Science Museum Prove It! poll now closed – surprising results

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.

For further information please contact Andrew Marcus, Science Museum Press Office, on 020 7942 4357 / andrew.marcus@sciencemuseum.org.uk

About these ads

169 thoughts on “Science Museum Prove It! poll now closed – surprising results

  1. So given that most people think the earth is actually round, Professor Rapley still sees it as his mission to “convince” us that its flat.

    They simply dont get it.

    MSM starting to pick up on this in the UK.
    1st daily has these as its headlines.

    Daily Express- “The Big Climate Change Fraud”.

    “Dont blame us say scientists, its all a con to raise tax”.

  2. FFS more honesty is needed on letting people make up their own minds about this. “Educating the masses” takes us back to Germany late 30’s and that led to a very poor outcome for all concerned.. Where do these people want to take this?? Oiling my guns!

  3. 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.

    (Above emphasis mine)

    The above says it all really – they’re not open for debate and discussion, they simply want to “educate” us ignorant peasants.

    Cheers

    Mark

  4. It’s nice that The Science Museum is uniquely placed to engage with people about climate change, facilitating discussion and decision making based on evidence.

    Better yet, it’s free! (Too bad, I was willing to accept a carbon credit payment from them to visit)

    I would suggest that Rapley revise his statement, like “More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of Mann-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution.”

  5. …..Oh yeah….of the 3408 people who “counted in”….how many were impressionable 6th graders? Just how scientific was THIS study?

  6. New dedicated climate change gallery, eh? Which old gallery will have to be taken down to make room for it?

  7. Maybe that ought to talk to the UEA folks about what needs proving…

    The public has clue and is getting more clue fast. Beware a well informed public weilding a “clue stick”…

  8. I can’t wait for the Science Museum to “lay out the evidence”.

    I wonder what happened to all those comments that were sent in when people responded.

  9. Hmmm, something odd here.

    I looked at this a couple of days ago and it was 6k count me in and 8k count me out.

  10. “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.”.

    In spite of the warning issued today by the ‘country’s leading authority on climate change’ Lord Stern, that ‘the Copenhagen summit is the world’s last chance to save the planet from “catastrophic” global warming’ and propaganda campaigns paid for liberally by tax payer’s money, the public still prefer to make up their own minds one way or another.

    I wonder if the credibility of the AGW movement is improved by the fact that anyone with an internet connection can check Lord Stern’s credentials as a leading authority on climate change. He appears to have no scientific training whatsoever though he has an Honorary Doctor of Science degree from Warwick University.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6701307/Copenhagen-summit-is-last-chance-to-save-the-planet-Lord-Stern.html

  11. This BBC report has the same conclusion.
    “Why people dispute man is the cause of climate change”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8389547.stm

    Answer: we need more educating because apparently we the public are too stupid and selfish.
    True the public can be stupid, ask the most simple question with an obvious answer and you will get some percentage going against the majority, if you filter out the extremes you usually find the silent majority somewhere in the middle and here lies the truth.

  12. I’ve received a response to my letter complaining about ceratin aspects of this from Prof Rapley.
    In precis.
    1) Political nature and attempts to influence Government.
    The good Prof claims the museum is politically neutral and is just offering the public a platform to engage in discussion and to..
    “..decide wether or not they want to urge the government to secure a strong, effective, fair deal at the Copenhagen conference.”
    Doesn’t sound neutral to me!
    2) I complained about their bit about sharing wealth between people and suggested that this was somewhat political in nature.
    Dear Prof responds that it’s “some experts” quote they’re using, whomare contrasting this to “conventional economics” and it’s all so visitors can “better understand the significance of the Copenhagen negotiations”
    3) Climate section.
    The IPCC’s illustration of radiative forcing from the WG1 report (Adapted from Figure 2.20) is reproduced.
    I noted that they make no mention of Beck’s work on CO2.
    Prof nots that it’s not included because “they’re far out of line with other published findings, including the IPCC reports”
    He even gives a link to Real Climate’s “Beck to the future” piece!
    I pointed out that they haven’t mentioned the 700 year lag in ice core data.
    He responds by quoting a piece from The Royal Society, that it’s CO2 from burning fossil fuels we’re seeing now.
    I noted that no mention of Loehle’s work on temperature reconstructions was made and another Surreal Climate link is given from December 2007.
    I noted that Ryan M’s work on Hurricanes and the article about more hurricanes being reported due to improved detection systems. His response is that p19 of The Copenhagen Diagnosis supports their stance.
    Ice got it’s share, again Copenhagen was quoted back- p32
    I queried their statement that natural effects were damping down human-caused warming curently and got a link to chapter 9 of the AR4 report, p665.
    Prof’s quote above
    “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.”
    Doesn’t read like a neutral position to me. Thye must be spitting tacks that there’s a near 3-1 stance against AGW in their online pole. Dare one suggest that the ~5-1 pro stance from the exhibition results is from teacher-led voting by school parties?

  13. No scientist has ever produced a paper showing that current levels of CO2 cause a rise in atmospheric temperatures. Only the IPCC summaries linked CO2 to temperature rise.

  14. But why should we do anything at all about it? This is from Nigel Lawson’s ‘Appeal to Reason’ (review on the Telegraph site):

    Lord Lawson then notes that the IPCC predicts that, at this level of temperature rise, global food production will actually increase. He takes the IPCC’s gloomiest prediction of the economic effects of global warming over the same period. By its own figures, the difference between what would happen with global warming and without it amounts to this: in a hundred years’ time, people in the developed world would be “only 2.6 times better off than they are today, instead of 2.7 times, and their contemporaries in the developing world would be “only” 8.5 times as well off as people in the developing world are today, instead of 9.5 times better off”.

  15. Great result, I’ve been following that poll for a month or so; It was a rigged question and the creepy stuff with the e-mail and telling the government would have put many off but at least the Science Museum had the grace to publish the result and include the comment “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.”

    A similar poll from a fake charity in Scotland had 10,000 responses voting 94% no to alcohol price fixing, they just disappeared it one night.

  16. Please, Please don’t spin this with the highlight pen:-

    Including the gallery votes:-

    Total Counted in approx 6000

    Total Counted out approx 8300.

    It does not need spinning?

  17. Interesting to see those who took the poll in the museum are overwhelmingly in support of the statement but those who took it online were not.

    Maybe the online poll was part of a malicious campaign to distort the results, which would be much harder to do in the museum itself. Or maybe those in the museum after been presented with the evidence in person were then more convinced. The education of the reality of AGW seems to be a problem for the majority of the general public and we need to look at how we better get this information across.

  18. Thinking about my flyer design. (THIS BOARD COULD DO WITH A FAQ)! 1 According to Pielke Snr,(3 of the 4?) databases have 90%-95% overlap. 2 Briffagate,’hide the decline’. 3 Mcintyre and the Hockeystick,Wegman’s revelation of 42 ‘scientists’ writing papers together and also ‘peer reviewing’ eachother’s ‘work’. 4 a link to surfacestations.org.(NIWA’s scandal is still cooking but it’s too early for that one).

    That and the links will fit nicely on 1 side of A4.

    Roger Harrabin on the Radio4 news this morning. Mentioned Jones’ stepping aside but was really worried about a US Senate investigation.He’s a true-believer,you can hear it in his voice as well as the pro-agw nature of his report.He’s worried about who will chair the Senate investigation.So am I.I’m also worried about the terms of reference!

  19. The clue is in that statement, the Science Museum has already set the criteria, that global warming ™ is man made, and is now doing exactly what Jones et al have been doing, making the evidence fit their conclusion.

    What a pity, perhaps in more enlightened times organisations like the Science Museum might have suggested that the whole rational for man made global warming ™ needs to be investigated OPENLY!

    What a missed opportunity!

    Mailman

  20. “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.”

    This is weird! When I last looked at the website a couple of days ago the Ins were about 7,200 and the Outs were about 8,500.

    The figures have been bouncing up and down all month. Either they have been incredibly sloppy about collating the responses or someone has been fiddling.

    Fiddling on both sides, perhaps? On the part of the Science Museum and certainly on the part of the voters!

    Naughty!

