UK Prove It! poll – still taking votes

From WUWT Tips and Notes comments by Robert E. Phelan:

Ric Werme has been tracking the Science Museum “Prove It!” poll since October 29th here:

http://wermenh.com/proveit.html

Starting November 2 the “count-me-in” votes have substantially outnumbered the “count-me-out” votes, although the outs have remained ahead in the over-all tally. Since November 24th the daily count has begun to favor the “outs” again. It looks like Climategate is starting to have an effect.

For those who may not yet know the story behind the poll and the ups and downs, WUWT has a nice thread here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/

The poll can be found here:

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

If anyone has not yet voted in that poll, this would be a good time to send a message. Do not be intimidated by the “we will forward your comment to the government” message. It appears for both the “in” and “out” voters; it may have been intended to be intimidating, but now is the time for everyine to send a message: “We will NOT be intimidated!”

About these ads

87 thoughts on “UK Prove It! poll – still taking votes

  1. I’ve both contacted my MP & written to the Trustees of the Science Museum to complain about the numerous errors (eg increased number of hurricanes) and ephemeral nature of the online (& one assumes the physical) exhibition.

  2. What are the odds that Miliband will have them quietly pull the plug sometime over the next eight days?

    Or perhaps someone will be hired to give the IN poll-numbers some value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) improvements.

  3. tim c (10:47:10) :

    > For all of us Americans don’t think twice it’s the British Gov.

    So? The Museum is open to all nationalities, and I yes, I would like to tell the British government not to negotiate a deal at Copenhagen.

    I really doesn’t matter much – a real treaty won’t get signed, and the British gov’t will ignore the poll anyway, especially if they look at its rocky start. The trends in Dave’s graph of my data capture are more interesting than anything else about the poll.

    BTW, I have a web counter on that page that access my home computer (Comcast didn’t offer a useful counter). It’s impressive what a link in main post does!

    Also, this is one event we’ll be able to tag. Here are the recent in/out counts:

    Nov 29 18:00 UTC: 5426 7954
    Nov 29 18:30 UTC: 5430 7954
    Nov 29 19:00 UTC: 5433 7987

    The first hit on my page was at 1841 UTC.

  4. It does make me smile though, the comment in the link about being expected to know the Science Museum is in London. As if the Museum of Natural History is just sooooo obviously American from the name!

  5. Nov 12th looks very suspicious – 3000 votes removed from Count me Out which were added to Count me In. Then about a half hour later they added back the votes to Count me Out and add a few more as well.

    Perhaps somebody did not like the numbers?

    I guess they decided that voters were mistakenly clicking the wrong button and needed some help.

    Zimbabwe does the same when the numbers don’t make sense to the ruling elite – they help the voter get it right, a technique no doubt learned from their old colonial master.

  6. As usual, the database remembers I already counted out the last time, but it does not have my vote counted as there are only 3000 +/- votes counted out.

  7. Please, folks, we’ve already been through this. One vote per person. If you choose to send a comment to the museum, don’t be abusive. A factual comment will carry more weight.

  8. When this poll started I complained that there was some dubious things happening, particularly on the “IN” count.

    This was the reply I got:

    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.” To the best of our knowledge, we have removed the duplicate votes cast during this period. Internet polls face this risk and the Science Museum has implemented additional security measures to reduce this risk.

    Kind regards

  9. Looking at reports this morning ie Sydney Morning herald and others ie Climategate” it could be the dam breaks in the next 2-3 days. Is is possible that Copenhagen will be called off?

  10. Yup – one vote per person please. We want to, and we can, beat them fair and square because the ‘evidence’ content is a blatant piece of campaigning with public money… No surprises there then!

    The votes have been ‘cleaned up’ once already but the figures quoted below look quite suspicious…

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/press_and_media/press_releases/2009/10/Prove%20It%20Results.aspx

    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, to the best of our knowledge, the duplicate votes cast during this period were removed. Internet polls face this risk and the Science Museum has implemented additional security measures to reduce this risk.

    5984 individual votes were cast: 764 to counted in and 5220 to counted out. (Correct as at 16.20 Wednesday 28 October)

    If you vote you are offered this link ( http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/let_us_know.aspx ) to say why you do not accept their propaganda evidence. Or you can use it without voting – it’s up to you…

  11. Jeremy (11:43:20) :

    Nov 12th looks very suspicious – 3000 votes removed from Count me Out which were added to Count me In. Then about a half hour later they added back the votes to Count me Out and add a few more as well.

    Perhaps somebody did not like the numbers?

