to do when their very own poll showed the opposite of what they were trying to prove. Now that you’ve demonstrated rather dramatically the pointlessness of this poll (and by the way did you notice Alec J’s comment and link above? You made the London papers.) that little victory is denied to us.

    Finally, as Evan Jones pointed out over and over and over, ethics are important. Anthony has discouraged the use of the term “fraud” on his site, but I’m going to use it once: many of us feel that much of the evidence for AGW is fraudulent. If you are inclined to make that charge then your own sheet better be squeaky clean. If you are no better than your opponent then you can and will be dismissed by those whose support and good opinion you seek. “Anything it takes” is the motto of the fanatic. Honesty is not only good policy, it is good for your immortal soul.

    Your grandstanding cost all of us here something. We’re still finding out just what. Now, if you have not done so yet, post a comment with your true e-mail address in the e-mail box and let Anthony contact you.

    I’ll have no more to say.

  269. Pops says:

    snip ~ Evan

  270. Pops says:

    In response to, Robert E. Phelan

    Dear sir,

    “Anything it takes” might well have been a motto used by most of my relatives (and yours too no doubt) while they were risking their necks winning WWII in order that you could sit there blubbering over your keyboard about immortal souls.

    Open the shutters, this is the real world. It doesn’t matter if the box is stuffed by either side, just as long as it is because any publicity is good publicity at this stage of the game.

    You mentioned the newspaper-article. Did you see the comment from the museum?

    “A Science Museum spokesman said: “Three thousand responses in just three days shows how important this subject is in the run up to the Copenhagen summit.”

    There speaks the brainwashed. You could kick him up the keister and he’d say it was caused by global warming, but readers of that newspaper might just take a moment to scratch their woolly behinds and think for themselves. And more and more sheep are thinking. Look at the polls, particularly in the US. Every time such a debacle as this happens it draws attention to the fact that there is another side to the so-called consensus.

    [snip. We will not tolerate any encouragement to stuff the ballot. Anyone who does not see the damage this sort of thing does to fair debate and to honest skepticism is blind. You hand terrible weapons to opponents of fair and free debate. ~ Evan]

  271. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Pops:

    You’re starting to sound like Che Guevara. Many of the associates of “the current incumbent of the White House” started off in Che Guevara mode, but when THEIR associates ended up as dead as Che Guevara, they switched to the tactic of forcing the establishment to live up to its own rules and overwhelming it legally. Those associates lived long enough to become the “in crowd” and the associates of the current incumbent of the White House…. still, every movement needs it martyrs…. “Justice for Pops! Justice for Pops!” or “Remember Pops!” – both have a nice ring to them….

  272. geoffchambers says:

    Turboblocke Thanks for correcting me. I was quite wrong. Never comment till you”ve read the whole thread.
    Here, from a reader of the “Harmless Skies” blog is a link with a revealing interview with the director of the Science Museum.
    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=209274
    Note his apparent support for the idea of Nuremberg-type trials for climate sceptics. Note the phrase “anyone who was not in was out” used in an interview two years ago.

  273. Pops says:

    And yet more.

    Just take a look at the attitude of a local councillor in the UK, and he’s just one roasted peanut in a whole bagful of heated believers.

    http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Tory-s-just-wrong-says-Labour-boss/article-1448800-detail/article.html

    Isn’t that just great? More publicity. How many people in Derbyshire (a mostly rural county full of sheep and hills) would ever have heard about “Not Evil Just Wrong” if the good councillor had not opened his outraged mouth? Now, the film is being advertised for free in the county’s best-selling newspaper. Bloody marvellous.

    See what I mean?

  274. Pops says:

    Poor Evan, can’t abide free speech, or free thinkers.

    I guess I’ll just have to head to cooler pastures. I knew this site would take a turn for the worse once Google got its claws into it.

    Google = Apple = Gore. Say no more.

    Have a nice, warm future.

    Reply: I’m going to check on that one. If what I think happened, happened, I agree with you and will admonish Evan accordingly. ~ charles the moderator

  275. Lihard says:

    Robert, I know that the poll was found to be questionable by this article before I made my demonstration.

    My point was that I found it was highly questionable purely in the technical sense also, and I would contribute by showing that.

    Now you are acting like that I killed somebody. I certainly feel like it. And I literally feel this will haunt me for a long time…

    I’m just waiting for Anthony to contact me.

    -Lihard

  276. Pops says:

    Wait! I’m still here, and I would like to know why Robert E. Phelan gets to read my comments (…current incumbent of the White House… ‘snip’) but other people can’t? Is he that special? This stinks of blatant censorship, and I thought this site was much better than that.

    [REPLY - I snipped it when I saw it. I do not often snip, but you were encouraging others to stuff the ballot box. Sorry, but that crosses the boundary as I see it. ~ Evan]

  277. Dave. says:

    Guys, don´t be so paranoid. Tinfoil hats are for the other side.

    Vote ¨No¨ leaving a comment via their link.

    ( I pointed out that I am pissed off by Copenhagen. Remember that last junket?
    Bali,Kyoto, ran out of space to park jets).

    Stuff the government. what are they gonna do? The taxpayers worldwide
    are getting sick of being lectured on austerity by the greediest pigs at the
    trough.

    Just register at yahoo or somwhere with a disposable email address if you
    are concerned.

  278. evanmjones says:

    Encouraging others to cheat transcends the boundaries of free expression.

    I have nothing against you personally, Pops, but please understand that we have to discourage that sort of thing. I almost never delete a post, but in this case I made an exception.

  279. Lihard says:

    I hope I haven’t made any significant damage to the sceptic side…

    [REPLY - At least you appear to show some remorse. Please don't stuff any more ballots in future. I don't often act so harshly, but I felt was necessary.~ Evan]

  280. Pops says:

    Lihard

    Grow up, for goodness sake, and stop blubbering. You deserve a medal, or even a Nobel Peace Prize… if it was worth anything now.

  281. Lihard says:

    I’ll seriously consider revealing my identity so that this won’t do damage to the sceptics.

    -Lihard

  282. Pops says:

    “…WE have to discourage that sort of thing.” Didn’t Al Gore say that recently?

  283. Pops says:

    Lihard, DON’T DO IT! Just say your name is Obama and they’ll give you that prize.

    This thread’s becoming a joke, isn’t it?

  284. Sandy says:

    Lihard can you say how many votes you stuffed??

  285. evanmjones says:

    We have to play fair.

    Our number-1 objection is that many of the AGW advocates don’t play fair–and they don’t. It is not merely a matter of “waging war” on the “other side”. It is an attempt to win over the undecided and persuade advocates who have genuinely open minds.

    If we descend to the tactics of the worst of the AGW advocates we lose far more than we gain. We want debate. Debate cannot exist in the absence of legitimate procedure.

  286. Pops says:

    “We have to play fair… and lose!”

    Didn’t someone once say that sheep have the leaders they deserve?

    Baa Baa

  287. Lihard says:

    I see your point Pops as it was the same with me before I “voted”. And Sandy as it has been stated before I added aproximately 1000 votes.

    -Lihard

  288. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Pops:
    Our comments crossed and I saw yours posted before Evan got to it. Believe me, I don’t get any special treatment and I certainly don’t get special access. I even get snipped and admonished on occasion. Once in awhile I’m even grateful.

    Lihard:
    In a sense this thread went from being a mockery of AGW sliminess to a serious discussion of ethics and honor. This whole episode may yet have ramifications out of all proportion to their origins. If you have not yet done so, clip that Telegraph article, do a Google search on your handle and clip that and put it all in your scrap book. Some day you’ll want to haul it out and say… “Do you remember ever hearing about….? Uhh… it was me.”

    You’ve finally done the right thing, so relax. Let’s see what falls out.

  289. evanmjones says:

    Didn’t someone once say that sheep have the leaders they deserve?

    They say the same thing about wolves.

    I think the only reason that the AGW bandwagon is starting to lose out is that the skeptics are (as a rule) playing a fairer game and this has not gone unnoticed.

    Yes, we may lose if we play fair. But if we do not play fair, we will surely lose.

  290. Robert E. Phelan says:

    All I can picture is one of those cartoons with Pops as the devil on Lihard’s left shoulder and Evan as his guardian angel on the right. Lihard, you don’t have to reveal anything right now.

  291. Pops says:

    For, evanmjones

    And wolves always win!

    The AGW bandwagon is (perhaps) starting to lose out because it is (definitely) getting colder… D’OH! But unless you give them a good kicking while they’re down, they’ll simply jump back up and bite you in the ass while you’re happily celebrating your glorious and most honorable, Pyrrhic victory. They have money and influence. What do you have, besides good intentions and high morals?

    We need to see more headlines like the following:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/rachelmarsden/100014731/canadian-pm-stephen-harper-may-simply-ignore-copenhagens-climate-change-scam/

    And the only way to see them is to kick up a stink; stuff a few ballot boxes designed by brainwashed half-wits working for no-brain politicians.

  292. Pops says:

    Snip Snip

  293. Lihard says:

    Thanks Robert.

    I have read this site for a while now, and I just wanted to contribute to it as I saw there doesn’t seem to be anyone really tech savvy here. My expertise is on digital and computer systems, both hardware and software, so I have a good understanding of all things digital. I haven’t specifically done much on the area of internet communication protocols or web programming but as my base knowledge is good I can learn it if I need to.

    -Lihard

  294. Pops says:

    “Yes, we may lose if we play fair, But….”

    Give me a break… or a baseball bat.

  295. geoffchambers says:

    Pops Lihard, Robert, evan
    This little psychodrama has been fascinating, but back in the real world, a few hundred thousand, maybe millions, will be visiting the Science Museum exhibition, or reading about it or following news items about it. The unique value of this blog is that it reaches thousands, while the British equivalents (harmless sky, climate-resistance, omniclimate) reach dozens.
    The science on the site associated with this poll is appalling. A half dozen commentators here could demolish it, and their demolition might be picked up by the British mainstream media. Two government ministers backed this exhibition and its associated poll. One is tipped to be future Euro-Foreign Minister, the other to be a future Prime Minister. A lot of journalists would love to land a killer punch on their ambitions. Would you like to turn your talents to tackling the museum, its site and its poll, and leave the meta-morality to another time and place?

  296. Pops says:

    OH NO! The ‘in’ box is being stuffed. Quick, form a circle and start singing. The nasty people will go away.

    REPLY: “Pops”, maybe you don’t understand. It’s like this.

    1) “Anonymous cowards” such as yourself can do whatever they wish on their own time with no repercussions. I can’t condone nor control that.

    2) When they do it on my blog, I get linked to it.

    3) When I get linked to it, I get the blame.

    So, unless you are willing to put your full name to your intentions, so that I can pass the blame on to you, no more from you on this subject. Feel free to comment on anything else on other threads. Comprende?

    Anthony

  297. evanmjones says:

    And wolves always win!

    On the contrary. The wolves almost always get wiped out in the long run.

  298. Robert E. Phelan says:

    “…there doesn’t seem to be anyone really tech savvy here…”

    OUCH! I know that I’m not as good as I once was…. but you’d think nearly forty years of computing would get me a little more respect than that…. ahhh, youth. Wasted on the young.

    I can understand wanting to contribute. Doesn’t always work out the way we anticipate. There are a number of contributors here with their own blogs and projects they could use help with:

    E.M Smith at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/ is quite good and has a number of projects that you might be interested in contributing to.

    Steve McIntyre is always complaining that commenters are demanding charts and graphs and analyses… if you want to learn R you could contribute there…

    Obviously, not everyone agrees with me, but I just don’t think this is the time to go jihad.