  21. But……

    When I looked at the numbers on the website a few days ago, it was showing (as best as I can recall) over 6,000 “Ins” v. over 7,000 “outs”. NOW they tell us that the ACTUAL web results were 3:1 in favour of the “outs”. Looks like what they’d been doing on the website was amalgamating the “ins” that had been through the brainwashing in the exhibit (mainly school kids on field trips, I’d venture to suggest) with those who’d voted online to make the web vote look closer than it really was.

    They just can’t let the facts speak for themselves can they…….

  22. While the “Prove it!” poll was comendable, Prof Rapley is not opening up public discussion – he wants to do “more work to convince people of the reality of human induced climate change” – (Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly.) Why doesn’t he give the people credit for some intelligence and say – hey wait a minute, maybe they have a point?

  23. Where is the scientific proof of the reality of human-induced climate change Professor Rapley?

    All I want is the Facts, Prof, just the plain simple, ordinary mortal, Facts!

    I am not holding my breath…………

  24. Britain’s Tories Backing Out of “Hair Shirt” Environmental Policies

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-hit-by-tory-backlash-on-environment-1832208.html

    Cameron hit by Tory backlash on environment
    David Davis condemns flagship green policies as senior Tory MPs question climate change consensus

    “David Cameron is facing a growing challenge to his authority from senior members of his own party who say they have doubts about the Conservatives’ stance on global warming. Leading figures including Peter Lilley, the former cabinet minister, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe are openly questioning the political consensus on climate change.

    “And today David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, warns in The Independent that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by Mr Cameron, is “destined to collapse”. He criticises “the fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets, in the face of failure to meet earlier promises”. He adds: “The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”…

    “…Mr Cameron has described the Copenhagen summit as “so important”, saying: ” What we need to see emerge from those discussions is an effective, binding and fair deal to cut carbon emissions that includes all major economies.”

    “But Peter Lilley, who is tipped for a return to government if the Tories win power, told The Independent that while he believed the climate was changing the effects were being overstated. “There is an irrefutable scientific process [on global warming]. I just think its effects tend to be exaggerated.” He added: “It is unrealistic to expect a satisfactory deal in Copenhagen. It is just not going to happen. The interests of the industrialising countries [such as China and India] differ so greatly from the already-industrialised countries.”

    “Some Tory frontbenchers are also said to have private doubts about climate change. John Maples, the deputy Tory chairman, told the Commons last year that he no longer accepted the consensus on the issue. “I do not believe that the science is anything like as settled as the proponents of the [Climate Change] Bill are making out,” he said. He declined to comment yesterday.

    “Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: “I would like to see some proper cost-benefit analysis [at Copenhagen] on the impact on the economy, rather than this charge towards trying to be trendy and to please the environmental lobby. Everyone has gone completely mad on this. It has taken on the hallmarks of a religion rather than a policy issue. Anyone who says ‘hang on a minute’ is completely decried and treated like a Holocaust denier,” he said.

    “Graham Brady, Tory MP for Altringham and Sale West, said: “There is some room for debate about why the climate is changing and the best ways of tackling it. It is a good idea to reduce carbon emissions, but I would not want to see the whole economy destroyed in the process. There is a balance to be struck.”…

    “…In the European Parliament last week, two Tory MEPs, Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer, voted against a motion calling for the Copenhagen talks to agree an 80% cut in emissions by 2050 – the official Tory policy. They were among 18 members of the breakaway European Conservatives and Reformists Group, including its Polish leader Michal Kaminski, to oppose such a deal.

    “Last month Mr Helmer accused the Church of England of having “abandoned religious faith entirely and taken up the new religion of climate change alarmism instead”.”

  25. PROVE IT! proves nothing; it is propaganda and bullying advocacy. The web feature contains no evidence whatsoever, nothing but pages of turgid text full of claims and projections and unproven relationships. What a tradgedy that a reputable institution can seek to corrupt young minds in this way.

    My complaints to the Science Museum have elicited only a fatuous response so far.

    MG

  26. “More work needs to be done to convince people”…

    Is this the Science Museum or the Scientology Museum?

  27. John, if you are not a troll, you are comparing 4000 brainwashed elementary students marched through the exhibit by their teachers during school hours to the rest of the voters who chose to come to the website on their own.

  28. This must be the song of the AGW camp:

    “One wheel on my wagon, And I’m still rolling along Them Cherokees after me I’m all in flames, at the reins But I’m singing a happy song…”

  29. The good Professor Chris Rapley CBE will just need to adopt the same principle as the EU, keep having polls until he gets the result he wants, because those of an opposing view get fed up!

  30. @John

    “Interesting to see those who took the poll in the museum are overwhelmingly in support of the statement but those who took it online were not.”

    Presumably because children were allowed to vote?

  31. BBC Radio 4’s ‘The Moral Maze’ is discussing science and morality tonight, with reference to the CRU debacle. Nice (and surprising) to find the Beeb giving airtime to scepticism on the subject, but I suppose we’ d better wait to see who they talk to!

  32. “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…..”

    More work needs to be done to convince the people that keep trying to convince ‘people of the reality of human-induced climate change’ that they have to stop trying to convince ‘people of the reality of human-induced climate change’.

  33. “Prove It.” What a misleading and unscientific survey title. Since when have consensus numbers “proved” anything?
    The Professor must surely be aware that science advances by a process of testing and falsification, a sceptical process of replacing weaker explanatory theories by theories that better fit the facts. When can we ever say we know it all, it’s proven.”The science is settled.”

  34. Kate 02:03:11
    I sent this email to David Cameron 2 years ago. Not a word back!

    I have sent others since to no effect but then with Zac Goldsmith as his advisor I should not expect any correspondence.

    “Dear Mr Cameron,

    I question why you are sticking to the “Green” ticket when
    there is not one shred of evidence that CO2 is
    the “Devil’s Gas”.

    Of Mankind’s 3% CO2 the UK provides barely 1.6%. CO2 is 0.036% of our atmosphere. Water vapour is more active and a much bigger component.
    Even if my Maths are
    1000% inaccurate it won’t change our contribution very much will it?

    Is that really going to make any difference to anything? All your
    Green pals have agendas that have more to do with
    comfortable incomes than saving the Planet [which does not need
    saving anyway]

    If you want to get voters attention, set up a debate/conference
    for some accredited Scientists both for and against
    and you will realise that the truth is not inconvenient [Al Gore
    Propaganda] and the money wasted on ‘saving’ the Planet
    could be invested in fighting crime, lowering taxes, improving health
    etc.

    All Global Warming predictions are based on totally inaccurate
    Computer Models.
    Warming predictions via Computer Models are as useful and on the same
    level as Fools Gold and Witchcraft.

    A lot of Conservatives have similar thoughts to my own. Don’t
    count on my or their votes if you will not allow an even
    playing field to debate Global Warming/Climate Change.”

  35. I hope thay had a mechanism in place that prevented people voting in the gallery going home and voting again on-line.

    I suspect I know the answer!

    Which means that there could have been considerable double voting based on the 5:1 proportions of the gallery.

    All in the best traditions of balance, just like the statement about convincing people of the “reality” of global warming.

  36. Did anyone think to ask Prof. Rapely if they turned the raw data over to CRU for “correction” yet?

  37. I’m “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at UCL.

    Ben Santer – the gift that keeps on giving!!

  38. This is not at all surprising, Professor Chris Rapley has a long track record as a “warmist”.
    Back in 1997/8 (when I was working there on secondment) he took over as Director of British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and completely redefined their mission- to one aimed at “proving” climate change.
    All those scientists who didn’t follow this agenda, or were working in areas unlikely to support it were removed.

  39. This poll was Pharyngulatd by PZ Myers the other day, so it will be interesting to see if the trend has changed. PZ commonly links to polls about religion and intelligent design, so that the hoards of Phryngula readers can upset the theists by overwhelming the poll. The comments on his blog in regards to this are interesting, though I think the formidable PZ knows more about evolution than he does about the current state of play in climate science.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/a_poll_to_advocate_a_strong_re_php

  40. Well Adam Gallon,

    Some people prefer to get their “science” pre-packaged and ready to eat handed to them conveniently by “those who know best,” whereas others prefer to go out and seek their own science the traditional way – searching for papers, reading articles and comparing results.