    Check out Mike Post’s FOI request I link to ( http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_about_the_prove_it_pol ) – he asks in part:

    Why on 12 November 2009, between 10.00 and 12.00 UTC, approximately 1500 votes were deducted from the ‘out’ score?
    Why on 12 November 2009 between 14.00 and 16.00 UTC, approximately 1500 votes were added to the ‘in’ vote and approximately 2000 votes were added to the ‘out’ vote?

    My raw data from that timeframe:

    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
    Nov 12 13:30 UTC: 2983 5221
    Nov 12 14:00 UTC: 2983 5221
    Nov 12 14:30 UTC: 2986 5223
    Nov 12 15:00 UTC: 2987 5223
    Nov 12 15:30 UTC: 2989 5224
    Nov 12 16:00 UTC: 4439 7233
    Nov 12 16:30 UTC: 4442 7234

  12. OT, other than it involves UK. However, with increasing evidence that the Brits aren’t swallowing the AGW pill with the ease they once did, maybe HMG are going to approach it more obliquely.
    Anthony, you may want to throw this one at the community and see what they make of it. Smart meter details to be confirmed
    The obvious “conspiracy theory” conclusion would be that with these meters telling a central agency what your energy consumption is, it would be but a small step to applying “positive feedback” in the form of some sort of rationing. Millipede (Climate Change minister) has already mooted individual carbon allowances, and this would seem to be a fine way of enforcing them.
    Having said that, with the UK government’s track record on large IT projects, it will probably never come to pass. However …

  13. I’ve e-mailed the Science Museum asking them what they intend to do with the results of the poll. They have suggested that the concensus rules, I suggested that the public concensus according to their poll is “Not Proved” and therefore they have a duty to reflect the concensus.

    Unsurprisngly I have not had a response.

    Can I suggest that others might ask a similar question, then they might just get the message.

  14. “Unsurprisingly I have not had a response.”

    Hang-in there, Peter Plail. It takes them at least a week to reply. Of course, what you’ll get back is bog-standard thought-speak; but it’s the thought that counts, not the vote.

  15. Take your pick as to which version reads best:

    “Unsurprisingly I have not had a response.”

    Hang-in there, Peter Plail. It takes them at least a week to reply. Of course, what you’ll get back is bog-standard thought-speak; and it’s the thought that counts, not the vote.

  16. On 11th November George Monbiot gave a direct link to the Prove It website in his Guardian blog. That is when the Count Me In votes surged, unsurprisingly.

  17. The sudden surges and deletion of votes are always neat numbers like 1500 or 2000. This implies a moderator is manually adding or subtracting round figures to the votes.

  18. Yeah, I noticed that, too. But its back up now. Current count: 5469 counted in so far 8294 counted out so far. Ins up by 76 for the day, outs up by 311.

  19. marchesarosa (15:00:35) :

    On 11th November George Monbiot gave a direct link to the Prove It website in his Guardian blog. That is when the Count Me In votes surged, unsurprisingly.

    I didn’t see a “surge” I saw two instantaneous adjustments. (well, sampled
    every 30 minutes.)

    At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/ there is a
    note saying Monbiot had the link on Nov 2nd, and there is a surge that
    started then and continued for the next week or so.

    Let’s see, 1904 EDT, I should have the end-of-day data. Yep.

    Nov 29 17:30 UTC: 5424 7952
    Nov 29 18:00 UTC: 5426 7954
    Nov 29 18:30 UTC: 5430 7954
    Nov 29 19:00 UTC: 5433 7987
    Nov 29 19:30 UTC: 5434 8056
    Nov 29 20:00 UTC: 5441 8106
    Nov 29 20:30 UTC: 5448 8141
    Nov 29 21:00 UTC: 5454 8172
    Nov 29 21:30 UTC: 5456 8209
    Nov 29 22:00 UTC: 5464 8241
    Nov 29 22:30 UTC: 5467 8264
    Nov 29 23:00 UTC: 5469 8284
    Nov 29 23:30 UTC: 5469 8294
    Nov 30 00:00 UTC: 5469 8315

    Daily changes:
    Nov 27: 37 / 57
    Nov 28: 37 / 57
    Nov 29: 76 / 432

    That should annoy folks at the Museum!

  20. Something disturbing is happening with the Science Museum ProveIt poll. I made my ‘out’ choice and was promised an emailed confirmation link. That was five hours ago. I still haven’t received my confirmation email link, so my ‘out’ vote doesn’t count. I checked my email address twice to ensure it was correct.

    Maybe they’re trying the Mann trick – and ignoring all ‘out’ votes since this article was posted on Watts Up.

  21. Terry (16:11:26) :

    That’s an old issue as well…. the out-vote is indeed going up fairly steadily, so chances are your vote was counted.