  299. Robert E. Phelan says:

    geoffchambers (16:02:29) :

    Uhhh, you’re partly right, Geoff, and I have been trying to foment revolt and discontent in the UK. Thankless job. But the morality is part and parcel. I’m hoping that this episode does not get ignored and that lots and lots and lots of UK vistors come here and read this thread. If we have to make lemonade, let’s be sure it’s palatable.

  300. dodgy geezer says:

    The ‘in’ box is being stuffed with a script at the moment.

    If you go to the site, there is a regular addition to the ‘in’ section – about 1 per second. It is now over 1000 and will soon be any figure you care to mention…

  301. evanmjones says:

    Your attitude is commendable, Robert.

    The ‘in’ box is being stuffed with a script at the moment.

    Let the record show.

    It looks as if they are going to have to run it all over again if they are going to have legit results.

    Geoff: I agree their arguments are terrible.

  302. Ken Sharples says:

    The in box is increasing by 7 votes per minute, count me out by 1.4 per minute.
    It is after Midnight here in UK, so where are all these votes coming from ?
    It looks like someone is slowly stuffing the count me in box..

  303. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Yeah, it looks like they should break even in about an hour. Everbody should make a screen cap now for evidence later. So some other stupid SOB just couldn’t resist…. hope it’s one of theirs this time.

    Let’s see if I’ve got this right…. the museum decided to mount the exhibit and poll at the last minute after a briefing from Ed Miliband’s department. Much of the “evidence” cited by the exhibit is factually incorrect or misleading at best. The exhibit is primarily a propaganda device and the poll was constructed with absolutely zero safeguards against tampering. The poll is now being massively compromised for a second time, despite the fact that the museum already knows of the first tampering.

    The Miliband brothers opened this exhibit, lent their prestige and the prestige of their offices to it and essentially commissioned it in the first place. As Geoff Chambers pointed out above, both are ambitious of high office and are being touted as the New Saviours of Labour (UK spelling intentional). If they are associated with anything this cynical, ill conceived and shoddy, what will one of them be like as PM? Just asking.

  304. dodgy geezer says:

    I estimate that, on or about 00:00 GMT the ‘Count Me IN’ figure started a regular increase of about 7-8 per minute. The ‘Count Me OUT’ figure at this time was increasing irregularly, by an average of about 1 per minute.

    I am going to bed now – the figures at 01:00 GMT are 1515 vs 4248. If this process continues the ‘Count Me IN’ figure will pass the ‘Count Me OUT’ figure in approximatly 8 hours.

    Unless, of course, someone writes a similar script for the OUT side…..

  305. Robert E. Phelan says:

    dodgy geezer (18:01:39) :

    “…unless, of course, someone writes a similar script for the OUT side…..”

    God in Heaven, NO! Just leave it. After all we’ve written here today…. the columns and blogs this week are going to be fascinating. I just hope they have the nerve to ask the right questions.

  306. geoffchambers says:

    Alec J (10:57:51) 24/10 suggested standing at the forthcoming election in Britain on a Climate Sense ticket. I’ve just opened a discussion on this subject at harmless sky
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=53#comments
    Moderator: Could you give Alex J my email address?
    PS Thanks Robert E Phelan for your totally cynical question. This is why Alex J’s suggestion needs following up. There’s not much I’m proud of about my country, but at least you can have an effect in elections in Britain without spending billions.

  307. dodgy geezer says:

    Presumably the aim is to discredit the poll.

    If you can’t win, then get the poll declared invalid by cheating. Fairly standard process in politics nowadays. Even allows the Science Museum to announce that the poll will be withdrawn ‘due to widespread cheating’ and leave the impression that it’s the ‘deniers’ who cheated….

  308. dodgy geezer says:

    Robert E. Phelan:

    “…unless, of course, someone writes a similar script for the OUT side…..”

    “God in Heaven, NO! Just leave it… – Robert E. Phelan”

    I should point out that this was a tongue-in-cheek comment – though, dispassionately, it is always a possibility that this may happen. For the avoidance of doubt, my comment should not be construed as an instruction to cheat – I am on record earlier in this thread as calling for fair play…

  309. Robert E. Phelan says:

    geoffchambers (18:17:28) :

    Not quite as dumb as I look. I think you and Alec should get together. I’ve also got two other thoughts I definitely don’t want to air in public, so if the moderator would send Geoff MY e-mail address, he can ask me what they are, if he is so inclined.

  310. Robert E. Phelan says:

    dodgy geezer (18:27:50) :

    I know. Maybe I should have made it God in Heaven, NO!

    By the way, a THIRD script seems to have just started up incrementing the count-me-out counter. Can’t you guys get some MP to stand up tomorrow and demand to know how this could have happened? I’m sure the Energy Secretary would be delighted to offer an explanation.

  311. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Geez, WordPress thought my brackets and slash commands were real and stripped them out. that was supposed to be /mockhorror …. /mockhorroroff

  312. Trevor says:

    Someone from the “IN” side has obviously got a script going. The “IN” votes and going up ate the rate of about 1 evert 10-15 seconds.

    Either that or they have some trained monkeys.

  313. jeez says:

    Yup, an IN side script is running.

  314. Robert E. Phelan says:

    3830 counted in so far 4545 counted out so far

    The only thing that surprises me at this point is that any of the “count me out” folks are still bothering. Guess they didn’t get the word.

  315. Robert E. Phelan says:

    3879 counted in so far 4572 counted out so far

    At about 2:40 a.m. EDT this morning the script was apparently stopped at 3879 in and 4569 out. Over the next five minutes three more “outs” were added. I’d love to be a fly on someone’s wall right now…

  316. anna v says:

    Lihard (14:42:18) :

    I’ll seriously consider revealing my identity so that this won’t do damage to the sceptics.

    -Lihard

    Relax.

    Catastrophe is when little children die, and your impulsive reaction is nowhere close.

    Guilt is a useful feeling if it keeps you from a similar situation, i.e. a sign post “don’t do it again”, otherwise futile.

    Skeptics have a tough hide.

  317. paullm says:

    * 3880 counted in so far
    * 4582 counted out so far

  318. Alec J says:

    Moderator – please pass on my email to Geoff Chambers

  319. anna v says:

    Maybe the poll should look only at the comments. It will be obvious if the writer voted in or out.

  320. Stoic says:

    paullm (00:16:15) : May I point you to the revelations of Lihard further back? The poll is corrupted and meaningless. Presumably the Science Museum will pull it today when they get in to work shortly.

    Whilst deploring the behaviour of Lihard and any other deliberate corrupters (it is not cricket!) we can reflect that at least Lihard science is real science. He or she made a prediction and it came true!

    As a Brit, it is extremely embarrassing that the publicly-funded Science Museum launched this tacky PR stunt. Since they did launch it, they might at least have displayed competence in protecting the integrity of the poll.

  321. Dave Salt says:

    I counted myself out and also posted the following comment to ‘Got an opinion?’, though I doubt it will be given any serious consideration…

    The information on your ‘Evidence’ page seems rather weak and unconvincing when one considers the basic science behind the theory of human induced climate change.

    As I understand it, the science behind human induced climate change is based upon two distinct theories.
    1) CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, traps heat and thereby raises the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.
    2) positive feedback mechanisms then amplify this warming by a factor of two or more.

    Based upon measured changes in CO2, Theory 1) predicts a temperature rise of 1-2C, more than half of which should have already taken place. The resulting impacts on both environment and society are expected to be relatively small and, therefore, insufficient to justify the proposed remedial actions. My understanding is that most scientists agree that Theory 1) is valid, based upon experimental evidence.

    Theory 2) builds upon this to predict a temperature rise of 4C or more, the majority of which we have yet to experience. The resulting impacts on both environment and society are expected to be relatively large and, therefore, sufficient to justify the proposed remedial actions. My understanding is that a significant number of scientists are not yet convinced that Theory 2) is valid, based upon observational evidence.

    In science, unambiguous observational evidence is a fundamental requirement if a theory is to be accepted as fact. Furthermore, it must be possible say how a theory could be falsified in order to help confirm its ultimate validity. Unfortunately, the models that justify Theory 2) predict such a broad spread of future climates that:
    a) it is extremely difficult to identify an unambiguous signature that matches to the observational evidence;
    b) any significant deviation that could falsify them will only be discernable many, many decades into the future.

    Given these facts, the statement on your ‘Evidence’ page seems rather speculative when it says “The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained”. This suggests that the models are sufficiently complete to include all of the relevant natural causes. However, this is then undermined by the statement that “Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater” because it raises the obvious question: if the models are sufficiently complete, why did they not predict the current non-warming trend?

    I understand that this subject is both scientifically complex and politically charged, which makes presenting it to the general public a real challenge. However, to re-iterate my initial comment, I do feel that the explanations you present as ‘Evidence’ are rather weak and unconvincing and therefore do a real disservice to science in general and the Science Museum in particular.

    If you really want to be of service to the public, I may suggest that you concentrate on presenting the science, rather than the political rhetoric, to explain the subject of human induced climate change.

  322. Pops says:

    “So, unless you are willing to put your full name to your intentions, so that I can pass the blame on to you, no more from you on this subject. Feel free to comment on anything else on other threads. Comprende?”

    What’s with the comprende? Some sort of coded threat?

    My name is Trevor Vernon. I’m 56, English, and live in Spain. It’s hot here today, but it may get cooler soon.

    These are my own views on this topic and in no way do they represent the philosophy and/or moral standing of the owner of this web-site.

    ++++++

    What a bunch of hand-wringing, nail-biting, fretful ninnies most of the commentators on this thread appear to be. I say, stuff the ballot-box until it explodes. Why? Because the fools who put it on line were obviously so arrogant as to believe that the sheep would blithely stroll through the IN door with not a thought as to where they were heading. Just take a look at their site. In all that evidence PROVING the myth of man-made global warming, as far as I can tell, there’s not one word of dissent, not one counter-argument that might allow a sheep to make up its own mind. They are completely brainwashed themselves, and as such they believe that everyone else is too… or should be. So, if stuffing their box to destruction causes even one of the fools to think again, then it’s a victory for cooler-sense.

    But it would be only one small victory in a heated debate raging across this cooling planet, a debate not refereed according to the Marques of Queensbury’s rule-book. No, the disciples of heat are using every trick in their own rule-book. They lie, dodge the question whenever pressed, fiddle the books, truncate the data, turn the charts upside down, and use their money to buy-off dissent at every opportunity. You can say nice things about them, you can send them endless letters calmly stating your point of view (the truth), but it will make not the slightest difference. They are in this to win, whatever the cost to mere sheep; which is why we sheep must fight back.

    “But we’re already winning!” I hear you bleat. “We can afford to be nice to them.”

    We’re not winning and we can’t afford to be nice. Can you imagine where we’d be now, just weeks away from the Copenhagen heat-fest, if mother-earth (or father-sun) had decided to delay the current cooling cycle by a few years? The hot-heads of tax and control would have had a walkover. As it is, they yet might get just that because, as we all know, there’s ample evidence of cooling but that hasn’t cooled the warmers’ fire one little bit. Yes, the current incumbent of the White House appears to be more interested in going to Oslo than Copenhagen, and China and India have just given everyone the coal-fired finger, but nearly all of our gloriously-green leaders in Europe are chomping at the bit for a chance get all their sheep safely penned and freshly taxed.

    So, my friends, keep pushing, look for any weak-spot, and when you get one of the buggers on the run, chase after them and give them a kick up the arse for good measure. Or, stuff their stupid ballot box until it explodes.

    A footnote:
    Those of you typing at keyboards deep in the comfort of your mothers’ cellars should give Scotty a call and ask him to beam you up to the real world where, sometimes, you have to fight dirty just to survive from one day to the next, let alone save millions of sheep from being taxed and bludgeoned back into the stone-age. But be careful up here. Some folk will bludgeon you just to get their feet inside your smelly, ten-year-old trainers.