    I guess the latter are those whom the good prof reckon are denying the “reality” of man made climate change.

  41. I actually searched that site for convincing evidence for man’s CO2 contribution driving temperatures and all I found was them pointing to a higher authority (IPCC).

    They really need to do better than that.

  42. I love how they spun the results by including a seperate sample of the idiots who actually turned up at the museum. Well ya obviously those that actually went to their global warming soiree would believe it wouldnt they?

    More dishonest behaviour from the agw freaks.

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

    They can’t even give it away for free…..

  44. Can sombody explain why a plastic bag of coffee which doesn’t bio dergade is better than a glass bottle which can be recycled? Advertisers jumping on the climate change band wagon maybe. Could it be Kenco can not make decent coffee so have changed to trying to appeal to peoples conscience. If the coffee was in a paoer bag there might be something in it.
    I do however agree that packaging is a problem and the best way to help is avoid supermarkets.

  45. I have already Emailed and asked the Science Musuem if they can quantify the number of children – particularly in school parties – and adults who may have voted in the skewed internal poll result? Or if they have any other rational explanation?

    It’s been clear for several years that schoolkids in the UK, and across the EU, are being brainwashed about AGW – there’s a huge amount of ‘free’ course material available to schools and everything I have seen looks more like propaganda than science.

  46. Kate (02:03:11) :

    Many thanks for that link about the Conservatives. As a lifetime Conservative voter, I have been very sad to see that the Conservatives appeared to be just as deluded as the government on climate change. But I’m greatly encouraged by these quotes. I knew of several prominent Conservatives who are sceptical (Lawson and Lilley) but I didn’t realise there was such widespread support in the party for a more sensible and – dare I say it – more sceptical approach.

    It just happens that Nick Herbert, the party environment spokesman, is my MP and I have been thinking of emailing him about climate change and energy policy. Now, with Climategate and the knowledge that the party is more sceptical than I realised, I will have a lot to say.

    Sadly I won’t be voting Conservative, because Cameron broke his ‘cast-iron’ promise on the referendum. I’ll be voting UKIP, which also happens to be the most sceptical UK party on climate change.
    Chris

  47. Brian Johnson uk (02:31:56) :

    Hi Brian.

    I also sent such an email to Cameron, and another to the Tory Party. Looks like they only react when the media provokes voters into anger, and they’ve been caught with the wrong policies.

  48. marchesarosa (01:56:19) :
    The figures have been bouncing up and down all month. Either they have been incredibly sloppy about collating the responses or someone has been fiddling.

    An unfortunate side effect of adjusting and homogenizing the raw data on the fly…

  49. The one thing that strikes me about the so-called Prove it! campaign is the complete lack of proof. I’ve read their material which is supposed to prove that the climate is being driven by CO2. There are claims which are simply false. They link hurricanes to climate change, when in fact the ACE measurement (compiled by the NOAA, I believe) shows that hurricanes world-wide have been steadily declining in severity over the past few decades.
    They claim that sea level was ‘stable’ until they started to shoot up, presumably only after CO2 was discovered, in other words another hockey stick. In fact research indicates that sea level had been falling during the LIA. Around 1850 sea levels then started to rise and have been rising at a very steady rate ever since.
    The material contains lots of claims, some of which are true, and some of which are false. But, as far as I can see, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence to link the warming with CO2. A bit ironic, bearing in mind the Prove it! headline.
    Chris

  50. A fat guy can have a hundred doctors tell him cake is bad for his health but only one would be needed to convince him cake is good for his well being.
    This would help to explain why the mainstream media are sitting on this story.
    They know once it goes viral the climate change scam is boned.
    Whatever we say or the others say it is down to the mass of undecided who usually call the shots.
    Metaphorically speaking ‘Cake’ should be an easier sell than ‘No cake’ so lets get ahead of the curve. lol

  51. “Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”

    Public organisations, like the Science Museum, Have a responsibility to tell the truth Professor Rapley, The whole truth and nothing but the truth, not your Goverment promoted propaganda!

  52. It is interesting that the graphic at the top of this page says “In the PROVE IT! gallery [i.e. physically in the museum] , 3408 people chose to count in and 626 chose to count out. On the website, 2650 users counted in and 7612 counted out.”

    So a majority of people who emitted carbon, to get to the exhibit, asked to be counted as having done something wrong. Is that how they think this is going to work in the Copenhagen world? They won’t have to give anything up as long as they keep a tally?

    Good thing AGW is fantastical tosh, or I’d be angry about an attitude like that.

  53. Slightly OT – but like the Science Museum’s dodgy poll it is UK and propaganda related: My other half has pointed out that Mumsnet (probably one of the busiest fora in the UK) are having a live webchat with Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – this Thurs Dec 3rd, at 1.15 – 2.15pm (GMT). Some UK readers may wish to register with mumsnet and ask him a question or two?

  54. I detect a certain amount of intellectual flailing about going on inside Professor Rapley’s brain. It’s a familiar refrain, isn’t it? “We need to communicate better with the public to get our message across” – 100% absolutely, exactly the same as explaining a “policy”; something our reptilian overlord politicians do all the time (I use the term reptilian in a purely metaphorical sense).

  55. Perhaps the UN has been trying to form alliances with academia (“the science”), business (“big energy”), and interest groups inside countries, across the world, so as to diminish the power of national borders and nation state governments. I remember Al Gore saying as much.

    If that is their strategy, it seems to be having some success.

    However, it is not so easy to unite the man in the street with the UN.

    We pay taxes at a regional level, we pay taxes at a national level, but I’m not so sure we want to start paying taxes at a global level, so that we can have our resources and development managed by a global institution.

    And even if such a system were ever to come to pass, there is no telling who would end up controlling it, and what mistakes they may make in the first 1000 years.

    The allegiance of various institutions to “climate change” (which is the first form of the great myth that will unite the world, just as in early history, great myths were used to unite disparate tribes), is pretty obvious. Personally I would also be in allegiance to the BBC and academia and the Science Museum and the UN for a global system. I just don’t think we’re capable of running one successfully yet.

  56. On a somewhat related note, the number of signatures on http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU is currently 2,245.

    Considering the other-than-scientific machinations that have been revealed by the Climategate disclosure, anyone who is entitled to sign up really should. We owe it to science to allow a little of the “disinfectant of sunshine” into the cosy club at CRU. If nothing is revealed, that is fine.

  57. The Right Honorary Christopher Rapley CBE seems to have made a somewhat biased assessment of the publics response to his poll. Slightly inconvenient and bothersome. It seems the public have not been fully brainwashed yet by his chums up at the UEA. You did know he is an honorary professory at UEA.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/People/Honorary+Staff/Christopher+Rapley

    His profile on the UEA website sheds further light on the topic:

    “He was Director of the British Antarctic Survey from 1998 to 2007; during his time in the Antarctic, he helped Al Gore with the “Live Earth” concert by arranging for the Rothera Research Station’s in-house band, Nunatak, to perform in Antarctica as part of the event.”

    No bias there, then. Just an inconvenient truth…….

  58. OT,
    Anthony
    I have followed news in Brazil stating that the temperature in the Brazilian base “Comandante Ferraz” had record cold sec XXI. This is based on the Antarctic Peninsula, where is “hotter than expected.” Also reports that the cold is more frequent since 2007. Some information about it?

  59. I used to love the Science Museum and was desperately disappointed by the complete dumbing down when I went there again last year.

    It was crammed with ‘interactive displays’ designed for 8yr olds – the Prove It! campaign is just another depressing manifestation of its slide towards the scientific equivalent of daytime TV.

    The fact that An Inconvenient Truth is being shown in our schools is simply appalling brainwashing.

  60. Is this a version of Ripley’s believe it or not? have we all emailed the man and our political reps?

  61. …or perhaps most people are now not willing to engage in “debates” where the game is rigged. The Alarmists provide spurious studies supported by nebulous charts and assertions, which in turn were produced by elite scientists that have been proven to be charltans. Who in thier right mind would wish to debate an issue where 6 zillion peer reviewed case studies coincidentally say the same thing? Who in thier right mind wishes to debate inside an echo chamber.