  22. OK Antony, in spite of my misgivings (I really don’t want to be stuck on any more high, dry rocks of principle – I did my bit when I was younger and now I’d really rather just do my research and let others do the dirty work). I counted myself out and followed up with my reasons (apologies for any faulty logic, but I hope there are no incorrect statements):

    In order to accept a scientific hypothesis a number of criteria need to be met. First and foremost, the facts cannot contradict the predictions of the hypothesis. The models that predict that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will force runaway warming have been falsified by the last decade’s weather. Additionally, there is no obvious correlation between CO2 levels and estimates of global temperature – or local temperatures – over the last century. Moreover, estimates of long-term patterns in temperature and CO2 level that pre-exist the current AGW hypothesis have never been in agreement with this hypothesis: temperatures appear to rise before CO2 (typically with a 800-1000 year lag) and temperatures start to decline even as CO2 continues to rise.

    A second requirement is replication – or more specifically access to methods and data to allow replication by others. As everyone should know by now, CRU and others have long refused to release data – even when journals in which they publish require such release – and apparently have lost or deliberately deleted critical data. Apparently, the models don’t even run on real data, but only on data manipulated to achieve predetermined trends and specifically dependent on reducing estimates of early temperatures and inflating estimates of recent temperatures to give the appearance of sudden and drastic warming (which as I note above, is not correlated with CO2).

    A third requirement is rigorous review and debate. I think that any one who spends a few minutes reading the recently released CRU emails would have to come to the conclusion that the normal scientific review procedures have been deliberated perverted and debate has been stifled.

    A fourth requirement is that no simpler hypotheses explain the data better. Weather stations were designed to provide temperature records to people living in particular areas – not to estimate global temperatures. Land-use changes and urban heat islands explain the rise in land temperature exactly – and are pretty much independent of any global rise or fall in average temperatures. Variation in the Earth’s receipt of solar radiation is the most likely explanation for long-term temperature trends and – however complicated the effects of clouds, cosmic rays and the like – a far simpler explanation than AGW ever was.

    There are other points that I could make, but what I really want to know is why a place called the ‘Science Museum’ seems determined to convince people of an unscientific and apparently fraudulent ‘hypothesis’?

  23. Hey, it’s 11.44am in Australia on Monday morning. I just added my “Count Me Out” vote to the Museum’s website, and my return email came through within a minute. I clicked the link, took me back and said I’d been counted out. So I dunno, maybe a temporary glitch, but it worked for me :-) I’m out!

  24. @Terry
    I voted out just after this article was posted earlier today and definitely got the confirmation mail.

  25. Catherine Jameson (16:46:00) :

    G’day. I’ve been watching the SMH and The Australian sites but they seem to have precious little to report other than that the Liberals are imploding and Hockey is going to challenge Abbot. Will the ETS vote go up today?

  26. Ric, yes, sorry, the Monbiot link in the Guardian to the “Prove It” website WAS on 2 Nov, as I stated on the previous “Prove It” thread.

    I was aware of blocks of votes coming and going on both sides but was under the impression that the In votes surged after the Monbiot link.

    The Out votes are now increasing apace and the gap seems to be widening, I’m glad to see.

  27. My message to the Science Museum is thus:

    Prove it yourself!

    Prove that

    1. Global Warming (do not rename it to Climate Change) is harmful,

    2. prove that it is caused by human activity,

    3.1 show me the raw data (put it online)
    3.2 show me your methods and software (put it online)

    I am capable of checking it myself and so is a significant portion of the worldwide population.

    We have had enoug of make believe long before and after Galileo Galilei and we are in no need of churches, religion, snake oil.

    Cut the lies!

  28. Can’t Vote. It keeps saying my email address is invalid. Funny that, I have had it for ten years and it still works just for me.

    Kindest Regards

  29. I was staggered by the Science Museum’s evidence:

    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.

    What! How come global warming cannot be explained by natural causes yet they do not know whether natural causes are cooling or warming the earth at present? These are two contradictory statements.

    And this:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a collaboration between thousands of scientists and governments from 130 countries. They are considered the most trustworthy group of experts on climate change in the world.

    How do they determine who is “trustworthy” I wonder?

  30. After counting yourself “out” and verifying your vote, those polling folks want to know “why”. Any quarrels with what I told them?