    Another footnote:
    I’ve put up, now you put up and post it.

    REPLY: Well then Trevor, thanks for coming out. I don’t agree with anything you have to say, nor do I condone ballot stuffing. – Anthony

  323. dodgy geezer says:

    “..Maybe the poll should look only at the comments. It will be obvious if the writer voted in or out…” anna v

    Indeed. One of the few ways of seperating human and machine votes left to the organisers will be to read the comments. But I assume they will not do this – certainly not the ‘out’ comments!

    Earlier I wrote that we were not receiving out confirmation e-mails back, so the whole poll looked suspicious. I suggested then that, because the votes did not seem to be being sensibly counted, and the comments could well be lost, we should forward our comments to the director of the Science Museum as well as the curator of the Climate exhibition. This suggestion still stands. They have asked for comments, let us provide them.

    Their contact page is http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/contact_us.aspx . This gives feedback@nmsi.ac.uk as the general ‘visitor experience’ comment address.

    The persons responsible for the Prove It exhibit are noted as:

    “The PROVE IT! exhibit was designed by Ab Rogers Design. Graphics are by venturethree, with the Science Museum design studio. The gallery interactives are designed by Spiral Productions Ltd.

    We are grateful to the following experts for their advice on content
    Ben Booth (Met Office)
    Jessica Brown (Overseas Development Institute)
    Charlotte Jourdain (Imperial College)
    Ralf Martin (London School of Economics)
    Stephen Peake (Open University)
    Jeff Ridley (Met Office)
    Heike Schroeder (Oxford University)
    Neil Carter (University of York)
    Meric Srokosz (National Oceanography Centre)”

    They have specifically requested that non-believers contact them at this address:

    “If you’re not convinced by the evidence, or you have a comment about PROVE IT! tell us what you think.
    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/let_us_know.aspx

    I suspect that packing votes is not going to have much of an impact one way or another. But we should not ignore a valid request by the UK Science Museum for enlightenment. May I encourage those of us who can make clear cogent points about the poor level of evidence

    a) provided in the exhibit
    b) provided generally by the IPCC and the scientific press

    to write in with examples and references. I asume that the Science Museum will be using Real Climate responses to our points, so ensure that your comment draws attention to the known failings of these responses…

  324. Si says:

    As others have already stated :

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/human_activity.aspx

    “Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.”

    The words “Natural effects” says everything you ever know to know about this debate. We just don’t know enough about the massive complexity of this planet and to say otherwise is incredible arrogance.

    Si

  325. Jordan says:

    ‘due to widespread cheating’

    In the usual sense, ‘cheating’ means gaining advantage by not abiding by a commonly recognised set of rules of the game. The science museum set *no* rules about who could vote or how many votes each person could cast. As such, there can be no basis for claims of cheating.

    That’s why I repeat my point that votes are worthless. This discussion exposed the poll as the worthless publicity stunt that it alway was. Milliband got his press release, and we can safely assume has moved onto the next.

    I agree with the sentiment and the honour of *assuming* OPOV. But, there is no such rule – that’s why there was nothing wrong in the initial point that the poll appeared to be a “horse race”. BTW, I am not encouraging ballot stuffing.

    “Can’t you guys get some MP to stand up tomorrow and demand to know how this could have happened?”

    Who do you think will stand up in Parliament and raise a question about claims of cheating on a publicity stunt? The web poll is a non-issue in the real world.

    It’s a storm in a teacup. Don’t invest any personal capital on it.

  326. Will says:

    “The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

    Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.”

    So when they can’t explain global warming, it’s human activity, but when they cant explain global cooling, it’s natural.

    Brilliant.

  327. Will says:

    Oh, and for those who are interested, the current scores on the doors are

    # 4147 counted in so far
    # 5044 counted out so far

  328. Coals says:

    4159 counted in so far 5150 counted out so far

  329. Lihard says:

    Sorry Robert, but I didn’t intend to suggest you don’t have experience in using computers and all kinds of software. So you have played with those ancient computer punch cards. I kind of envy you of getting to experience all those old computers.

    And by really tech savvy I mean the kind of people who program software or design hardware for a living. I googled you and if I’m correct you are an instructor of sociology. I don’t know if you have written software for embedded devices such as microcontrollers or softcore processors on fpgas using assembly or C, but that’s the kind of expertise is what I meant.

    -Lihard

  330. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    I was mainly being facetious. In this life I’m an instructor. For a good number of years I was a programmer/analyst / implementor specializing in business and manufacturing systems. I still build my own computers and maintain my own network. And I did work with punch cards and paper-tapes in an age when computer coding was done in octal rather than hexadecimal. One of my off-and-on-again projects is to try and preserve antique operating systems and programs on virtual machines. I’m also the bozo who told an IBM engineer that they would NEVER build a 32k memory chip and a 10 meg hard drive was a waste of effort. Maybe I ought to write me memoirs…

  331. Stephen Brown says:

    Anthony’s comments about ballot stuffing (above) should be heeded by all, especially by the “Count Me In” voters.
    On 26/10/2009 at 1945 (UKtime) the numbers stood at 4184 IN and 5274 OUT.
    BTW, I voted just the once, under my real name and using my principal e-mail address.

  332. Stephen Brown says:

    The “Count Me In” total is rising by one or two votes every five seconds. The OUT vote remains unchanged for 30 – 90 seconds at a time.
    Timed at 2000hrs (UK time) on 26/10/2009

  333. Stoic says:

    Right now there is ballot stuffing going into the in side. At 20.00 GMT the score was 4198. At 2008 it is 4258.

  334. R. Craigen says:

    Someone with a bit of time could do everyone a service and write down a line-by-line

    (a) critique of the survey — including their “build your own letter” style of attempted ballot-stuffing and lack of security; and

    (b) demolition of the dozens of pseudoscientific nonsense presented as “evidence” at the site.

    For completeness there should also be

    -a critique of this whole misadventure into politics — largely in violation of the nature of a museum, which is supposed to present factual information more-or-less objectively (even just a stat giving the percentage of this site devoted to politicking versus actual science);

    -a proper treatment of their “Our Climate Credentials” pages, and

    -a challenge to openly discuss the science of climate change in a wide forum, as public educational service (public education, after all, is precisely what science museums are SUPPOSED to be doing!)

    The whole thing can be packaged under the same title, “Prove it!”. If they want to bring out this forceful phrase, let’s call them to accountability. Or, if you like, avoid confusion by using “No, YOU Prove it!” instead.

    The burden of proof, after all, should lie on the side of alarmists calling for wild and potentially harmful socioeconomic “transformation”.

    Perhaps this should become a stand-alone web site, or a subsite to one of the main skeptic pages such as this one (assuming Mr. Watt is open to it that is). Or better yet, at a site devoted to the climate debate per se, such as ClimateDebateDaily.Com. I look forward to it, and would contribute material if a way were arranged to do so (I would suggest not opening it as a forum for riffraff. Devote it to pure, serious debate, information and analysis).

  335. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Pops/Trevor:

    Welcome to the light of day. I still disagree about Jihadism (when I finally snap it won’t be Jihad, it will be M’fecane) but I applaud every poster who comes out and says “I’m not afraid of you or you or you!” Now its time to go out and humiliate the Science Museum and the Miliband Brothers over this piece of @#$%&!

  336. Robert E. Phelan says:

    I wonder if the museum will declare tomorrow that 12000 votes in just four days shows how important the topic is and well they are succeeding in accomplishing their goal of educating the public.

  337. James says:

    I’ve no idea if this will prompt a reply, but I thought it worth asking (as a comment, via the SM website). The ‘results’ are due to be published in December, apparently.

    “Since your poll does require any verification, and appears to have been stuffed with ‘yes’ votes recently, may I ask how you intend to present the results?”

  338. Steve Smith says:

    Half a league, half a league, half a league onward,
    All in the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred (well, three thousand two hundred and ninety two, at last count).

    Can’t we stop the squabbling and remember who the REAL enemy is?

    Please, let’s not fall victim to the old “divide and conquer” routine!

    Surely we’re more intelligent than that.

    Steve S

  339. dodgy geezer says:

    My latest comment:

    “Is there actually NO scientific disagreement AT ALL with any of the statements provided here? You certainly don’t indicate any.

    If there is no disagreement, why does the Science Museum have to PROVE IT?”

  340. Stoic says:

    Anthony, may I draw your and your UK visitors attention to the website http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ ?

    Under the UK law, UK residents (citizens) can make an request under the Freedom of Information Act and the publicly-funded body must respond on the website – it is the law. The charm of this approach is that the whole correspondence must be carried out in public on the website.
    The Science Museum are covered by this legislation. They were advised at 9.00 a.m. this morning that their ‘Prove It’ poll had been corrupted. I intend to use the website to find out what has happened and why the abuse is being permitted to continue.

    Regards

    S

  341. philincalifornia says:

    Robert E. Phelan (12:37:06) :
    One of my off-and-on-again projects is to try and preserve antique operating systems and programs on virtual machines. I’m also the bozo who told an IBM engineer that they would NEVER build a 32k memory chip and a 10 meg hard drive was a waste of effort. Maybe I ought to write me memoirs…
    ———-
    Robert, I don’t know where you are located but it seems to me that you might like this particular museum – The Computer History Museum, in Mountain View, California. I have certainly enjoyed my visits there:

    http://www.computerhistory.org/

    Also, I would recommend reading selected parts of Ray Kurzweil’s “The Singularity is Near”, for a review on the past, present and future of Moore’s Law (much of this can also be found on the net).

  342. Robert E. Phelan says:

    philincalifornia (14:32:08) :

    Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, I’m on the other coast with no immediate travel plans. When I get the travel plans, I’ll probably be advised that I’ve exceeded my carbon limit.

  343. evanmjones says:

    Since both sides have hacked the poll outrageously, any results are completely meaningless.

  344. Lihard says:

    I’d like to inform everyone that I have kicked up a quick hack to check the site every second and collect the http packets which include the vote count. All I have to is to write a script which extracts the vote count from this raw data.
    So as of now I have the raw data being stored from which I can create a graph that shows the votes accumulated vs time.

    This can be then analysed by anyone and determine when there was a bot voting on the poll.

    I’m not sure if anyone is interested in this data but for now I’ll gather it.

    -Lihard

  345. Stephen Brown says:

    At 2200 (UK time) on 26/10/2009 the scores read as follows: 5119 IN and 5376 OUT.
    Is there a script running somewhere??

  346. evanmjones says:

    I’m not sure if anyone is interested in this data but for now I’ll gather it.

    Good. You should send the results to sciencemuseum with a full explanation and tell them to fix their poll and re-run it.

  347. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    That’s good. Might be useful. Now, keeping in mind that actualing entering a remote computer not specifically designated as a public access server is a criminal offense, is there any way to query the routing server as to where the bot packets are coming from?

  348. Phil Clarke says:

    I’d like to inform everyone that I have kicked up a quick hack to check the site every second and collect the http packets which include the vote count.

    Neat. FYI, I posted a message on the Facebook page of the Alliance of Climate Protection around about 19:00 GMT drawing their attention to the poll. Now that group has 3.3m members so it might be interesting to see what effect (if any) that had..

  349. Lihard says:

    As far as I know there isn’t any way to get the data without accessing the server which runs the website or the internet provider’s servers which the bot packets go through.

    One way would be spoofing the website so that everything goes through your own computer first and then goes to the actual server hosting the website but I haven’t got any experience on spoofing website and that isn’t possibly legal either.

    -Lihard

  350. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Hah! There’s a worm in our apple. I asked Lihard three minutes ago if he could trace the bot and whaddaya know? The hack stopped. Moderators, can you freeze a copy of the usage reports here pending official inquiries?