    Maybe it is time to hit the now infamous “reset” button and begin again -this time without the IPCC engineered echo chamber.

  62. All it’s proved is that kids are impressionable and easily led (the ‘yes’ voters in the gallery) whilst rational adults who are able to make their own minds up on the matter are highly sceptical.

    Allowing an online poll was a tactical error; they should just have gone with the kiddie vote.

  63. As a Scientist and ex-Senior Police Officer I have had a unique exposure to the term ‘evidence’. I do not feel that a series of comments which only give one side of an argument can be dignified with the term, as it has in the Science Museum’s ‘Prove It’ poll.

    For a site which is aimed a laymen that approach is misleading and I am all the more surprised at the size of vote doubting AGW.

  64. Brian Johnson uk (02:31:56):

    All Global Warming predictions are based on totally inaccurate Computer Models.

    That’s not true. I’m quite sure that people in the 19th Century didn’t have computer models and that is when the greenhouse effect was discovered. Arrhenius predicted that doubling or halving CO2 would bring something like a 4°C rise or fall of surface temperature, and that was around 1900.

    Here, have a read of this:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

  65. There can be no comparison between the ‘gallery vote’, which may or may not have been a private ballot, and the website vote, which was indeed a private ballot. To meld the two as if they were one and the same thing is the action of a defeated institutional apologist.

    It is astonishing that the Copenhagen rejectionists (my preferred term) outnumber the Copenhagen conformists (my preferred term) by a majority of approximately three to one – and this on a website blatantly propagandising only one side of the argument.

    As I mentioned in my message to the Science Museum, I am a democratist. I use the term to distinguish myself from so-called ‘Western liberal democracy’ apologists, with this latter concept amounting to ‘liberal’ diktat and dictatorship of the kind we have seen at the CRU and Penn State.

    Democratism and democratisation are the instruments that are ideally suited to bring about the defeat of institutional diktat, dictatorship and globalisation, via discussions and private ballots instead of the dreaded public ‘consensus’ model (Hitler’s ‘arm up or else’ Nuremberg rallies come to mind). Even this very flawed example shows what can be achieved. Imagine if this had been conducted honestly, with evidence from the rejectionists countering that of the conformists. The Science Museum obviously did imagine it – and decided against.

    Democratism rocks!

  66. As this is a pedestrian poll its an interesting result. People on a day to day basis believe more what they experience than what they are told, whether they are informed of two, indeed several sides of an argument or not.

    It is necessary to say that those protagonists of the present consensus of global warming also continue to live their lives as though there were no impending catastrophe, indeed more excessive in their carbon consumptions than the rest of us average Joes. I would nickname Al Gore as Rasputin II for making the worst of the prognostications of future calamities that never happen although as a politician, he avoids those predictions that actually can be verified to be true or false.
    in fact, on a personal level, i’m quite fed up with this stable and bountiful climate, as the news isn’t dominated by famines and failures that were so rampant in the 60’s and 70’s, when we could feel awfully sorry for the victims and send them international charity and aid.

  67. Front page news of the Daily Express today about Ian Plimer calling ‘ Human Climate Change’ a fraud.No mention of Climategate but at least it still shows the public that some SCIENTISTS actually dispute the religion.

  68. “Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”

    Sure. So where is the evidence?

  69. “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.”

    This is more shysterism from pollsters. They can make this claim because of the way they word questions. If you had a discussion with the same people polled, and you asked “Do you believe that deforestation at the base of Kilamanjaro, which has significantly altered the humidity/winds, etc around the mountain have had an impact on the climate there?” Most people would say sure. If you asked them if they thought the 4-5deg change in temperature inside most major cities compared to surround, unpopulated areas was caused by man, again…sure.

    What most people AREN’T sold on is C02’s role in any of this.

    JimB

  70. This may not mean much to non-UK residents, but those who remember the Liberty & Livelihood countryside march should know where it comes from:

    “…7612 counted out,” and I was one of them!

  71. Icarus (04:13:11) :

    indeed but Angstrom put his theories to the test by putting as much c02 as could be found in dehumidified air, doubling and halving the amount then measuring the radiation – which didn’t change on doubling or halving, so leading him to conclude that c02 was not to be considered too have an atmospheric warming effect. He then put water vapout into the experiment and concluded that vapour was over 99% of the *greenhouse* effect.

    This experiment is can easily be replicated

  72. Icarus (04:13:11),

    Please don’t link to Spencer Weart. His biased opinion might fly on a BBC show, but not here.

    Weart only cited Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, which used a very high sensitivity number, leading Arrhenius to conclude that reducing atmospheric CO2 by 50% would cause a 4 – 5° drop in temperature [today’s alarmist contingent turns Arrhenius’ scenario around, and disregarding the log effect, concludes that doubling of CO2 would cause a 4 – 5° rise in temperature; of course that nonsense is currently being falsified by the planet itself].

    Spencer Weart neglects to mention the fact that on thinking about his 1896 paper for ten years, Arrhenius recanted it in a new paper in 1906. His new sensitivity number was only slightly higher than Prof Lindzen’s.

    To leave out the second half of the story means either Weart is not very educated, or he’s pushing an agenda. In either case, I’m glad you had the opportunity to learn something here.

  73. Chris Wright (03:24:21) : “I’ll be voting UKIP, which also happens to be the most sceptical UK party on climate change.” Are you sure? Have you not seen the speeches by Nick Griffin (BNP) in the European Parliament? You might not like some of the policies of the BNP, but I don’t think it gets more anti-AGW than their climate change position. As Griffin sits on the Environment Committee he gets to go to Copenhagen to represent the European Parliament – and he will be taking a very strong line against this climate change caper. Griffin says

    “The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology.”

    “But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao.”

    See here for his recent speech in the European Parliament:

  74. Anthony,

    Several of the comments here reflect uncertainty about the course of the poll. I think a better post-poll image for the top of your post would be the graphic WUWT reader Dave produced using my automatically collected data. Both are available at http://wermenh.com/proveitraw.html , the graph’s first home is at proveit.isgreat.org/ . (I’m having trouble posting, I left the http prefix off.

    Dave has added a gold winners cup, very cute.

    The image clearly shows three or four surges in polling, including the WUWT surge, mid course adjustments, to date unexplained, and a short suspension in vote counting after the last surges started.

    Speaking of surges, hit counts for my proveit.html page were:

    Nov 28:   58
    Nov 29: 1146
    Nov 30:  955
    Dec 01:  223

    For that source, the day is 0000-2400 MST (UTC-0700)

    -Ric Werme

  75. Once people know it is OK to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes, it all comes together pretty quickly.

    Will,
    Google has been co-opted at its executive level by Gore. He is a highly paid executive adviser.
    I am certain he is working even now through his back channel access to many co-opted board rooms, to find ways to push back against climate gate.
    The look on his face at the book signing gone bad was not amused. How dare the proles resist the (self)anointed one?

  76. “Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”

    Let me give you the benefit of my experience at trying to have an open and objective discussion on this subject …

    Me: “I think the case for MMGW has not been made because [enter reasonable concern]”

    Reply: “THEN YOU ARE AN IGNORANT FOOL AND A DENIER. NEVER FORGET TOBACCO. WHO IS FUNDING YOU TO LIE? YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO HAVE AN OPINION!”

    So, if there is a communication problem here, you know where to start.

  77. I wanted to send my question about the poll totals to both Mr. Marcus and Prof. Rapley.

    I wasn’t able to find an official Museum Email address for Prof. Rapley, but did follow web threads about him.

    I’m not sure how much time he spends at UCL, but his still has a web presense (and Email), see http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_phd/chris.html which says:

    Prof Chris Rapley CBE is Director of the Science Museum. Prior to this he was Director of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), and before that the Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. This followed an extended period as Professor of Remote Sensing Science and Associate Director of University College London’s Mullard Space Science Laboratory. He has a first degree in physics from Oxford, an M.Sc. in radioastronomy from Manchester University, and a Ph.D. in X-ray astronomy from University College London. He has been a Principal Investigator on both NASA and European Space Agency satellite missions and was a member of the NASA JPL Cassini mission Science Team. He has been a member of numerous national and international committees and boards including Vice President of the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research and Chair of the International Council for Science’s (ICSU) International Polar Year 2007-2008 (IPY) Planning Group. He is currently a member of the European Polar Board’s Executive and ICSU – World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Joint Committee for IPY. He is a Fellow of St Edmund’s College Cambridge, and is an Honorary Professor at University College London and at the University of East Anglia.