    “Over the past several years I have studied a wide range of published scientific papers on manmade global warming. I’ve concluded that a 1/4th inch man-made CO2 tail is not wagging a 100-yard-long atmospheric dog. The positive feedback mechanisms required to multiply the modest greenhouse gas effect of man-made CO2 into anything of serious consequence do not exist. Contrary to the climate model assumptions, feedbacks to CO2 induced greenhouse heating are in fact negative. Otherwise, global climate temperature would have “run away” in one direction or the other eons ago. Instead, average global temperature has cycled between very distinct high and low limits; five times in the past 450,000 years.”

    CH

  31. Looks like we may have poked someone…. 100 votes added to the “in” column in the last half hour.

  32. Very impressive. In the space of two hours 350 “in” votes have been added. Didn’t think there were that many alarmists left…

  33. Catherine Jameson (16:46:00) :
    G’day. I’ve been watching the SMH and The Australian sites but they seem to have precious little to report other than that the Liberals are imploding and Hockey is going to challenge Abbot. Will the ETS vote go up today?

    At this moment they are still debating in the Senate. The Libs are trying to extend the debate until at least tomorrow when a spill looks likely and Hockey will take over and/or it is referred to a Senate Committee.

    Then it is in the lap of the Gods as to what happens to the ETS. My view is that Hockey’s compromise position will be to delay any ETS until after Copenhagen and that will take effect. The government has no real answer as to why it should be introduced before and public opinion is probably against it. The MSM today has been going gangbusters promoting the ETS as if it was the lead up to an election.

    Meanwhile Steve Fielding has called for a Royal Commission into Climate Change involving Ross Garnaut and Ian Plimer. Little chance of that I am afraid, the tidal wave of AGW is too big:

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26420736-29277,00.html

  34. I was right about my vote not being counted. The Science Museum site was very slow when I first tried to vote yesterday and may have been having problems with high traffic. Maybe that’s why I didn’t get a confirmation email at all.

    Anyway, this morning I’ve voted again, this time successfully. The site was far faster and I got my confirmation email immediately – which proves my vote yesterday didn’t register.

    Here’s the message I left the Science Museum people in the Comment box after I’d voted: -
    The recent CRU expose reveals wholesale, fraudulent perversion of the scientific method and of the peer review process by an international gang of self-serving parascientists.

    How dare the Science Museum use taxpayer money to propagate this blatant international fraud in the name of ‘science.’ Your actions are those of an institutional dictatorship, not an institutional democracy. In this you mirror the actions of the Hadley CRU.

    The clear majority of the respondents in your ProveIt survey oppose the Copenhagen attempt to impose global dictatorship in place of democracy – and your craven support for such eco-fascism.

    As a democratist and a British taxpayer, I am hereby issuing you with a formal caution that any further action by the Science Museum in support of global dictatorship, based upon wholesale anti-scientific eco-fraud, will result in direct action being initiated against you, in the courts and on the streets, by the democratic majority in Britain.

  35. Done.

    Comment to the Science Museum Staff:

    Global warming has been zero over the last 10 years or so, nobody denies this, despite the fact that CO2 levels have increased over that period.

    None of the climate models had predicted this, they all predicted an increase in temperature. The models are too simplistic and do not contains the relevant processes to accurately simulate climate on a global scale. We already know this, it is not a secret, it is discussed in the relevant literature. E.g. the water vapour feedback.

    Al-Gore’s Inconvenient Truth contains factual errors as ruled by the UK High Court and has been created to scare children (political indoctrination – despicable!). Mr Gore has business interests amounting to almost a billion dollars riding on the acceptance of AGW – he has a massive vested interest.

    The “science” is definitely not settled. The recent CRU email scandal AKA ClimateGate sheds light on this. We have a small group of “scientists” who produce results which cannot be verified by other independent scientists because the data upon which the conclusions are drawn are kept privately and secretly by the CRU. The results have never been verified by sicentists working outside of a small clique of scientists who “peer review” each others work and as the emails show, block access to the peer review process to what they term (read their leaked emails) as “dissenting” scientists.

    Further, other scientists trust the peer review process and will defer to the opinion of the peer reviewed literature. So many scientists will, like nodding-dogs, agree with the IPCC statements because they believe that the IPCC is carrying out a scientific process. These scientists opinion are not based on their assessment of the science but on their trust in a process. Science is not a democracy. It does not matter the number of people who nod, what matters is independently verified results. These nodding-dog scientists who form the major part of the so-called “scientific consensus” have not examined anything apart from the unverified results presented by the small, self-affirming clique referred to above.

    Well, that is not science. For a result to become part of science, it must be both independently verified and independently verifiable. The AGW case satisfies neither of these criteria until all of the data and all of the methods have been made freely and publicly available. Public policy should not be set based on non-scientific results such the case for AGW.