  351. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Or maybe they just switched counters. The “out” counter is registering a hit every two seconds. Sheesh. Enough melodrama. I’ve got papers to grade. I still think there’s a good chance there’s a worm, though.

  352. Stoic says:

    At about 23.12 GMT the in vote stopped going up and is currently frozen at 5332. the out vote is rocketing up and is currently (23.17GMT) 5754. This is an embarrassing farce. It is quite shaming how incompetent the Science Museum has been in its PR stunt.

  353. dodgy geezer says:

    There is a strong tradition in the hacking/cracking community of treating this sort of thing as a game.

    I would not be surprised to find that the scripts generating the ‘IN’ and the ‘OUT’ figures are being run by the same individual. Some minds get a kick out of lurking on a forum, watching the flurry of messages from one side as the figures go one way, then a different set as the figures come back….

  354. Roger Carr says:

    Pops (03:02:13) : ” … What a bunch of hand-wringing, nail-biting, fretful ninnies most of the commentators on this thread appear to be. I say, stuff the ballot-box until it explodes. Why? …”

    Very persuavive, Trevor. You keep the mind open with your perspective to add in to the mix; and I think that is very, very important. Thanks.

  355. Jordan says:

    “I would not be surprised to find that the scripts generating the ‘IN’ and the ‘OUT’ figures are being run by the same individual.”

    For all we know it could be as good as the “live” biometric data from the Catlin expedition. Or about as scientific as “Hanno 2009″. This is AGW alarmism guys.

    There is talk of “results” being announced in December. Let’s look forward to a good laugh. It should be another opportunity for Christopher Booker to say a few words in the Telegraph.

  356. Frank Kotler says:

    My last visit to the page revealed that the counters had been rest to zero. While I agree with Evan, I took this as an invitation to vote again. This time I did receive a confirmation email, and had to “click back” for my vote to be counted. Apparently this has been an educational experience for them. This would make Lihard a “teacher”, I guess. :)

    Perhaps this thread needs a “bump” to inform people that the vote is being redone?

    Best,
    Frank

  357. Frank Kotler says:

    Ummpf! Upon revisiting the page to see if my vote had been counted (not that I don’t trust ‘em!), I found the counters at their previous high values. Perhaps I’ve cheated by voting twice. Sorry ’bout that!

    Best,
    Frank

  358. http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/007903.html – They have scrubbed the results and are starting all over again (like an Afghan Election) with an email verification step now – time to vote again.

  359. elle says:

    So, those who disagree need to provide their name? What list will they go on? I am SICK of government control and their dictating to us. FU Govt

  360. Stoic says:

    The corrupted UK Science Museum climate change poll was reset to zero at about 17.15 GMT today – 45 minutes ago. this time you have to click on a link to have your vote validated. Has Lihard or anybody else views on whether this poll has integrity? Current score 4 counted in 31 counted out.

    A reminder the link is http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

    Regards

    S

  361. DaveE says:

    Voted again, (after the poll reset), Not decided what to leave as a comment as yet.

    I may stick with the comment about Syedoff not getting frozen into the Arctic at 85ºN until 18th Dec 1938 and the Soden & Held paper rubbishing GCMs.

    DaveE.

  362. DaveE says:

    Just checked the count.

    41 OUT
    4 IN

    I may add another part to my comment about the debunking of the various hokey sticks.

    DaveE.

  363. Ken Sharples says:

    I tried to vote again but my anti virus programme (Kaspersky AV ) has denied me
    access to the site, saying the URL site is infected by a trojan….

    The requested URL could not be retrieved

    While trying to retrieve the URL:

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.
    aspx

    The following error was encountered:

    The requested object is INFECTED with the following viruses: HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.Script.Generic

    Please contact your service provider if you consider it incorrect.
    Generated:
    Tue Oct 27 18:03:45 2009
    Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2009
    So how do I vote now ? Do I switch off my AV to vote and risk infecting my
    computor… Ken

  364. jeez says:

    Ken Sharples

    Probably a false positive

    If I were you I would turn it off and vote, then turn it on again.

  365. DaveE says:

    Ken Sharples.

    What jeez said. :-D

    DaveE.

  366. dodgy geezer says:

    I had left the Science Museum site up in my bookmarks, so it has been open on my machine all today.

    I just obediently reentered my email and voted. And it didn’t ask me to click on a link or anything…

  367. Emil says:

    this is a farce …

    * 5429 counted in so far
    * 6523 counted out so far

    the numbers are back

  368. Stoic says:

    At 18.53 GMT – 15 minutes ago, the Science Museum seems to have really lost it. Their website appears to have started to add the validated poll results to the corrupted poll! Not very good for the Museum’s reputation for technical competence.

    At 18.50 GMT the score was 6 in, 81 out. At 18.53 GMT it was 5429 in, 6521 out!

    Regards

    S

  369. jeez says:

    Looks like they took the original database offline while they switched to implementing security and then added back the earlier counts.

    Previous ballot stuffing remains in order to not throw out the unknown percentage of valid votes with added security going forward.

    A Solomonic solution and not necessarily a bad one given the hole they initially dug for themselves.

  370. philincalifornia says:

    I just voted, along with a small dose of vitriol, and got the confirmation e-mail.

  371. Ken Sharples says:

    I took the advice of Jeez and DaveE, I switched off my AV and went back to the
    Museum site….surprise… now we are back on the old vote count..
    I re-voted and was sent an e-mail to confirm my vote, and it was added to
    count me out total…so far so good..
    IN vote…5430 OUT vote…6538 and rising.
    The Trojan script has now vanished from the site.
    Ken

  372. Emil says:

    Maybe they don’t care about ballot stuffing … if an issue is debated, it’s important. I guess they are happy to have thousands of votes: if the “out” votes win, it means people need to be informed better, if the “in” votes win, they are right and the popular vote gives them even more legitimacy.

    Funny thing is I used to be an orthodox greenie, until the fools starting overdoing it … like with the glaciers pouring into the ocean: when tens of thousands of ice move, it’s because there is more ice pushing them from up hill, not because they are melting …

  373. Steve Smith says:

    Maybe they saw the way the “new” poll was also going against them, and decided the original figures would give them a better case for crying “foul” against the evil, hijacking, climate skeptics.

  374. DaveE says:

    Steve Smith (13:02:27) :

    Maybe they saw the way the “new” poll was also going against them, and decided the original figures would give them a better case for crying “foul” against the evil, hijacking, climate skeptics.

    Pretty much the conclusion I came up with.

    When they switched back, the poll was running at 10:1 against.

    DaveE.

  375. DaveE says:

    I got lazy on comments & just outlined the null hypothesis & said…

    disprove it

    DaveE.

  376. Steve Smith says:

    I was (slightly) less lazy, and said:…….

    Why don’t YOU examine the evidence (all of it)?

    Stop regurgitating “Global Government” rhetoric, and start being SCIENTISTS!

  377. Dr Slop says:

    The counters are now reading: 5433 counted in so far, 6639 counted out so far. As Anthony suggested, this could go horribly wrong, for someone.

  378. Ken Sharples says:

    I think the Science Museum will only count the votes of those who confirmed by e-mail
    So all those who previously voted without getting an e-mail, should now vote again.
    I know the “outs” are leading 33 to 1 at present, but let us make it a real slamdunk.
    (whatever that means).
    As they said in a recent Islamic country election “Vote early…Vote Often”
    Lihard dont you dare!
    Ken

  379. Stoic says:

    Something really interesting is happening to the ‘Prove It’ poll. The scores were reset to zero at 17.15 GMT and email validation was introduced to protect the integrity of the poll. By 18.50 GMT the ins were at 6 and the outs were at 81. At about 18.53 GMT it appeared that the corrupted poll data was added back into the scores and the scores then read, ins at 5429 and outs at 6521. In the next 3 hours up to 21.53 GMT the ins increased by 6 votes (yes 6) to 5435 and the outs increased by 142 votes to 6663.

    So between 17.15 and 18.50 outs were outvoting ins in the ratio of over 13:1. Between 18.53 and 21.53 the outs were outvoting the ins by over 23:1. Can anyone confirm the integrity of this polling rate?

    Regards

    S

  380. David says:

    It’s also interesting to note the backgrounds of the so-call “experts” who contributed to the Prove-**it site:

    - We get a bloke from the biased Hadley Centre of the Met Office who is a mathematician
    - A research officer with an MSc.
    - A student (PhD in progress).
    - A Research Economist
    - A lecturer on sustainable development
    - Another Met Office computer modeller
    - A political “scientist”
    - Another bloke with a degree in politics
    - And finally a bloke whose claim to fame is as a nodding head in “Greatest Ever Disaster Movies Evere Made” (but to be fair, he at least looks like a scientist)

    Is that the best they can come up with?

  381. Lihard says:

    My data actually shows that there were to anomaly periods on the votes.

    The first from 27.10.2009 16:41:34 GMT to 16:48:41 GMT when the votes were temporally at zero. From 16:48:42 GMT to 17:13:25 GMT the votes were counting up normally.

    The second anomaly was from 17:13:26 to 18:49:29 GMT when the counts were going up from zero and ended up at 6 in and 82 out.

    Since then it returned to the previous values and started going normally again.

    I haven’t had the time to clean up the first hours of records but as of 27.10.2009 22:00 GMT I’ve been gathering the data with a better script and the data comes out in two clean files.

    -Lihard

  382. Richard Mackey says:

    Recording ‘count me out’, I reposted my earlier lengthy note with heaps of references with the addition of:

    “Additionally, there is a substantial quantity of the highest quality science published in the leading peer reviewed scientific journals that refute the IPCC hypothesis. Here is but one example:

    There are several evidence-based analyses of IPCC predictions which Prof Koutsoyiannis finds are refuted by the evidence:
    http://www.itia.ntua.gr/dk .

    His findings remain unchallenged.

    Demetris Koutsoyiannis is professor of the National Technical University of Athens in Hydrology and Analysis of Hydrosystems; also professor of Hydraulics in the Hellenic Army’s Postgraduate School of Technical Education of Officers Engineers; Editor of Hydrological Sciences Journal; and member of the editorial boards of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences and Water Resources Research.
    Prof Koutsoyiannis was awarded the Henry Darcy Medal 2009 by the European Geosciences Union for his outstanding contributions to the study of hydrometeorological variability and to water resources management.”

  383. Pops says:

    Well, all I’ll say is, it must have broken their poor, little hearts, as well as their minuscule budget, to have to pay to get the mess sorted. Then again, Downing Street probably signed the cheque. More taxpayer’s money down the tube. But perhaps the debacle has opened a few eyes:

    http://www.google.com/search?complete=0&hl=en&q=science+museum+poll&btnG=Search

    I guess Google is good for something….

  384. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    That’s pretty good. Keep it up.

    I’m sorry that they did not choose to admit that there was a problem, indicate how they would handle the earlier votes…. seems like they are going to try and pretend nothing happened. Sad.

  385. Frank Kotler says:

    I happened to visit the site when the counter was 0-0. I voted (again). Next I looked, they were back to “big numbers”. Shortly after that, the counter was 2-3. Hey! “We” are ahead by my one vote! Cool! Never had that happen before. Almost relieves my shame at being intimidated out of voting the very first time (when the “in”s were ahead).

    Currently 5438-6722. No idea what this “means”, at this point, except that “out”s seem to be gaining…

    Lihard’s “stuffing” has made a meaningless joke out of… uh, never mind… :)

    (seriously, Lihard, nice to see you using your skills to keep an eye on ‘em!)