    I was surprised to see what a warmist he has become, I now think some of the exhortations at the Museum come directly from his bidding. Other links:

    http://www.iop.org/activity/careers/workinglife/profiles/page_33382.html

    A 2008 interview with the Institute of Physics which sheds a little light on his transition from physicist to communicator.

    http://www.culture24.org.uk/science+%2526+nature/medicine/art56114

    Another interview, sigh:

    Which person has most inspired you?

    Jim Lovelock because of his extraordinary, encyclopaedic knowledge of physics, chemistry and human medicine, his originality of thinking and especially his ‘systems approach’ to addressing the complex world we inhabit.

    Which innovation will have the most impact in the future?

    My work and that of my research group (at the time) on the monitoring of ice sheet mass balance using spaceborne radar altimeters.

  78. Will (04:54:32) :

    Google who owns YouTube has shutdown the most linked video “Hide The Decline” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
    If you click on it you will get an error message.
    SHAME on you Google !
    Whilst there are other copies, most web sites link to this one.
    The counter on it has stopped at about 300,000

    It works for me. There is an update from M4GW just 10 minutes ago:

    I used the JibJab eCard generator to put Michael Mann’s head into these animations. JibJab wanted the disclaimer put on here because people were contacting them thinking this whole thing was their creation.

    My guess is that you got caught up in that update and lept to an erroneous conclusion.

  79. Kevin McGrane said: re you sure? Have you not seen the speeches by Nick Griffin (BNP) in the European Parliament?

    Yes, but for a variety of other reasons, voting in a far-right party, although a poke in the eye for the establishment, cannot reasonably be done with a clear conscience.

    This is part of the problem of representation voters have to contend with in a first-past-the-post system like the UK’s. A vote for UKIP is a vote against the Conservatives and a vote for the BNP is a vote against Labour. What I mean is the kind of person likely to vote for UKIP is the kind of person who would have voted Conservative if he didn’t object strongly to some aspect of their policy. For the BNP, mostly white working class men do the voting, hence it’s a vote away from Labour.

    As I wrote to my MP, I’m greatly interested in the policies of UKIP given the Conservative party line on “global warming”; it’s likely I will be actively campaigning for them at the next general election.

  80. Let’s not get too carried away, the warmista BlitzKreig carries on regardless of trivial detail such as Science or Truth!

    After hours on non reporting on the Australian vote the flagship BBC News channel, BBC 24, finally broke the Australian ETS vote story shortly before Prime Ministers Questions in Parliament.

    Such belated reporting clearly indicates that this type of AGW event is red-flagged and too important for simple News Editors to handle!

    This story clearly needed the Big Guns at the BBC to manufacture a spin that would “hide the decline” in acceptance of the consensus orthodoxy.

    The result of this spinning was to introduce the phrase “Climate Sceptics And Deniers”
    Gutter Press. Despicable control freaks, you disgust me!

    After this piece that would disgrace the tabloids, we were transported to Westminster.

    Its irrelevance to practical politics was demonstrated from the start by behaviour that would be unnaceptable in the St Trinians school canteen.

    Once the speaker had wrested control from our elected hooligans, the questions resumed. On ClimateGate what did we get? Nothing. On Oz ETS? Nothing. On Carbonhaven?

    I counted three feeble questions that served only to allow our Dear Leader to pick up the script.

    The Science is not in doubt (he’s right there but 180 degrees out)

    Low Carbon economy (millions of unemployed)

    £100 billion by 2020 to help the developing world to fight Climate Change. (and earning the thanks of despotic regimes) Blah, blah, blah.

    And don’t get me started on the opposition parties.

    The war is nowhere near won.

  81. John Moss (01:33:03) :

    Hmmm, something odd here.

    I looked at this a couple of days ago and it was 6k count me in and 8k count me out.

    Given the numbers now you might conclude that the museum thinks a lot more ‘inners’ were cheating than ‘outers’.

  82. The Climate change industry is very keen to show the consequences of Global warming but not so about the consequences of their proposed solutions.

    The public have to be shown what a 20-80% reduction in carbon use would actualy mean to the guy on the street: No car, no holidays abroad, a very restricted diet, job losses, higher taxes and no cheap goods in the shop, in fact not many goods in the shop at all.

    Sounds like the USSR?

    You bet.

  83. In other news, an additional exhibit to complement the global warming display is being developed by the museum to provide the public with evidence for the existence of the Luminiferous Ether:

    http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

    A new “Prove It!” web site will also be launched to allow the public to voice their opinion on the ether.

    “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about the luminiferous ether!”

  84. A bit OT here, but could someone please inform the uninitiated (non brits, namely me) what the difference between front benchers and back benchers is???

  85. ” Icarus (04:13:11) :

    Brian Johnson uk (02:31:56):

    All Global Warming predictions are based on totally inaccurate Computer Models.

    That’s not true. I’m quite sure that people in the 19th Century didn’t have computer models and that is when the greenhouse effect was discovered. Arrhenius predicted that doubling or halving CO2 would bring something like a 4°C rise or fall of surface temperature, and that was around 1900.

    Here, have a read of this:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    What the poster you just tried to rebut said, and is correct, is that global warming is created in simulations only. If you read the history of CO2 and indeed it is contained in that post you linked, the hypothesis that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect was as a result of laboratory tests in using perfect conditions to measure a direct effect.

    In other words, the hypothesis was created that a similar situation may happen in the atmosphere. The atmosphere however is not even remotely the same situation as real world, and as the first poster said, there is still – to date – no direct evidence that CO2 actually increases temperature in a real world situation. If you believe there are then you are smarter than the likes of Prof Jones and Manna and Briffa and the other scientists that are under investigation.

    Why? Because even these scientists, and the basis of the IPCC report, relies on two things to prove CO2 causes warming – that the warming experienced over the last century was not natural or explainable by natural forcings and that the only “unquantified” ingredient (in other words when all other known factors are eliminated) the variable left must be CO2.

    To make AGW’s case even worse is that even the top climate scientists agree that a doubling or tripling of Atmospheric CO2 will actually have little effect on climate. What causes the problem is how sensitive the CO2 is to other natural factors. In other words will CO2 increase/decrease cloud cover. Will it cause a feedback loop in temperature absorbption. Will tipping points be reached where the warming take on a life of its own etc etc.

    The models that predict catastrophic climate change rely on guesses of levels of forcings.

    Ultimately and put simply, the case for AGW relies solely on the models and in the hopes that the models can predict and account for the temperature changes. The very fact that there is this website is testiment to the fact that there are no direct evidence results showing what effect CO2 has. If there were I can garuntee you that this site would be far less popular. In fact, if the scientists could show conslusively that we are causing man made climate change then I will be the first person to jump on the band wagen and lobby senators to implement changes to combat it. Unfortunately, much as some scientists feel it is “incontrovertable”, no scientists has yet to determine the exact effect of increased CO2 on the atmosphere and when you consider that the CO2 levels in the past have been 10 times higher and there not been catastrophic warming – I am more inclined to err on the side of it not having a huge effect until someone can show otherwise.

  86. Since 2000, temperatures have not risen at all. Most people intuitively understand that a rise of zero degrees per decade is not consistent with a rise of five degrees per century. England had a very cold winter last year after several cold summers. Brainwashing only goes so far.

  87. Why isn’t Mr Mann making any statements? He definitely must have something to say?
    I would like to here his excuses.

  88. On the gallery, the count-me-in people have won. WUWT may want to organize sensible people’s visits to the science museums, too. ;-)

    I think that the out people have always been ahead by a big amount – like those 5000 votes now – but they were twisting the numbers, trying to encourage new voters to join the majority or almost majority of the concerned ones.