    We need to suspend Copenhagen in light of the ClimateGate affair and must hold a full, public and open inquiry. We certainly should not sign any treaties based on this so-called “science”.

  36. I’m out.
    It’s not surprising that the sceptics are in the majority, as this is precisely what opinion polls show.

    However, I’m quite shocked by the material provided by the Science Museum. As their campaign is named Prove it!, you would think there would be some proof that the warming was man-made. And yet they do not present a single piece of scientific proof. Not one single piece. If anyone can find any scientific proof that the climate is being driven by carbon dioxide on their website, please let me know!

    This actually mirrors my thoughts when climate change first registered on my radar about three years ago. I asked myself a very basic question: what is the proof that the climate is being driven by carbon dioxide? I’m still asking that question today. I am absolutely shocked by the answer: there is none. There is no proof whatsoever. It all appears to be a huge assumption made by scientists, governments and politicians, all of whom have enormous vested interests.

    Many of us who have followed CA and WUWT are only too familiar with the long litany of manipulations, half-truths, lies and probable fraud that that feed this monster. Hopefully the ongoing Climategate saga will help to restore truth and honesty to climate science.
    Chris

  37. On the Science Museum website I clicked the ‘Evidence’ link, expecting to be directed to some technical papers etc. showing strong evidence of global warming. Instead there is a page of meaningless blab about Economics, Copenhegn etc. Is this what passes for Science nowadays? The website appears to be aimed at children. It’s an embarressment to UK science.

  38. All sorts of weird stuff going on.

    After our surge, a “count me in” surge started at the unlikely time 0500 UTC.

    Then things came to a sudden halt at the unlikely time of 1030 UTC.

    Raw data:

    Nov 30 04:00 UTC: 5475 8418
    Nov 30 04:30 UTC: 5477 8426
    Nov 30 05:00 UTC: 5568 8431
    Nov 30 05:30 UTC: 5704 8442
    Nov 30 06:00 UTC: 5800 8454
    Nov 30 06:30 UTC: 5891 8464
    Nov 30 07:00 UTC: 5972 8478
    Nov 30 07:30 UTC: 6039 8490
    Nov 30 08:00 UTC: 6106 8496
    Nov 30 08:30 UTC: 6166 8511
    Nov 30 09:00 UTC: 6214 8517
    Nov 30 09:30 UTC: 6279 8527
    Nov 30 10:00 UTC: 6339 8539
    Nov 30 10:30 UTC: 6392 8550
    Nov 30 11:00 UTC: 6396 8551
    Nov 30 11:30 UTC: 6396 8551
    Nov 30 12:00 UTC: 6396 8551
    Nov 30 12:30 UTC: 6396 8551

    If anyone has a believable (and preferably verifiable!) explanation I’ll add it to the web pages tonight.

    There’s still quite a bit of activity there. Oh – a reference from http://junkscience.com/ – I better go check.

  39. If there aren’t enough “in” votes, I’m sure they’ll borrow Mike’s trick to hide the decline:
    “We have homogenised the votes by taking a sample from the “out” votes and adding them to the “in” votes. We believe this more accurately reflects the true feeling of the voters since many of the “out” votes have been influenced by the misinformation promulgated by “Big Skeptic”. “

  40. Telegraph On-line has James Delinpole commenting:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018299/climategate-science-museums-green-propaganda-backfires/

    Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires

    The bit I love:

    and, in its section on economics, it offers this bravura piece of sub-Marxist, ultra-Green theorising:

    Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.

    Instead, these experts propose a sustainable economy which doesn’t measure success by growth. Although people would consume less, they could still flourish. Wealth could be more fairly shared between people. And importantly, our prosperity would not come at the expense of the environment.

  41. So, just how on the ball are WUWT readers? I still monitor hits to my web pages, usually a couple hundred a day for the two sites we have. One of my pages is on the Pamela Smart murder case, and it’s interesting to see surges in accesses to that whenever the case makes the news or a documentary. For that, I wrote a Unix incantation to list references by the hour (data is in MST, UTC-0700), yesterday’s provit references are interesting:

    tux:bin> grep ‘^[012].* proveit ‘ ~/m/2656 | cut -c 1-2 | uniq -c
    2 00 [The first column is the number of reads, the second is the hour]
    2 01
    2 02
    3 03
    3 04
    2 05
    2 06
    2 07
    6 08
    2 09
    2 10
    103 11
    229 12
    159 13
    113 14
    79 15
    72 16
    61 17
    51 18
    59 19
    46 20
    48 21
    39 22
    44 23