    Best,
    Frank

  386. Phil's Dad says:

    “5438 counted in so far 6722 counted out so far” as at the time of this posting.
    Ref back to Dr Slop (14:28:42) that means outs are being added at >16 X the in rate. Do they really propose to take results of this quality to members. I can’t wait.

  387. Adam Gallon says:

    Now I’ve had the chance to read through this garbage-strewn piece of political agi-prop that masquerades as “scince”, I’ve written to both my MP and to the Board of Governers to voice my complaints about their inaccuracies and half-truths.
    Especially obvious are the statements about increased strength & frequency of hurricanes and the “Arctic ice melting back further year on year”
    I’ve linked them to Ryan mau’s work and the NOAA paper, plus the AMSR-E graph.
    They’re repeating the “urban legend” about natural processes being unable to explain the changes, so they’ve got Roy Spencer’s paper on the PDO and clouds to chew on.
    The Trustees can be reached by writing to
    Chairman of the Board of Trustees
    Science Mueum
    Exhibition Road
    London
    SW7 2DD

  388. Mike Core says:

    So what do we do?

    If we voted once and did not receive a validation email, can we vote again?

    This is all very confusing.

  389. David says:

    @Mike: Yes, vote again. If they have added a “verified” field to the database, then at some point delete all the unverified votes (i.e. those made before they actually swtiched on the verification), then your vote might not count.

  390. dodgy geezer says:

    16:00 GMT

    “5211 counted in so far – 764 counted out so far ”

    So the Outs have dropped back to less than 1000? I am impressed at the negative voting capabilities of the Science Museum – they could obviously teach Mugabe and the Afghan leaders a thing or two….

  391. dodgy geezer says:

    Could someone ask the Science Museum whether we are expected to vote again every time they change the figures? Only I don’t want to be accused of cheating….

  392. Mike Core says:

    Well I have just looked at the count and IN stands at about 5600 and OUT stands at 764

    So it looks like some heavey editing of the out count has gone on

    The whole thing is a mess and should in all honesty be started from scratch in a more professional manner.

  393. Kevin McGrane says:

    Look what’s happened today. This morning the counter stood at over 5000 for both ‘In’ and ‘out’, with ‘out’ slightly higher than ‘in’. The counter on the ‘out’ has been reset so that it now shows 5213 counted ‘in’ and 766 counted ‘out’. That’s ridiculous.

  394. Mike Core says:

    They are now BOTH down to 764 and 765 respectively. I have re-voted so lets see what happens.

  395. Mike Core says:

    This is just a joke!

    It now shows 764 IN and 5218 OUT

  396. dodgy geezer says:

    16:13 GMT

    764 counted in so far – 765 counted out so far

    Umm. This is well beyond the capability of the most ingenious vote-rigers. This has become Hockey-Stick mathematics. I recognise the de-centred principle component analysis….

    Professor Mann?… Is that you?…

  397. Lihard says:

    Yeah, the vote counts are going all over the place now.
    Here’s some of the most recent vote counts, the first number is the seconds counted from 22:00 27.10.2009:

    61408 out: 6956
    61617 out: 6957
    61937 out: 6958
    62073 out: 6959
    62145 in: 5457
    62180 in: 5458
    62265 out: 6960
    62334 out: 6961
    62441 out: 6962
    62794 in: 5459
    62947 out: 6963
    63321 out: 6964
    63473 in: 5470
    63473 out: 7097
    63483 out: 7098
    63487 out: 7099
    63515 out: 7097
    63787 out: 7098
    63835 in: 0
    63842 in: 5472
    63863 out: 7099
    63929 in: 5473
    63936 out: 7100
    63967 out: 7101
    63981 out: 7102
    64057 out: 7103
    64521 out: 7102
    64619 in: 5211
    64619 out: 764
    64738 out: 765
    64813 in: 5213
    64813 out: 764
    64834 out: 766
    64891 in: 764
    64920 out: 767
    65058 out: 768
    65122 in: 5216
    65122 out: 764
    65159 out: 765
    65198 out: 766
    65208 in: 5217
    65208 out: 764
    65480 in: 5218
    65483 out: 765
    65511 in: 764
    65652 out: 5217
    65680 out: 5218
    65766 out: 5219
    65783 out: 5220
    66043 out: 5221
    66087 out: 5222

  398. Mike Core says:

    This is farcical.

    I have just received a confirmation email so that bit works.

    Count stands at 765 IN and 5220 OUT.

    Were I managing this, I would be tempted to fall on my sword….

  399. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I voted the other day – just once and using my real name, when all the shenanigans were going on.

    I’ve just voted again. Currently 767 in and 5237 out.

  400. Ken Sharples says:

    I feel sorry for the young IT Teckie who has struggled all day
    to make sense of all this vote rigging.
    I think the figures are now showing the correct totals ie the
    totals with all the scripts taken out.
    the ‘outs’ have had 1889 votes removed.
    the ‘in’s’ have had a whopping 3680 votes removed.
    Further pruning might take place later, but I respect the
    integrity of the Museum to play fair on this.

    This is a massive vote for the skeptics !

    17:05….count in 767……..count out 5239 at 17:06 GMT

  401. R. Craigen says:

    Well done, Lihard!

    I think Anthony should be up for some kind of award for his amazing prophecy here :-) namely that this poll “might go horribly wrong”.

    I wonder if even he had any idea exactly how horribly wrong it might actually go. This is a wonderful online farce. I do hope after they clean up whatever garbage they can, the Museum actually retains and more importantly reads the messages left for them by the “out crowd”. In fact, I think as a public service they should publicly archive them online so people — especially the politicians they promise to report the results to — can see for themselves the level of understanding of both sides of this issue.

    Keep logging, Lihard — I really doubt the funny business is over yet.

    In the meantime I’m going back and planning to leave a suggestion in their “regular” feedback system that a representative make a visit here and explain what’s going on.

  402. James P says:

    Have the figures settled down now? I make it over 6:1 against, so presumably the warmists will be calling all their friends to persuade them to vote. Assuming they’ve got any left, that is… :-)

  403. James P says:

    I just went back to the SM site and refreshed the page, having been away about 45 minutes. The ‘in’ count went from 771 to 772 and the ‘out’ count went from 5249 to 5270. Oh dear.

  404. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    Yeah, I’d call this a public service. Good work. It’s a long time ’till Copenhagen; how long can you keep monitoring that site? I think your evidence will have quite a bit of importance when they get to the end of this fiasco, so if you can keep doing, great.

    UK residents should be contacting their MP’s and demanding answers. All of us should take some time to visit other blogs or sites that have commented on this and let them know what is going on, refering them back here if blog or site rules allow.

    Do not forget the roles the Miliband brothers played in launching that thing.

  405. geoffchambers says:

    Yes to Robert Phelan’s idea of writing to MPs, pointing out that Museum directors have no business mounting exhibitions at the request of the government. A museum is not a Government Policy Showroom. Yes to Adam Gallon’s idea of writing to the Chairman of the board of trustees. (He probably doesn’t get much fanmail) The complete list of trustees is at
    http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/boardoftrustees.asp
    and some of them might not be raving warmists. One of the trustees, Ms Street Porter, is a well known journalist, and might like to publicise the story.

  406. Mike Core says:

    I have emailed the Science Museum on the ‘contact us’ tab (not the PROVEIT!) contact, asking them what exactly is the problem and do they realise that these highly erratic counts ruin the credibility of the museum.

    I have left contact details so they can take every opportunity to revert back. If I get an answer I will submit it to WUWT (after seeking permission from the museum – we play fair).

    Whichever way you look at it, this is not a good day for this museum or science.

    Maybe this is what happens when science gets into bed with politics…

  407. AnonyMoose says:

    Based on the patterns of the votes, I think what happened:

    People who frequent the museum and its web site noticed the new page, and the few voters tended toward “counted in” because pro-warmers were more interested in the web page than others are.
    The web site became more widely known, and many more chose to be “counted out”.
    The newspaper reported the “counted out” dominance as a surprising aberration, attracting more people.
    The “counted in” tally suddenly increased by several thousand. Someone probably used automation to stuff the ballot box.
    The web site staff decided they couldn’t ignore the ballot box stuffing, so they added pro-human procedures to the voting process.
    The counters were reset to zero and voting restarted with the new procedures.
    The previous votes, or vote totals, were added back on to give some semblance of continuity.
    The previous votes were filtered in several ways which removed unacceptable ballot box stuffing. Vote tallies varied wildly as several filters were tested, because this was done on live data.

  408. Mike Core says:

    They have released a press statement as of 28/10/09 or should that be 10/28/09 -for the colonies….

    It reads:

    Between Friday 23 and Wednesday 28 October the poll associated with Prove It! was manipulated through repeat voting. This was undertaken by those who wanted to be “counted in” and those who wanted to be “counted out” from the statement: “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.” As a result the majority of duplicate votes cast during this period have been removed. Internet polls face this risk and the Science Museum has implemented additional security measures to reduce this risk.

    5984 were cast: 764 to counted in and 5220 to counted out. (Correct as at 16.20 Wednesday 28 October)

    So:

    Manipulation occured
    On BOTH sides of the debate
    It has been dealt with
    And now perhaps ‘may the best team win’.

    Lets assume that the Science Museum are playing fair and have realised how bad this would be – even if they dont get a preferred result.

    Bravo to the Science Museum for coughing up to this.

    Dorme bien

  409. AnonyMoose says:

    They’ve added an “About the count” page which echoes the press release’s statement about removing duplicate votes.
    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/about_the_count.aspx

  410. James P says:

    “Maybe this is what happens when science gets into bed with politics…”

    Or you hitch up to a Milibandwagon. It may do some good if the brothers (who, whatever you think of their politics, are not stupid) are made aware that they have backed the wrong horse here.

  411. Les Johnson says:

    I received my confirmation e-mail.

    It also appears that 5000 plus “Don’t Count Me in” people did as well.

    And about 700 for “Count me in”.

    You have paranormal powers, Anthony, to see that this was a poll that could go horribly wrong.

  412. Lihard says:

    Robert, the only drawback is that my electric bill will go up a bit, so if anybody wants to throw a couple of euros I wouldn’t mind =)

    But leaving the kidding aside all I have to do is to keep my laptop open all the time, so it’s not a problem to keep at it. I could even switch to my fpga board that uses even less power so my carbon footprint wouldn’t go up at all.

    -Lihard

  413. Stoic says:

    From the Science Museum website press release:
    “Between Friday 23 and Wednesday 28 October the poll associated with Prove It! was manipulated through repeat voting. This was undertaken by those who wanted to be “counted in” and those who wanted to be “counted out” from the statement: “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.” As a result the majority of duplicate votes cast during this period have been removed. Internet polls face this risk and the Science Museum has implemented additional security measures to reduce this risk.”
    It seems to me that the Science Museum is being disingenuous at the very least.
    Since the poll began, if you voted to be counted ‘in’, a website page came up giving the message: “To be counted in just tell us who you are*. We’ll pass the results on to the government to let them know where you stand.” Similarly, if you voted to be counted ‘out’, a website page came up giving the message: “To be counted out, just tell us who you are*. We’ll pass the results on to the government to let them know where you stand.”
    Both pages contained the information: * We won’t pass on your name or e-mail address. We’ll just use it to send you a confirmation email, and make sure that we only count people once.
    In fact nobody, so far as I am aware, received the “confirmation email” as described above until the count was temporarily reset to zero at approximately 17.15 GMT on 27 October. It seems that the Science Museum failed to implement the security measures it claimed to have put in place until 17.15 GMT on 27 October. This is prima facie evidence of complete incompetence on the part of the Science Museum. Would you trust this institution to provide you with objective evidence on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic?
    Regards
    S

  414. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    will a hundred Euros cover your costs for the next 45 days?