    It didn’t work this time so they just decided to publish the genuine numbers at the end (in an almost invisible font color).

  89. “More work needs to be done to convince people” – that CO2 presents no threat to the planet…

  90. Icarus,

    “Arrhenius predicted that doubling or halving CO2 would bring something like a 4°C rise or fall of surface temperature, and that was around 1900.”

    And Lord Kelvin predicted that there is nothing new to be learnt from physics – only more and more precise methods.

    Come on Icarus, you can do better than that.

  91. At Engineering school we used to joke about the equivocations of the Law students with the phrase “I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of that FACT.”

    Good on Old Rapley for putting a new spin on the joke with: “a large proportion of people do not believe in the REALITY of man-made climate change.”

    If the good folks of England Scotland & Wales have some problems with their perceptions of REALITY, I modestly propose (h/t to J. Swift) that the monies now spent on the Science Museum should be redirected to providing the people of Britain with, in the old saw, “testicles, spectacles, wallet & watch”

    Especially the testicles bit.

  92. OT
    Is there any possibility of releasing ‘Hide the Decline’ as part of a full blown CD or DVD music ‘rejectionist’ compilation? I’m certain it would top the charts all around the world! I’d love to see the BBC forced to feature it in its Sunday chart countdown programme.

  93. Icarus – in any case even Arrhenius, were he around today, might concede that science had advanced somewhat in the last century, the efforts of messrs Jones/Mann et al notwithstanding?

  94. I took a look at the page entitled

    How do we know humans are responsible?
    ==========================

    To see what evidence was presented.

    Here it is … Drum Roll… Da Da

    “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.”

    Yes that is it. Surely there is more!!!

    Link is here

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

  95. Bishop Hill has an interesting report related to Prof. Christopher Rapley and Prof. Phil Jones

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/27/the-royal-society-and-global-warming.html

    The Royal Society maintains an ‘informal group’ of scientists called the Climate Change Advisory Network, to provide them with ‘advice on climate related issues’. Rapley and Jones sit on this committee among others. This fact alone most definitely disqualifies the Royal Society from independently reporting on the CRU AGW alleged fraudulencies.

    The deeper you dig, the stinkier this gets…

  96. Stacey (01:45:30) :

    Please, Please don’t spin this with the highlight pen:-

    Including the gallery votes:-

    Total Counted in approx 6000

    Total Counted out approx 8300.

    It does not need spinning?

    Obviously the gallery would be visited by countless school children group visits to the museum.

    The experiment shows very clearly how propaganda and brainwashing is highly effective on the young minds. That is where the thought police have an opportunity to get in early and set the opinions of the future generations.

    3408 (mostly school age frightened children with thoughts or drowning pets) voted “count me in” versus 626 who voted out….a landslide victory for AGW propaganda. Now if ONLY the museum can get these children to take a stand and attack their parents and grand parents then the “convincing” will have been done.

    In Germany in the 30’s, the youth camps proved extremely effective at getting the message across, very soon the country was stepping in time to the tune of a new belief system.

  97. that site is a joke, “we’ve studied the evidence and climate change is human induced and requires urgent action”. i just gave em’ a bit of “evidence”, let’s see how they like evidence that doesn’t mesh with their “Humans are bad” theory on global climate change. hahaha climate change… that term still makes me shake my head, of course it changes, always has, always will, with or without us.

  98. Robinson,

    Let me ask you this. If Cameron was to hold a referendum on the EU constitution, which when he originally agreed, he said he would campaign for a NO vote, what do you think he would then do if he got his NO, vote? The treaty has now been ratified. It cannot be un-ratified by a veto from any member state. He would be in an impossible situation, which would make a mockery of the whole exercise.

    If you think Britain should leave the EU, then by all means campaign for UKIP. But consider this. If Britain did leave the EU, the tariffs that would be erected against this country would be swift, brutal and crippling, for such is the spiteful mindset of these bureaucrats.

  99. Ostrichgate?

    Is the Ostrichgate a still bigger scandal than the Climategate?

    Normally when there is a juicy scandal, the Mainstream media are on the spot like sharks after blood. The media blackout is a sign of heavy ideological involvement on their part (if it was not obvious).

    The minimalist observation is that we have no serious journalism in the media.

    A more serious claim is the identification of the media with the Marxists, which are desperate for a looming disaster as an excuse for expanding govenrment involvement.

    At first sight one would expect a collective sigh of relief when it becomes clear that we are not to perish in a hellish nightmare after all. But not so.

    Are there any non-Marxist psychiatrists or psychologists anymore to examine the journalistic head out there?


  100. Will (04:54:32) :

    Google who owns YouTube has shutdown the most linked video “Hide The Decline” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
    If you click on it you will get an error message.
    SHAME on you Google !
    Whilst there are other copies, most web sites link to this one.
    The counter on it has stopped at about 300,000

    Check your firewall; I JUST did a Google search and the TOP hit was the Youtube video … I clicked on the link and it’s PLAYING on my PC now.

    301, 391 hits BTW.
    .
    .
    .

  101. This man is not a scientist and should not be “Professor of Climate Science” at any institution, even a mental one, nor a kindergarden.

    He is advocating a set of facts for which he not only has no proof, but which his job should be to investigate. He is part of the problem, the Team.

  102. I have just sent the following mail to the good Professor Rapley :

    =================================================

    The statement that had been issued following the “prove it” action is misleading and most importantly it misrepresents the position of many people having participated on this action me included .

    Indeed I have also voted “Count me out” .

    As I am a scientist (active in quantum mechanics) I also have my scientific reasons to “count me out” and am convinced that many others do so too .

    Therefore the right statement that thruthfully translates this position is that “A large proportion of people do not believe the THEORY of man made climate change .”

    While there is and will always trivially be a climate change , there are sofar no compelling experimental or theoretical reasons for a human origin of climate changes in general and during the 20th century in particular . There is most definitely no evidence for a CATASTROPHIC man-made climate change .

    To be frank most of the statements in the “Evidence” section like f.ex

    “Roads and railways might need to be designed with materials that can withstand extreme heat and downpours.”

    are sofar from any science that one can only count oneself out .

    I am not informed that we use in Singapour special materials to withstand extreme heat and downpours that constitute the local climate – it is standard building technology that is also used in places with cold weather and no precipitations .

    This is only an example , most statements are of similar nature – unfounded speculations , assumptions and no experimental evidence .

    If I wanted to inform you about this misrepresentation it is because the way you formulated the report implies that a large majority of people refuses the reality .

    In clinical terms it means that a large majority of people are crazy because the reality is there for every sane person to see even without advanced scientific education .

    I would like to assure you that no “count me out” person , me included , is crazy .

    Yours sincerely

  103. It’s snowing here in Texas this morning. I’ve not seen snow in this area in December in a long time, and I’ve been here for over 30 years. Perhaps I should send this news to the folks at the Science Museum. They are actually the ones who need educating, anyway!

  104. Steve in SC (05:27:56) :A bit OT here, but could someone please inform the uninitiated (non brits, namely me) what the difference between front benchers and back benchers is???

    ——————
    A Front Bencher is a a government MP who has a senior position eg Minister for Transport. Back Benchers have no such position. In theory the latter can be more independent, but those who aspire to the Front Bench are unlikely to rock the boat – others can be brow-beaten or blackmailed by the Whips (seriously!) into voting the “right” way.
    Shadow Front and Back Benchers are the equivalents in the “opposition” parties.
    All the above are so named because they sit on the front or back benches of their side of the House of Commons.

    At the moment we have a particularly corrupt, brain-dead, gutless bunch of conformists in parliament with little to chose between the two main parties.

    To outside sceptics it might seem like a good thing that the leader of the BNP – a minor party – is a sceptic. Strategically though it isn’t. The BNP are widely regarded as politically beyond the pale. Griffin’s scepticism, especially as he is the only leader of a political party here who isn’t a warmist, will be used to portray sceptics as aligned with fascists. Believe me, in the UK that can only hurt

  105. “Plato Says (04:02:04) :
    I used to love the Science Museum and was desperately disappointed by the complete dumbing down when I went there again last year.