    IIRC, this post went up at around 1141 MST, but I’m not going to bother to break things down by 20 minute intervals. Wait a minute – I can do 10 minute interval with a one character change:

    tux:bin> grep ‘^[012].* proveit ‘ ~/m/2656 | cut -c 1-4 | uniq -c
    1 11:0
    1 11:1
    1 11:3
    49 11:4
    51 11:5
    45 12:0
    39 12:1
    40 12:2
    44 12:3
    36 12:4
    25 12:5
    30 13:0
    30 13:1
    31 13:2
    26 13:3
    21 13:4
    21 13:5
    19 14:0
    16 14:1
    22 14:2
    18 14:3
    15 14:4
    23 14:5
    12 15:0
    11 15:1
    14 15:2
    11 15:3
    15 15:4
    16 15:5
    12 16:0
    9 16:1
    14 16:2
    15 16:3
    9 16:4
    13 16:5

    So now we know how many devoted readers there are who live to read WUWT’s next post. Greetings, brothers. :-)

    In all, there were 1146 hits yesterday, I think the highest the Pame Smart page has seen is about 800. Yesterday that page had 49, and my Blizzard of ’78 had 6. There are hits on that almost every day of the year, something I find amazing every July.

  42. MB (02:27:49) :

    Done.

    Comment to the Science Museum Staff:

    Global warming has been zero over the last 10 years or so, nobody denies this, despite the fact that CO2 levels have increased over that period.

    None of the climate models had predicted this,

    Well done for taking the trouble to write all that. I just sent them the link to the country by country temperature graphs and told them to get their thinking caps on.

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf

  43. Peter Plail (05:41:35) :

    Telegraph On-line has James Delinpole commenting:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018299/climategate-science-museums-green-propaganda-backfires/

    Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires

    I tried to register so I could post a link to http://wermenh.com/proveit.html but haven’t gotten the confimatory Email. I should be at work now, so if someone else can do it, feel free.

    Mention it has posting history back to 29 Oct.

  44. Hi Ric, just to say that I read your page about Pamela about a month ago, after having a look at your analysis of the Science Museum’s Poll. Have to say that Pamela’s case must be one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever come across, and there have been quite a few in England and one very big one (Megrahi) here in Scotland in the last 10-15 years. Keep up the good work – on the Smart case and the equally dodgy Science Museum poll.

    p.s. I’d love to see those pictures of your California to Montana bike ride in ’74 – get scanning!

  45. Yeah, I’d love to know how that was done. Most of Europe was still asleep and the Americas were just going to bed. The entries came in both ones and small clumps of three or four, with a gap in between. I find it odd that both “our” surge and their surge ended at the same time, which is about when the museum opened.

    I wonder if Lihard’s continuous monitoring is still up and running? Lihard?

  46. Hey, it’s counting again:

    Nov 30 15:00 UTC: 6396 8551
    Nov 30 15:30 UTC: 6396 8551
    Nov 30 16:00 UTC: 6474 8574

    Andrew P (06:29:08) :

    > p.s. I’d love to see those pictures of your California to Montana bike ride in ‘74 – get scanning!

    I bought a nice scanner after HP forcibly retired me but never had the time to do even a very small selection. With a daughter in college, I’m not expecting enough time soon, at least not unless the climate situation improves to the point where WUWT can shut down. Probability of that, rounded to three places, is 0.000. :-)

  47. “Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.”

    Oh I just love it. These morons really have no idea of growth at all. They commit the fallacy of projecting the present into the future. A hundred and twenty years ago, people would have wondered what we would do with all the horse shit that would inevitably pile up as city populations soared.

    Ask this simple question – how much wealthier is the average westerner today than 120 years ago. I don’t know the answer, but let’s say twenty times for arguments sake. Does this mean we consume 20 times more raw materials? Twenty times as many meals, twenty times as many pairs of trousers, twenty times as many tables and chairs? The reality is, we simply consume different and better things. Things that could never have been imagined 120 years ago. Things like ipods, computers, hi-fi systems, toasters.

    But the amazing thing is, there is something else we consume even more of. Something never imagined by our great great grandparents. This other thing we consume costs the planet nothing in raw materials. I am referring to leisure, and the whole marvellous industry that has grown up to service it. Thus we now consume movies, meals out, concerts, holidays, computer games, good wine. And I am willing to predict that if we are allowed to continue to grow our economies, our consumption will be continually skewed towards leisure. If we become wealthy enough, our consumption will include more free time. No, that is not an oxymoron, but a well accepted economic good – we choose to consume less purchased goods in order to consume more free time.

    Thus, far from being a drain on mother nature, our (hopefully) wealthier descendants will merely be enjoying shorter working hours and more holidays. And who could be against that?