    Moderator: please send my e-mail address to Lihard.

  415. Ric Werme says:

    Oh, I can’t stand it any longer. I just hacked up a dumb Python program to monitor the ins and outs being recorded, check out http://wermenh.com/proveit.html

    It will settle down (I think) to record things once an hour, currently it’s checking every 5 minutes while I tweak it.

    I’ll post this on Tips & Notes once I scale it back to every hour.

  416. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Ric Werme (18:52:48) :

    I like it. Now we’ve got two records of what is happening on that site, yours and Lihard’s. I’m certain that there is more than one someone out there who;s thinking “Security? A challenge!”. Documenting any further tampering may be important come December. Documenting the lack of tampering may be important. The spin placed on this utterly unscientific poll, especially if the ridiculous “count-me-out” lead is maintained, will be interesting…. kind of along the lines of “… the baleful influence of the deniers is worse than we thought and this shows we need to step up our efforts to educate the public…”

  417. Ripper says:

    I got an Email from the museum to click on the link to confirm.

  418. David says:

    @Ric
    It’s dead, Jim
    http://wermenh.com/proveit.html
    Site Temporarily Disabled

  419. Jordan says:

    ” the baleful influence of the deniers is worse than we thought and this shows we need to step up our efforts to educate the public…”

    As I see it the results will go one of three ways:

    1. The poll is quietly withdrawn. In which case we get a good laugh at the science museum for it amateurish attempt the politics of climate alarmism.

    2. The poll returns a “count me in” majority. In which case we get a good laugh at the science museum for putting up a slanted poll and having the neck to report the result as though it means anything.

    3. The poll returns a “count me out” majority. In which case we get a good laugh at the science museum for putting up a slanted poll and still not getting the result it so obviously wanted.

    So it’s a case of heads we win, tails we win, and no-toss we win.

    And when we are done with scoffing at the museum, we can always pause to chastise the management and trustees for damaging its reputation in this hapless foray into the politics of climate alarmism.

    I can’t wait for December.

  420. Ric Werme says:

    David (05:12:26) :

    @Ric
    It’s dead, Jim
    http://wermenh.com/proveit.html
    Site Temporarily Disabled

    Yeah, probably An Inconvenient Timing.
    For the indefinite future, the Museum data is also (only?) available at

    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/proveit.html

    I’m currently updating things every half hour.

    Current counts: In: 806 Out: 5580

  421. Lihard says:

    Robert, thanks for the offer but I really don’t need it. It won’t cost me much.

    I’ll also put up a system to update my data to a web server, but that will be when I have the time.

    -Lihard

  422. Phil Clarke says:

    It is still not right.

    I legitiimately voted ‘Count Me In’ just once prior to the ‘reset’, but then seeing that 5000-odd ‘In’ votes had been removed I voted again to see what would happen. My vote was accepted, so it seems that at least some legitimate ‘in’ votes were incorrectly trashed.

    I fear the result, however it turns out, has decidedly minor credibility.

  423. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Phil:

    I suspect that they did not retain the “metadata” – just incremented the vote counter. It’s possible the purges involved votes that came in the four or five series that incremented like clockwork…. thus anyone who voted before the changes may be allowed to vote afterwards because they don’t have the data to say one way or the other. I have chosen not to vote again because it looks like my original vote is being counted, even if unattributed with “metadata”. I still think that the better course would have been to simply reset and invite everyone to vote again. As it is, the seven to one voting rate of “count-me-out”s to “count-me-in”s, while personally gratifying, is also disturbing and unnatural. I don’t believe that the gap is that wide… something else is in play here… but the lack of transparency in this process makes it anyone’s guess.

  424. Bernie says:

    There has been a small surge in “in” votes in the last 90 minutes. I suspect that someone has figured out a way to undermine the vote. At this point, some out of control CAGWers will probably want to discredit the poll completely. It is way to embarrassing for the powers that be.

  425. Jordan says:

    “I still think that the better course would have been to simply reset and invite everyone to vote again. ”

    Nah. That would be trying to close the stable door.

    In the style of the Monty Python sketch: “this is a dead poll, DECEASED. IT IS NO LONGER”.

    What kind of poll starts off by saying that the organiser is convinced by one of the options? The science museum is therefore not an independent poller, but is partisan.

    And if that were not enough it actively seeks to helps one side with the “spread the word” link. Is that supposed to be honourable and fair?

    There is no attempt to present both sides of the argument. By that, I don’t mean the science museum stating what it thinks the counter-arguments are (they cannot because they have already made up their minds). They should invited the sceptical side to put its case in a way that would have been respected by the “count me out” vote.

    And the science museum gave no indication of what they considered to be acceptable conduct. This could have been a “horse race” or it could have been OPOV (we are simply not told).

    It was only when things started to go wrong that they tried to patch it up with the sticking plaster of their own intervention. As the science museum is partisan, the votes cast have therefore been manipulated.

    The poll is totally wrong on any number of measures. The better course would be for the science museum to ditch “Prove It” altogether. Do so with honour – say they got it wrong and express some regret. Anything else will just lead to more embarrassment.

  426. Steve Smith says:

    Let it run, I say.

    I know I’m a naive sort of bloke, but this seems like a real opportunity to me.

    1. The Milibandwagon “Thought Police” sponsored this poll, right?
    2. The Science Museum appears to be “playing it straight” at the moment, indicating some sort of scientific integrity (well -maybe).
    3. If the voting carries on as it is now, the Government will have to figure out a way to disown the Science Museum on the basis of incompetence of some sort.

    So, next time they say that the science is “crystal clear” (as Stern did yesterday on the BBC), or “We should just trust the scientists” as Mili has done on numerous occasions, this can be thrown back in their faces.

    They won’t be able to claim that “the message hasn’t been got across properly”, because they think they have presented the facts that “PROVE IT”.

    Only thing I can’t quite work out just at the moment is how to gain a suitable public platform from which to do the “throwing”.

    Any ideas guys and girls?

  427. Jordan says:

    “Let it run, I say.”

    Why not. My last post was a suggestion to save the science museum any more blushes. I have no wish to see them letting themselves down any more than they have already.

    “but this seems like a real opportunity to me”

    Hmm – an opportunity like John Cleese banging the parrot on the counter to prove that it was dead. Was it any more dead as a result?

    C’mon Steve – any one of the above reasons I gave above would have comprehensively invalidated any poll with serious intent. This will never be able to rise above the level of a shabby publicity stunt. Nothing of any value will come from it.

    OK – perhaps that’s too pessimistic. It still holds out the prospect of giving us all a good laugh.

  428. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Steve Smith (13:10:36) :

    Suggestions? Sure, get organized. Further up in this thread both Alec J and Geoff Chambers were talking about a UK Climate Sanity party to stand in the elections.

    Find like-minded people locally and start meeting.

    Start a letter campaign to your MP’s and the papers. Comment on blogs. Refer them back here.

    People in the London area might want to organize tours to the Science Museum with a tour-leader versed in debunking the claims of the alarmists to ostentatiously critique the exhibit. If they get thrown off the premises, publicize it.

    Hold protests in front of the offices of your MP’s and the Museum. Even two people with placards will draw attention. Distribute leaflets. Take out advertisements in the newspaper.

  429. StuartR says:

    This is almost honest of them I guess. The Miliband metro London based sensibilities have convinced themselves that it would be a nice thing to have a couple of votes thrown their way by some pseudo democratic means.

    So they asked some poor museum to comply, not realising they are amateurs. I am looking forward to the books I will read about this if I live to seventy!

    Of course the Gov can forget it at a whim, as we all should anyway. But it is interesting watching how they do it today.

  430. Bernie says:

    Jordan:
    You are right that everything in this design biases this poll in favor of saying “in”. The staggering result is that the “outs” are out polling the “ins” 7 to 1. This is like a robust test of an hypothesis – we will set up the most negative set of conditions and see if people still say they don’t believe in CAGW. They did it accidentally – apocryphally like Fleming and Curie – but lets not through out some interesting data without an explanation of the counter-intuitive finding.

  431. Jordan says:

    “The staggering result is that the “outs” are out polling the “ins” 7 to 1.”

    Trust me Bernie, this is not a measure of anything worth paying attention to.

    The only thing left to do is to warn the science museum against any false residual hopes they might have that this ill-conceived “Prove It” campaign will go down as anything other than shoddy marketing of AGW alarmism.

    Do they really want to give us yet another “Hanno 2009″ or “YAD061″? If so, the management and trustees of the science museum face the prospect of earning themselves a place in history alongside Lysenco.

  432. David Alan says:

    Currently the vote goes as follows:
    880 counted in so far

    5851 counted out so far

  433. Stoic says:

    StuartR (16:07:15) : “So they asked some poor museum to comply, not realising they are amateurs.”

    Wise up! The museum may be behaving amateurishly, but can I refer you to the following article in Times Higher Education? http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=209274

    Regards

    S

  434. geoffchambers says:

    Jordan, of course you’re right, this poll was never a true test of public opinion, but it has its merit as a test of how many obsessive bloggers like ourselves there are on each side of the fence. Robert Phelan is right to be surprised at the scores, given that green blogs and bloggers must outnumber us sceptics by a magnitude or two. My theory is that Greens just don’t frequent blogs which have “science” in the title, and that many of the sceptics are not WUWT fans, but museum regulars who like science and technology and the modern world that they have made possible. They’re not going to be the kind of people who like the “follow the green arrows and we’ll tell you what to think” approach.
    Thanks to Dodgy Geezer who provided a list of those responsible for the exhibition – a bunch of marketing men and design consultants. e.g.:“VentureThree is a world-class firm of global brand consultants. Branding is a powerful business tool..” followed by 7 photos, two of the Miliband brothers and five of the “Prove It” logo.
    Jordan, instead of sparing the museum blushes, we should be rubbing their faces in it. Robert Phelan has the right activist ideas, but he’s obviously not English.

  435. Robert E. Phelan says:

    geoffchambers (07:07:13) :
    “…but he’s obviously not English…”

    Awww, is it that obvious? Doesn’t matter, I aspire to have a musical written in my honor: “They seek him here, they seek him there, those Greenies seek him everywhere! He meddles with the Greenie Revolution….”

    This Science Museum debacle is an excellent opportunity for meddling. One of the moderators on this blog once remarked “…I believe in the educational power of embarrassment…” This is one of those moments…. and that embarrassing tin can may also be tied to a Miliband tail as well as Chris Rapley’s. Poor museum indeed. Spread the word. Publicize that poll. It was INTENDED to present a different picture than the one now being displayed, so let them deal with the reality of it. The figures might well change in their favor, finally, but right now they raise all kinds of questions in inquiring minds. Encourage questions.

  436. geoffchambers says:

    Robert Phelan
    My remark that you were obviously not English was meant admiringly.
    It would be highly suspicious if the figures changed now in favour of the warmists. Like you, I was astonished at the huge sceptical lead. I’m not convinced by my own tentative explanation above and would love to hear other theories, in particular as to why the warmists have not launched a counterattack. It would be easy to spread the word among the myriad green blogs and get a few thousand “yes” votes, thus saving Miliband’s face and providing a spurious “vote” in favour of the British government’s policy at Copenhagen. Why don’t they do this?
    I don’t live in England and therefore may be missing something about the finer points of Green psychology. Have they already given up on Copenhagen and are planning some kind of direct action policy? Do they just not care about the weight of public opinion?

  437. Sandy says:

    ” Do they just not care about the weight of public opinion?”
    You got it. Public opinion is fairly irrelevant when all parties are identical and will do as Brussels tells them anyway. Whether you take the Tory gravy-train to Brussels or the Labour train you certainly don’t need the public messing up a nice little earner.