    It was crammed with ‘interactive displays’ designed for 8yr olds – the Prove It! campaign is just another depressing manifestation of its slide towards the scientific equivalent of daytime TV.”

    I quite agree, that’s why I asked my question at the beginning of this thread. I doubt if they will be tearing out any “interactive displays” to make room for the new gallery, so what will have to go?

    This general dumbing down of museums to cater for what out-of-touch adults imagine is what eight-to-ten year olds are supposed to want is happening everywhere. The worst of all is the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie in Paris.

    When I think how much I used to love mooching around museums as a boy in the late Forties an early Fifties, I am dismayed by what they have now become. The museum in England where I have recently seen kids at their happiest is the Pitt-Rivers at Oxford – a good old-fashioned junk-yard-museum – very politically incorrect too.

  106. ” Michael R (05:35:12) :………………………………In fact, if the scientists could show conslusively that we are causing man made climate change then I will be the first person to jump on the band wagen and lobby senators to implement changes to combat it…………….”

    I’d join you if they also showed conclusively it was going to be something bad, where the adverse affects would be felt and what the impact would be and timing and costs needed for specific adaptations. Not some high cost, lowest common denominator, general, one solution fits all approach at the expense of human progress.

  107. It would be interesting to compare the output of such a poll with a hypothetical question like:

    “Do you think that humankind might be wiped off the face of the earth by an impact with an asteroid and do you feel we should invest in a solution to such a problem?”

    It would be interesting because it would separate out those that don’t want to spend their tax dollars on crisis evasion from those that simply have come to the conclusion that AGW theory is a fraud.

  108. On a seperate, though associated subject, I have just had a response from the UK Advertising Standards Agency.

    These are the people you complain to if you believe an advert is wrong in some way. I was complaining about the Times’ advert indicating that the North East passage had been opened by Global Warming.

    The response was completely unacceptable, of course, but I was intrigued by the last sentence, which required me to keep the letter ‘confidential’.

    This is the first that I have heard of a requirement to keep ASA findings secret. Has anyone out there got any comments or advice as to what to do next?

  109. @Michael R.

    I think you have made a few mistakes in your comments. Greenhouse effect originally had nothing to with “global warming” at all – it only referred to the insulating effect of having an atmosphere which results in the earth’s daytime temperatures being lower than the moons daytime temperatures whilst the earth’s nightime temperatures are warmer than the moon’s nightime temperatures.

    Tyndalls first did experiments on gas concentrations and their effect on the “greenhouse” insulating properties of the atmosphere and his experiments suggested that CO2 had almost no effect on the insulating properties of the atmosphere but water vapur did – which we know because nights with heavy cloud cover are actually much warmer than those with no cloud cover because the water vapour keeps the heat in (but then again cloudy days are much cooler than cloudless days for the opposing reason).

    Arrhenius was the first to suggest that CO2 could cause global warming but was immediately shot down by fellow scientist Knut Angstrom who insisted he had got his data on CO2 absorbtion wrong (sound familiar?).

    Inrestingly “global warming” has been linked to the well-known atmospheric “greenhouse effect” but in fact the two things are quite separate. Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” smooths out temperature variations over a 24 hour period – it is not directly related to global warming theory.

    You might like to read some more about Arrhenius. He was a good scientist but also a complete nutcase whose other work was the basis of Nazi eugenics theories.

  110. Yesterday, I sent this email to the PR of the Science Museum, (and I am holding my breath for the response …. as my way of helping to reduce anthropic CO2 emissions, you understand. )

    Dear Andrew,

    I wonder if you could pass this comment to Professor Rapley. He says:

    “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.”

    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.

  111. Dear Plato,

    Perhaps I was not very clear I am an open minded sceptic of AGW (or any hypothesis).

    Hang on maybe that not a term of abuse but the definition of a Scientist.

  112. Those who visited the Science museum, and who took part in the vote, may well have been largely children, who no doubt were “swayed” by adults on hand to do just that. You also have to consider that the museum caters for parties and groups, so if school groups attended, no doubt their guide (or teacher) influenced their vote.

  113. Egg on faces maybe.

    “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.”

    How incredible! I believe it is precisely this sort of indoctrination that has turned the public off and made them more sceptical as some converted new posters have stated recently on WUWT. They simply can’t believe that the world is about to end soon and look for alternative explanations. They soon find out that its actually a con trick.

  114. Copy of letter to:

    Prof Chris Rapley CBE, Director & Andrew Marcus
    Science Museum Press Office,
    020 7942 4357
    andrew.marcus@sciencemuseum.org.uk

    Prof. Rapley and Mr. Marcus

    Re: Uphold SCIENCE – Show ALL sides of evidence on climate – not advocate anthropogenic warming

    Is the Science Museum to provide objective science information?
    OR is it’s mission to advocate a particular political position?

    The ClimateGate emails and documents from CRU are exposing major corruption at the heart of climate science.

    As and engineer and scientist, I find your PROVE IT campaign to be highly partisan. You appear to be pushing a similar agenda to Phil Jones et al. as shown by the CRU ClimateGate emails. Per the results of your online poll, you have already lost much of your credibility by your partisan stance.

    I strongly encourage the Science Museum to return to its duty to provide OBJECTIVE information for the public to evaluate.

    Provide links to BOTH the IPCC documents AND to the NIPCC documents. See
    Climate Change Reconsidered, the 880 page 2009 report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

    http://www.nipccreport.org

    This documents a wide range of scientific evidence that was ignored by the IPCC and comes to the opposite conclusions.

    Provide links to CO2Science.org which is specifically providing the whole range of scientific evidence on CO2
    and climate, especially for students. e.g. it provides extensive documentation on the benefits to agriculture of higher CO2. It also provides extensive scientific evidence on the Medieval Warm Period, which the CRU “Team” sought to hide.

    Please provide links to WattsUpWithThat.com which was voted the number one science blog for 2008, and is rated by Technorati to be in the top 100 overall blogs as well as the top 100 Green and top 100 Science blogs.
    It provides evidence on both sides of the climate argument and allow readers from all persuasions to post. It has about twice the traffic of RealClimate.org which highly sensors postings to just anthropogenic advocacy.

    Again I appeal to you to uphold objective science with ALL the evidence, not just ultra liberal partisan politics.

    Yours sincerely

    David L. Hagen, PhD

    cc BBC Feedback

  115. I had this exchange with the science museum it does not sound to me like their minds are open for any discussion

    To feedback@nmsi.ac.uk
    I attempted to respond to your question and was told my e-mail address was not valid which of course is total rubbish as is your so called proof. Perhaps by invalidating the no responses you can “prove” support for your position.
    You of course are pathetically short of actual facts as is most of the propaganda items being published to try and implement this tax swindle.
    One number you mention is the amount of anthropogenic carbon released, you claim 500 gigatonnes IPCC 4AR page 515 puts this number at 244 with 100 gigatonnes already sequestered in the ocean, Then they claim there is 169 gigatonnes in the air the logic of this calculation totally escapes me, clearly this is new IPCC math.
    Just try to get any engineer to do a mass balance calculation on fig 7.3 page 515 4AR and you will begin to see some of the nonsense in the “peer reviewed” IPCC reports.
    The IPCC case is based solely on statistics there is not one word of scientific proof by calculation or application of the laws of physics in the entire 1000 pages. If you wish to read a scientific study I recommend “Climate change ” by Dr.John Nicol Professor Emeritus of Physics James Cook University. Then ask yourself why such a verification of the IPCC hypothesis does not appear in any of their reports.
    The function of CO2 relative to the surface temperature of the world is a matter of Physics not statistics which can be selected and falsified at will to shown any predetermined result.
    If the trend of CO2 and temperature were to correlate, which they do not, does CO2 drive temperature or temperature drive CO2. This can not be proven by statistics alone.
    Barry Moore P.Eng.
    Calgary Canada

    From: Scm Respond View Contact
    To: barrymca2000@yahoo.ca

    Dear Mr Moore

    Thank you for your comment about the Science Museum ’s PROVE IT! exhibit and website.