  48. Vincent: It is a bit off topic but I disagree with your optimism.

    “…wealthier descendants will merely be enjoying shorter working hours and more holiday…”

    As far as I know, wealth is becoming more and more concentrated into few and fewer families, the middle classes are under constant attack with ever increasing tax rates, more numerous taxes, increased job insecurity, inflationary destruction of their savings, erosion of democratic process, dismantling of the education system, water fluoridation and toxic cocktail additives to vaccines. Not to mention “outsourcing”, which whilst it does create a “middle class” in the “third world”, it creates a lower standard of “middle class” … it is a race to the bottom and only the richest families win.

    Copenhagen and AGW are the first steps towards imposing a truly global taxation and monitoring scheme (carbon credits).

    On top of all that, our populations have become a bunch of unarmed wimpy saps who won’t say boo to a goose (perhaps it’s the fluoride?) and who refuse to read anything that is not rubber stamped by billionaire media moguls. “Radical” in britain today means voting Liberal. Oh, wow, let’s have some yellow puppets because we don’t like the red or blue ones. Asking me to vote is like asking me to choose which colour hammer I want you to hit me over the head with.

  49. MB,

    The point I was trying to make was a refutation of the “Growth alarmists” who naively project forward and imagine that ever greater quatitities of “stuff” will be consumed.

    Your points are more political, although I do agree 100% with what you say. I don’t want to belabour the point because it’s a bit OT.

  50. The count me in is spiking. This could be somebody with administrator privileges creating e-mail addresses on his system and erasing them once the return e-mail is received. Or could it be they have removed the protection and so it is being stuffed the way it was in the beginning?

    • Don’t forget that there are hundreds of students being paraded through the exhibit each day and told to vote as part of their field trip.

  51. Charles:

    The stuffing began in the middle of the night in Europe, long after the Museum was closed, and just as the Americans were getting ready for bed. I can’t imagine an internet site that can mobilize that many individuals. If it’s out there, I’d love to read it. I’m leaning toward either a script or a team generating throw-away e-mail addresses.

    That morning quiet period is also very interesting. Nothing registered on either side for nearly two hours.

  52. From the Science Museum:
    “The temperature difference between today and the last ice age is only about 3–4 oC”
    Frankly this gets me more worried about Global COOLING than Global Warming. If we believe the fearmongering that global warming has already raised the temperatures, it sounds like global warming is saving us from being in an Ice Age. The AGW crowd is really going to have to get their stories straight or else all it does it look like random speculation. Not that I have a problem with random speculation, just when it goes political with billions/trillions of dollars at stake, you’d better have your evidence. How am I supposed to worry about global warming when we are just a few degrees away from an ice age?

  53. No, things are the same. I just tried to vote again and: Sorry, this email address has already been counted.

    So, obviously the huge increase in the IN vote is genuine or it is being stuffed from the inside or out. Perhaps the votes are being value-added.

    Come on, then, stop sitting on your hands fretting and get the word out.

  54. It is invalid for The Science Museum to host this poll, it is inappropriate, unprofessional and unethical. Perhaps the mindset, flawed scientific knowledge and lack of commitment to empirical truth of the people running The Science Museum and of the AGW supporters is demonstrated most clearly by their complete disregard for the whole body of statistical research about how to conduct good, sound, unbiased polls.

    If they want to do a serious poll then they need to do at least three things:

    i) Employ one of the major independent polling organizations to do so and include in the consultation which constructs the questions representatives from the opposite viewpoint;

    ii) Leading up to and during the poll they should not conduct their propaganda campaign;

    iii) The People polled need to be selected randomly with the correct sample sizes from each section of our society – which the professional polling organization would arrange and certify using qualified, professional, impartial, statisticians.

  55. UPDATE:
    Yup it’s closed.

    Final Results:

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

    “In the PROVE IT! gallery, 3408 people chose to count in and 626 chose to count out. On the website, 2650 users counted in and 7612 counted out.”

    So, 6058 Ins, 8238 Outs, a difference of 2180 and a kick in the eye for the museum. (This even though a mysterious 2200 in votes appeared in the last 24-hours)

    Statement from the Museum:

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/press_and_media/press_releases/2009/12/Prove%20It%20Announcement.aspx

    “More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”

    So as the museum did not lay out ANY evidence, which is why the public voted against their proposition.

  56. They stopped taking votes:

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

    About the count

    In the run-up to the Copenhagen conference we invited Science Museum visitors and web users to respond to the following statement with ‘count me in’ or ‘count me out’:

    “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.”