  438. Emil says:

    @ geoffchambers (13:30:47)
    “Do they just not care about the weight of public opinion?”

    I think the language is almost as intimidating for the C02 fundamentalists (after all, they believe that the government is in the hands of big, and pollution-friendly, businesses, and that they are fighting their fight from a minority position) as it is for the AGW skeptics.

  439. Robert E. Phelan says:

    geoffchambers (13:30:47) :
    “My remark … was meant admiringly….”

    I appreciate that, but the truth is that we Americans have been “dumbed down” over the last quarter century or so…. Frankly, I’d never heard of the Miliband Brothers until this museum flap blew up. Despite all the information sources at our disposal, we tend to be unaware of what is happening outside our immediate neighborhoods. At one time, a long time ago, I was aware of what was happening in UK politics… far less so, now. American media does not report on UK issues. Or Mexican Issues. Or Canadian Issues. I know more about Brittany’s choices in underwear than I know about….

    I returned from the Orient in 1987, kicking and screaming, after 14 years there. Under a damn-near fascist dictatorship I got more world news than I got on my return to America. In Taiwan we had an international community that gathered for beery discussions about everything….

    I got back from China, and all anyone wanted to kbnow was if I got the World Series results…..

  440. Jordan says:

    geoffchambers and Robert E. Phelan

    There is so much we agree with on various things discussed here.

    “instead of sparing the museum blushes, we should be rubbing their faces in it”

    With regret, I’ve got a feeling that’s exactly what we’ll be doing. I’ve said as much a couple of times on this thread.

    But pouring ridicule on the science museum is a poor second prize. I’d much prefer to respect our scientific institutions because they have earned my respect. There is still an opportunity for them to withdraw the campaign and admit that it was a mistake.

    “Prove It” could be remembered in the context of a modern example of Lysencoism. Right now, there is an outside chance that the management and trustees can be convinced that they are taking a risk with their reputations.

  441. Ric Werme says:

    I’ve spent a little more time working on my Science Museum monitor program.

    The URL I posted before with the raw data has changed to http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/proveitraw.html

    The original URL, http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/proveit.html now displays a table, one line per day. Each line has the date, the total change during the day, and counts at two hour intervals. I might switch to 3 hour intervals to make the table narrower. The Museum says they’ll run the poll until Copenhagen, the table format should work okay until then.

    At last count they were In: 911, Out: 5978.

  442. geoffchambers says:

    Robert Phelan
    I suppose you could sum up your Far East experience cynically by saying: you can have free speech, or intelligent discussion, but not both.
    Jordan
    Sorry if my language was excessively virulent. I imagine the Science Museum, like the BBC, or the Guardian, contains a number of thoughtful people who are unhappy to see their institution fall into the hands of a narrow-minded faction. When I write to the Chairman of the Trustees, I shall be quietly reasonable. Here, I allow myself a little rant.
    I wondered aloud: where were the Greens? Why weren’t they using their undoubted numerical advantage to “win” this pseudo-poll for the consensus?
    Maybe this is the answer to my question. Joseph D’Aleo at ICECAP reports: “Last week it was announced that George Soros pledged $1.1 billion to fund ‘Climate Change initiatives’”.
    So a millon green webmasters are presumably too busy writing “Dear George” letters to worry about countering our foolish little attempt to express our opinions.

  443. Jordan says:

    “excessively virulent”. It never came across to me as any more than an expression of your view.

    Recognising your point about thoughtful people, I think there are a number of influential opinion formers in the UK who probably see Global Warming as a passive political game – fit in to get along. What’s in it for them to rock the boat?

    That’s why I mentioned Lysenco and reputation. We need something to impress upon people that this isn’t OK for anything which wishes to call itself scientific. How do they want to be remembered?

  444. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Ed Milliband is defending the little girl bed-time story. We’re looking at a potential PM?

  445. David says:

    A couple of weeks ago I sent this:
    “Sir/madam. Under the FOI I would like to know the costs
    associated with the Science Museum’s “Prove It” campaign and website,
    and the costs in creating its new associated exhibit in the museum,
    scheduled for 2010. Furthermore, I would like a full breakdown as to the
    souce of the funds to be allocated.”

    Today I received this:
    “The Prove-it exhibit and website cost £165,000…
    … the climate change exhibtion and web site that will be delivered in June 2010, the total cost for this is £4,000,000. This will be funded as follows:
    £2,000,000 from internal funds – National Museum of Science & Industry
    £1,000,000 from a private individual
    £1,000,000 from a corporate sponsor.”

    I have made a futher FOI request to find out who the latter two are. UK readers are welcome to make your own:
    http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/foienquiryform.asp

  446. James P says:

    “to find out who the latter two are”

    Good luck – I regard it as a political donation.

  447. James P says:

    And I see the ‘ins’ have finally broken 1000. Shame the ‘outs’ are over six times that!

  448. David says:

    @James P
    “Good luck – I regard it as a political donation.”
    Indeed, that’s why I’m FOI-ing it… be interesting what (if anything) comes back.

  449. James P says:

    Robert

    “We’re looking at a potential PM?”

    I think that’s the other one (called David – they’re not easy to tell apart), but he’s just as responsible for the science museum fiasco. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them, but it must be difficult for politicians, who are mostly clueless about anything technical, to know which advisors to listen to. Perhaps the answer is to have more politicians with science degrees, but of course of the candidates are busy doing something more useful…

  450. James P says:

    That should be ‘most of the candidates’ – sorry!

  451. Robert E. Phelan says:

    James P:

    I think the Milibands have not yet decided how to divvy up the positions. As for the suggestion that maybe they are just clueless… I don’t believe it. Just as with certain factions here in the States, they’ve decided that AGW is exactly the horse they need to ride to achieve goals that have nothing to do with science and even less with saving the world.

  452. Ric Werme says:

    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/proveit.html reports that for Nov 2nd, there were more “count me in” (95) vs. “count me out” (83).

    Someone suggested that there might be a push on school kids returning after a holiday to be counted in, though 95 in votes isn’t much of a groundswell.

    Current total: 1062 in, 6147 out.

  453. Stoic says:

    Currently the AGWers are outvoting the sceptics by 2:1 at the Science Museum Prove It poll. Get voting!

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

  454. Stoic says:

    Looks like there is a push going on. The ‘in’ vote has jumped and the score is now : 1201 in to 6202 out.

  455. David says:

    Or graphically:
    http://proveit.gofreeserve.com/
    (data from Ric)

    There is a hockey-stick on the Ins!

  456. Turboblocke says:

    Let’s try a bit of self honesty here with this poll: before WUWT publicised it the results were 333 In 234 Out as you can see from the screen shot above. Presumably this result reflects people who visited the science museum web site on a normal everyday basis.

    Once a well known sceptic site has publicised it, it would be obvious that the chances of getting a “meaningful” result were significantly reduced.

  457. Ric Werme says:

    David (05:33:42) :

    Or graphically:
    http://proveit.gofreeserve.com/
    (data from Ric)

    There is a hockey-stick on the Ins!

    Thank you very much for the graph! I just didn’t have to do it myself. One thing that might change is to fill in the missing data (gasp) for the 2 hour points. If I do that I’ll note it on the end of data lines in proveitraw.html, so be sure your code ignores extra columns. If you want, I’ll add one tonight so you can check it out. I like your page title. I might copy it myself.

    My “preferred” web hosting site has reenabled the account, so http://wermenh.com/proveit.html works again and triggers the page reference code.

    Also, a couple days ago, I have the file doing an automatic reload every half hour so you can leave the page on a stray browser window and it updates over the day. (Dave, you can add inside if you want to do the same.)

  458. David says:

    I think the INs are coming from George Monbiot’s blog which posted the link yesterday.

  459. James P says:

    “Presumably this result reflects people who visited the science museum web site on a normal everyday basis.”

    Except that the first people to know about it would have been those involved with the launch, and their friends and relations, nearly all of whom will have been in favour. After the unforeseen (!) robovoting, the corrected figures were heavily in favour of the outs, and have remained so. There will doubtless be some cyclical variation as the warmists rally round and the sceptics do likewise, but the end result should be broadly representative, shouldn’t it?

  460. Bernie says:

    Clearly there are waves of voting that will lead to big swings in the ratio of INs to OUTs. The key problem is to ensure that these votes are not robovotes of some kind. Earlier someone was automatically monitoring the voting pattern – it would be interesting to hear what patterns they have detected. My own distinctly manual monitoring found an unusual jump in IN votes starting early this morning Eastern Time (11/3/2009) with a rate of 25 IN votes per hour compared to 4 IN votes per hour the previous day. The rate for OUT votes, was 4 votes per hour on 11/2/2009 and 8 votes per hour on 11/3/2009. The absolute numbers are still relatively modest: 425 IN votes today and 130 OUT votes. Despite the significant changes in the last 24 hours, 80% of the votes are still OUT.

  461. Robert E. Phelan says:

    James P (11:18:09) :
    “… but the end result should be broadly representative, shouldn’t it?…”

    James, the short answer is “no”. The poll is representative of nothing except how many activists can be mobilized to vote. The “outs” pulled way ahead mainly because Anthony publicized the poll on this thread. Apparently Monbiot finally got a glimmer and publicized it for his trolls.

    A representative sample looks like the population it was intended to measure. Those fine people at the Science Museum have not indicated what population they intend to represent. People from all over the world are voting… it would not surprise me to learn that a Koi-San hunter-gatherer with a smartphone has voted. Should ninth-graders be allowed to vote?

    This poll is primarily an exercise in one-upmanship. It is not scientific. It is not representative. It is a fraud and the only valid result will be if skeptic votes outnumber “count-me-in” votes. This poll was engineered to maximize the count-me-ins.

  462. James P says:

    Like many people, I have an internet account that provides multiple email addresses (anything@myaccount.com) so I could, if so inclined, vote as many times as my patience would allow. I wonder how many warmists are taking advantage of this..?

  463. Robert E. Phelan says:

    James P (06:07:49) :

    Their security was non-existent at the start but they claim to have implemented something a little more robust. If it was my poll I would have had the voting scripts recording the IP address and maybe even querying the MAC address of the NIC adapter…. one vote per computer. All they really intended to do was be able to present a large number of “count-me-in” votes to much fanfare and to the satisfaction of their political masters, the Miliband Brothers.

    I’d like to see more skeptics get mobilized to drive the count upm but either way, its just propaganda.

  464. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Uhh.. Lihard? are you still out there?

    Moderator: please forward my e-mail address to Lihard… I’d love to see what he’s got.

  465. Ric Werme says:

    FWIW, the In count is over 2000.
    “2029 counted in so far, 6475 counted out so far.”

    http://wermenh.com/proveit.html shows a fair amount of British daytime activity.

  466. Lihard says:

    Robert, here’s the latest of my prove it vote count logging. The link has the two raw data files and two plots I made from the data:

    http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=62965c1675d258c800d27174b47c66570574a07afa1e342b61390143435ec59c

    -Lihard

  467. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard, that is very good. The graphic seems to show a flattening curve for the “ins” after a boost… looks like the curves for both will start to match unless a major blog summons the faithful once more. If those science museum idiots have been collecting any kind of metadata, your files and Ric Werme’s combined with them might form the basis of a very nice paper on internet polling. Keep it up.

  468. dodgy geezer says:

    I see the ‘in’s are climbing steadily. Presumably they have got a terminal at the exhibition which everyone is invited to type into – producing a slow but guaranteed list of ‘yes’s.

    Unsurprisingly, those of us who don’t believe in Global Warming won’t attend the exhibition – perhaps someone should advertise this poll on The Register, or some other blog….