    In the PROVE IT! gallery, 3408 people chose to count in and 626 chose to count out. On the website, 2650 users counted in and 7612 counted out.

    from link for further comments:

    Today (1 December 2009) Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at UCL said:

    “More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”

    He added:

    “Over the past month the Science Museum has provided a channel for people to engage with the scientific evidence for climate change through a temporary exhibit and accompanying website called ‘Prove It!’. There is currently plenty of debate around climate change research and I believe it is important for the Science Museum to provide a means for people to engage with the issues. Prove It! has created a space for visitors, to the Museum and website, to consider the scientific evidence, come to their own conclusions and express their opinion. The indications from Prove It! are consistent with a recent Pew Centre survey and a 2007 Ipsos Mori poll: a large proportion of people do not believe in the reality of man-made climate change.

    Furthermore, Professor Rapley said:

    “The Science Museum is uniquely placed to engage with people about climate change, facilitating discussion and decision making based on evidence. I look forward to launching a new dedicated climate change gallery next June as the culmination of our Centenary year.”

    The statement was made to coincide with the revealing of the results of a poll carried out by the Science Museum to tie in with the Prove It! project. The poll suggested that a significant number of people are not convinced by the evidence for man-made climate change so do not support strong action by the UK government at the forthcoming Copenhagen conference.

    Prove It! remains open until January 2010 and is free to visit.

  57. MB (01:59:27) :

    > It is invalid for The Science Museum to host this poll, it is inappropriate, unprofessional and unethical.

    You left out pointless. When they started the poll, people were going to vote on a treaty at Copenhagen. Now that’s by the wayside, I haven’t figured what they will do there, probably be annoyed when China and India walk out.

    The poll should be viewed for entertainment purposes only. I really doesn’t matter which side “wins” – the result will not change the world. It might change how the Science Museum approaches “do this now!” tasks in the future and dissuade them from ever doing a poll on an emotional subject again. That point has already been made, all that’s left is a little face saving if the “in”s win.

  58. anna v (05:40:29) :

    They stopped taking votes:

    In the PROVE IT! gallery, 3408 people chose to count in and 626 chose to count out. On the website, 2650 users counted in and 7612 counted out.

    That would be 6058 / 8238, and that occurred at some odd time:

    Nov 30 07:30 UTC: 6039 8490
    Nov 30 08:00 UTC: 6106 8496

    Oops. How about:

    Nov 29 21:30 UTC: 5456 8209
    Nov 29 22:00 UTC: 5464 8241

    Geez, can’t these guys get anything right?

    I have to go to work – can someone contact the Museum and have them
    check, err, fix their maths?

    Meanwhile, votes keep counting:

    Dec 01 10:00 UTC: 7523 8978
    Dec 01 10:30 UTC: 7532 8987

    > Prove It! remains open until January 2010 and is free to visit.

    I assume that means the exhibit. Since the poll is part of the exhibit, I hope they’ll make it clear that the poll results have been sent to the gov’t and and subsequent votes really are for entertainment purposes only.

    I guess I’ll keep tracking as long as the poll is open.

  59. Pops (07:47:20) :

    Merely shows that they need to redouble their efforts to educate the public. It’s time for Chris Rapley to resign gracefully or be dumped. The poll was a chaotic disgrace and the exhibit just flat out wrong. Just for an example, we are at a 30 year low in cyclonic activity yet the museum is pushing the notion that global warming produces more and more intense hurricanes.

    Our next project shoud be a point-by-point refutation of the Prove IT! exhibit with citations and then send it to the directors of the museum, parliament, George Monbiot….

  60. Just sent this email to the Science Museum press officer;

    Dear —- ,

    With reference to Professor Rapley’s quote on your ‘Prove-It’ press-release;

    “More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”

    I wonder if you could pass on this comment;

    That the climate is changing is not in doubt, because it always has, and is continuing to do so. It is also clear that scientists do not yet understand these processes of change. It is also clear that the role of anthropic CO2 is also not understood. But it IS clear that the proposed international carbon-tax and related economic measures WILL damage the ecosystem.

    And in his position as Director of the Science Museum, why is Professor Rapley not laying out that fact? And if he really is a proponent of the scientific process, why is he not calling for more science to be done, rather than calling for more propagandising? Rather, it appears that the result of his public initiative has been to damage the reputation of the scientific process itself.

    Yours, etc.

  61. Your webpage says:

    _________________
    Today (1 December 2009) Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at UCL said:

    “More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”
    _______________________

    Are you dishonest or something? Have you ever hear about the science fraud at East Anglia University Climate Research Unit?

    The manipulation of data in New Zeeland? The refusal to share raw data at three other universities?

    Did you hear about the man behind the Santa Claus mask?

Comments are closed.