  469. R. Craigen says:

    “Presumably they have got a terminal at the exhibition which everyone is invited to type into – producing a slow but guaranteed list of ‘yes’s.” -DG

    Good point. It would be easy for our stats collectors to correct for this — do a simple comparison of average rate of IN vote during museum hours versus hours of closure. Can we assume no OUT votes occur during museum hours? Can we also correct for variations in voting at different times of day? (The above correction wouldn’t work, for example, if the museum closes at 9 PM, and most voters (of either variety) come from the same time zone and tend not to do much online after that time.

  470. Ric Werme says:

    I’ve been a bit surprised that the voting follows England’s daytime hours. Nighttime plateaus of few votes stand out every night since the in votes started their higher slope about Nov 3. It continued through the weekend (when schools were closed but museum attendance is higher). I’d rather leave further speculation to the Brits here.

  471. marchesarosa says:

    The surge is because of an article by George Monbiot in The Guardian on 2nd November. It actually mentioned the “Prove It” poll, probably because he wanted to galvanise a few more warmist votes. It certainly worked!

    You can find his article here entitled “Death Denial”

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/#more-1221

    If any of your pals have not yet voted, get them to do so now.

    Toodle-oo

  472. marchesarosa says:

    George is a bit of a alarmist guru in the UK. He actually provided a link in the blog version of the article to take his fans directly to the “Prove It” website. that’s the ONLY reason why the warmist voting has surged.

  473. dodgy geezer says:

    Not only is the ‘in’ vote climbing steadily, but the ‘out’ vote is now declining.

    Figures at 13:04 GMT were “2981 counted in so far 5220 counted out so far”.

    I wonder why the ‘out’ vote has dropped by over 1000….

  474. David says:

    I would suggest that someone has done a projection on if/when the ins will overtake the outs and if that will happen before the close of the vote. A small adjustment has been made to ensure the politic of vote suits the required outcome.

  475. Ric Werme says:

    I just posted on the Tips & Notes page:

    The Science Museum just chopped off 1500 “count me out” votes.

    From http://wermenh.com/proveitraw.html

    Nov 12 09:00 UTC:   2957   6700
    Nov 12 09:30 UTC:   2959   6701
    Nov 12 10:00 UTC:   2959   6703
    Nov 12 10:30 UTC:   2961   6703
    Nov 12 11:00 UTC:   2968   6703
    Nov 12 11:30 UTC:   2972   5217
    Nov 12 12:00 UTC:   2974   5218
    Nov 12 12:30 UTC:   2979   5220
    Nov 12 13:00 UTC:   2981   5220
    

    What’s up with that? I wonder if they’ve identified Lihard’s “contribution” and chopped it out.

  476. Bernie says:

    I noticed the same unexplained adjustment in the count and I sent them an email asking for an explanation. Does anyone have a day by day count? I have 6558 Outs and 2309 Ins as of Nov 7 at 21:06.

  477. Bernie says:

    Ric:
    Thanks. What is really startling is that there is no apparent adjustment to the Ins.

  478. Ric Werme says:

    Oh good grief, look at the 1600 UTC counts!:

    Nov 12 11:00 UTC: 2968 6703
    Nov 12 11:30 UTC: 2972 5217

    Nov 12 15:30 UTC: 2989 5224
    Nov 12 16:00 UTC: 4439 7233

  479. Robert E. Phelan says:

    First the “count-me-out”s drop at 12:00 by 1445 votes, according to Ric’s figures. Four hours later They are back up by 2012 votes and the “count-me-ins” are up by 1556. Ric, I do believe Lihard’s “contribution” was deducted when they originally reset the numbers On October 28. It was not long after that Lihard set up a monitoring scheme like yours to watch the poll, but his page has not updated for two days now.

    http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=62965c1675d258c800d27174b47c66570574a07afa1e342b61390143435ec59c

    The museum has an “about the count” tab on a tool bar at the bottom of the page, but unlike the last time, there is still no announcement of what the radical manipulation was about. So much for their improved security. It looks like someone (or more than one someone) could not resist tampering. Again.

    It is time to start drawing attention to this. Again. E-mail the museum. E-mail the papers. Post on blogs. Humiliate them.

    Good work Ric.

    Lihard, are you still maintaining your monitoring? I told you it might prove important.

  480. Lihard says:

    I’m still monitoring, though I missed the recent “corrections” to the counts. My network connection drops out occasionally and I have to reboot my computer. And as this happened when I was away I missed hours of voting. I should test if I could get my fpga board to monitor the site, that should be more stable.

    -Lihard

  481. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard (10:39:43) :

    Damn. I was hoping your second by second count would be able to tell us if the changes were all one-entry replacements, which would indicate they were changes from within the museum’s system, or a rapid run-up similar to your original hack, which woould indicate that people external to the museum are meddling with poll and that the museum’s security still sucks.

    Well, still almost a month to go. Wish this thing would get more publicity from “our” side.

  482. dodgy geezer says:

    Just to keep people in the loop:

    Figures at 20:04 GMT were “4446 counted in so far 7235 counted out so far”.

    I wonder where the sudden doubling of the ‘in’ vote has come from….

    This ‘poll’ has passed through all the stages of embarrassment, and become pure farce. Whatever the result, I would love to see how the Science Museum are going to present it.

    I assume they initially thought that they would have a modest few thousand exhibition viewers voting in, with an overwhelming ‘yes’, and would use the figures to show how ‘successful’ their exhibition was. Now, whatever they do, they have an unexpected problem on their hands.

    If I were the exhibition curator, I would have withdrawn the vote entirely when the multiple voting started, claimed that my ‘scientific investigation’ had been ruined by deniers, and presented myself as a brave martyr for science. As it is, he just looks stupid and incompetent…

  483. Bernie says:

    Occam’s razor and Murphy’s Law both suggest that incompetence is the underlying reason for this totally and irredeemably embarrassing piece of attempted astroturfing.

  484. Robert E. Phelan says:

    E-mail I sent to them today:

    Gentlemen:

    Your “Prove It! Poll” has once again been compromised. At 12:00 UTC today, November 12, 2009, the “count-me-in” votes declined by almost 1500 votes. At 16:00 UTC, four hours later, they were UP by 2000 votes. Also at 16:00 hours the “count-me-in” votes had increased by more than 1500 votes in less than two hours. There is no statement on your “about the count” page explaining these manipulations.

    Several weeks ago when the tampering first occurred I sent you an e-mail with recommendations on how to make your poll something more than a crude propaganda exercise. You chose to neither respond to me nor implement my well-intentioned suggestions.

    Gentlemen, this whole ill-advised and poorly executed project with its shoddy science, lack of both transparency and security, and blatant political posturing is a humiliation. If you don’t feel the humiliation at this point you have my pity.

    Robert E. Phelan

  485. Ric Werme says:

    Mea culpa dept. There’s an overnight gap in my Proveit stats. To test out changes to my web page generator I commented out the call to get and process the Museum page. It doesn’t look like I’ve lost anything interesting, only a dozen votes are in the gap.

    Nothing to see here, move right along please.

  486. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Nice. Really nice. 10:54 P.M. EDT…. checking the poll I’m getting a SERVER BUSY error. Hope Lihard and Ric are both up and running.

  487. Ric Werme says:

    Interesting, I hadn’t been paying attention. I’m missing the samples from 0200 to 0430. The 0500 one worked, the 0530 is less than a minute away … Yep, that’s okay.

    My system has several hung programs waiting for their data, that implies the system has been up but the web server is either unresponsive or it couldn’t start the application that fetches current data, pretty much what Robert saw.

    Staff might have shut things down, for some maintenance, though starting that at 0130 is odd timing. Oh well, I guess it’s back, not much worse for the experience.

    http://wermenh.com/proveitraw.html

  488. geoffchambers says:

    The Science Museum is back in the news with this article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/nov/16/science-museum-climate-change
    The commenters clearly have no idea about the story of this exhibition and its ridiculous poll. I do recommend people to inform them. I’ve posted a comment, but since I’m under premoderation (the Guardian’s Kafka treatment) there’s no guarantee my comment will appear.

  489. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Hmmmph. With all the brouhaha about the leaked e-mails the science museum poll has been neglected. Wonder if we’ll start to see an uptick in voting as the e-mail leak gets wider publicity?

  490. Lihard says:

    It’s clear now that the email leak won’t be presented in the MSM any further. It got little mention and will be dropped.

    The only methods to get wider publicity for it are the ones which Bonnie mentioned in the CRU hack thread or getting the only significant free media to cover it. And by free media I mean YouTube.

    There could be a real change to get the founders or decision makers at YouTube/Google to promote a video concerning this leak. But that would require coordinated effort. What if a couple of hundred or even thousand scientist contacted them and tried to arrange a front page place for the video. For the content of that video you should get the expert opinion from professionals in the media. I think Bonnie could be one of those.

    There really needs to be action on this matter.

  491. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Lihard:

    Funny, this is on You Tube and I thought of you.

    Take a look.

    Reply: It’s a shame most people will not get the joke. But it is hilarious. ~ ctm

  492. Lihard says:

    Perhaps I should make some noise on the threads related to the hack.

    The only thing the MSM is going to report about this is the occasional reference made my a republican on the subject in the U.S. congress if even that.

    To me YouTube isn’t really a place for anything serious. But what else do we have?! Even if the main audience is pretty young on youtube there are videos with more serious content there.

    By the way Robert do you know what does the “All your emails are belong to us” or should I say “All your base are belong to us” refers to?

  493. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Not until you asked. I think it’s even funnier now. It’s a young audience we need. Take a look at Tom Fuller’s little on-line poll here:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d17-Examinercoms-first-global-warming-surveymore-analysis

    He knows that his poll is not scientific or representative, but it does track with other, more scientifically based representative polls. AGW believers tend to be young. They need to be pried away.

    Let me make a kind of digression here… here in the U.S. it wasn’t until about 1960 that more than 50% of the American population had high school diplomas. Only 9% had college degrees. Most of those degrees were in Liberal Arts where students had to master history, philosophy, art, language, literature… they had a wide perspective on the world, and they ran the country. Our LEADING universities, from where we draw most of our leadership, are still liberal arts colleges.

    Today, more than 25% of our population have college degrees, but most of those are essentially career preparation degrees. Many of my students, perhaps most, do not read well, can’t write, have no knowledge of philosophy, literature or history, little awareness of cultural history, and little in the way of critical thinking skills. They are simply being groomed as a better-trained proletariat, and they don’t even realize it. Not all college degrees are equal, even if my students believe they are. In a sense, it is a 21st century version of Marx’s “false consciousness”. When the young people of Europe and America find out just how badly they’ve been betrayed, the results will be horrific.

  494. Steve Smith says:

    Let’s see what can be done, then.

    For UK citizens who follow this excellent website, I have managed (amazingly) to get a PETITION published on the No 10 site which (supposedly) should receive the Prime Minister’s attention if signed by “a certain” number of British nationals.

    It requests a Public Enquiry into the SCIENCE of climate change.

    The aim is to gain such a large number of signatures BEFORE HE GOES OFF TO COPENHAGEN that he will never be able to claim that he “didn’t know”.

    I know this is an old thread, and maybe nobody is looking at it any more, but I leave
    this message here first because its subject matter is “petitions”.

    I’ll now see if I can find a better place to publicize this petition, but please, everybody, get the message out in whatever way you feel appropriate. Anthony, maybe you could pitch in to help us beleaguered Brits?

    And, of course, vote! (see below)

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/warmfeeling/ (Sorry if you have to cut and paste. I’m not clever enough to insert a link.)

    Steve

  495. Steve Smith says:

    Ooooo! It seems to have done it all by itself!

    Wonders of modern science! I’ll never say “computers are rubbish” again.

    S

Comments are closed.