    At the Science Museum we have examined the scientific evidence and concluded that climate change is happening and that human activities are a significant cause. There is now a strong scientific consensus on this, as indicated by the most recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on this evidence, we believe that urgent action is necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

    I am sorry to hear that you were unable participate in the poll. I do not know why that was, but can I suggest you try again. If you’re email address still does not go through, please get back in touch and we will investigate further.

    Vicky Carroll
    Science Museum

  116. Doggy Geezer (07:11:11) :

    Aren’t you usually “dodgy geezer”? Must be another result of global warming.

    As far as the letter goes…. post the whole thing here. The Northeast and Northwest passages have both been open long before this. Just what is it they wanted kept “confidential”? That they are not doing their job of investigating erroneous and out-right false claims in the media?

  117. @REP

    “..Aren’t you usually “dodgy geezer”? Must be another result of global warming.
    As far as the letter goes…. post the whole thing here…”

    Ah, yes – I must apologise for my sudden canine attack – full moon, you know…

    I will not post the letter yet – as an ex-Whitehall civil servant I suspect there is more mileage in my complying with their requirement and very publicly asking what the reason is for it. It is a strange requirement, and one which is not usually put in writing, so I would like to know:

    – if any other complainers have received such a ‘gagging order’
    – if there is any legal justification for it (the current UK government has produced so many laws over the last couple of years there may indeed be some catch-all requirement for UK subjects to remain silent when ordered)
    – if there is any reasonable justification involving politeness or good manners for this. I can’t think of one, but I would like to consider the issue before going further….

  118. The following or something similar should be sent to The Science Museum and to the University of East Anglia:

    “Based on Prof. Rapely’s own comments regarding the Prove-It! poll, along with his resume that explains that he “helped Al Gore”, and his emails to people who have questioned him on Climate Change (in which he only presents an appeal to the politically-biased IPCC authority), it is clear that he is too politically invested in Climate Change to provide a dispassionate scientific viewpoint.

    Since such a viewpoint is essential for any presentation of science to the public, I hereby request that Prof. Rapely immediately be removed from his position as Director of the Science Museum.”

  119. All UK government funded institutions such as the Science Museum subscribe to AGW. Whether its because they dont know any science (physics) is a moot point; but its probably because they will all be fired if they dont.

  120. I suspect that the online poll was being attacked again by script kiddies, although at a slower rate than originally. The web staff probably simply noted the forms of false voting, and waited until the poll closed before reverting the fraudulent votes. That way the fraudsters weren’t alerted and couldn’t try other methods.

    The Museum is being silly in trying to use IPCC evidence. The IPCC is required to study human-caused change, so their reports of course ignore natural change.

    I agree that this exhibit’s evidence is full of errors, and for a science museum is far too shallow. I’d prefer for them to not waste space on a climate change gallery as all that’s needed is a display about how climate research is progressing. It should include a display of recent research to show how much is still being discovered.

  121. I didn’t take their silly poll but I did shoot off an note to them that this line at the beginning of their web climate change site put me off immediately given that it is demonstrably false: “Noticed anything different about the weather recently? Scientists now agree that global climate is changing – and humans are to blame”

    Whatever that institution is, it is not scientific.

  122. Doggy Geezer (07:11:11) :

    On a seperate, though associated subject, I have just had a response from the UK Advertising Standards Agency.

    These are the people you complain to if you believe an advert is wrong in some way. I was complaining about the Times’ advert indicating that the North East passage had been opened by Global Warming. …”

    My first step would be to discover whether they had any legal standing to require it to be kept confidential. They are probably afraid of the bashing they’ll get if the global warming cabal hear.

  123. AdderW (05:58:04) :

    “Why isn’t Mr Mann making any statements? He definitely must have something to say?
    I would like to here his excuses.”

    Mr. Mann is busy hiding behind his university now and won’t come out to play.

  124. Count me out as well. On to Copenhagen??

    http://en.cop15.dk/

    Clicking on “Climate Thoughts” (Lomborg has commented) affords anyone to comment on Copenhagen or express support for any thoughts already there. Note that commenter “Cancel Copenhagen” now has two supporters (me included), who give recent CRU revelations as a reason.

    It would seem that the One World siren has (ouside my awareness anyhow) become more than a passing meme. Having entering the “Climate Thoughts” page, one is strangely unable to exit from it as there are no links back to reality. I had to hit Control / Alt / Delete.

    Would that their proposed policies were so easily navigated.

  125. This might seem off topic but I believe it is fundamental to understanding the religious beliefs of global warming zealots.

    My background is economics. It is the bizarre obscuring of economics that raised my eyebrows over this whole thing. Why would the science museum have a page like this: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/economics/growth_sustainable.aspx

    Economist are perfectly capable of understanding the world is round and therefore finite but if asked the good economist will tell you there is no theoretical limits to economies… why?

    Because unlike scientist who measure physical things economist measure benefit with our ruler of price. For example, an ecologist would have an important job to do to measure how much physical inputs go into producing the steak at the grocery store. Let’s say that the steak, packaged and ready for sale cost $10.00. An economist would measure 10. If the same steak was prepared by a chef, seasoned perfectly, paired with the right wine, in a softly lit restaurant with soothing music you might pay $100.00. Did the restaurant use any more electricity to cook the steak than you would have at home? The music was shared, the grills may be more efficient if used repeatedly and not have to allow for cooling and heating. I’ve just increased the price of the steak by tenfold without an increase in resources or energy or anything else.

    I could keep this example going because another factor in price is preference. What if you prefer the steak rare but it’s cooked well done. More heat less benefit. How much does the carbon footprint change if the server is courteous and versus rude or the steak is delivered after ten minutes versus one hour.

    Much of the new value in stock markets and business are not companies that make steaks or steal or physical resources. They are Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Ebay. These companies make us more efficient smarter, more connected and networked and have very little carbon footprint. In the case of Ebay we sell the same stuff back and forth over and over again. If not for transaction costs and taxes (and the fact that it would serve no purpose) we could sell each others stuff back and forth to each other for infinity increasing the numerical value of the economy but having no real benefit. The only carbon footprint would be in the transportation.

    Innovations in health are tremendously valuable and have little carbon footprint either. Good economist understand these relationships well. However, some Enviro’s want you believe we just greedily watch the GDP numbers cheering growth and mindlessly thirsting for more physical goods.

    Some ecologist assume that the way you increase the economy by ten is by making ten steaks and ten times the environmental impact and physical resources. They then wrongly extrapolate that it isn’t fair and that you should share your steaks… or not eat them at all.

    It is correct to assume that economies need a base amount of physical inputs in the same way that people need calories in their food. Once these base needs are met the other luxuries I discussed can develop from that without necessarily incurring more environmental degradation. The spread of knowledge can actually reduce it.

    If you can begin to understand the above relationships then you can start to understand how an easy way for countries to increase GDP per unit energy (or co2) is to incentivize computer and healthcare industries and ship their heavy industry to Africa. No change in energy efficiency or effect on the environment but the country might look like heros to the ill-informed.

    There are some economist with PHD’s that do not understand this. Remarkably they all seem to work at the U.N.. This is also a key reason why so many economist like those of Cato and Heartland can see through the bizarre nature of so much of this even if they don’t start out understanding the science. By the way if you think John Holdren knows nothing about science you should know how perverted his views on economics are.

  126. Bill Marsh (07:44:15) :

    > Why do people insist on starting sentences with conjunctions?

    But isn’t that exactly what conjunctions are for?

    Just like using prepositions to end sentences with. :-)

  127. From their natural effects can’t be the cause of warming page.

    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.

    How @%^&ing stupid do they think we are!?

    Thank God for AGW is all I can say coz who knows how damned cold it could get without it!

    DaveE.

  128. jmbnf (10:45:05) :

    This is a good point you make, and you have highlighted the fallacy of the Malthusian mindset. They believe that continued economic growth means more physical stuff is consumed, but they do not understand the concept of value added.

    Your example of the steak at home versus the steak in the restaurant, is an example of value added. As economies grow wealthier, more meals will be consumed in restaurants, but the total quantity of stuff consumed would not necessarily increase. You can also take an iPod and work out that there is a huge amount of value added to the raw materials (silicon and plastic) compared to say a briefcase or a bicycle.

  129. jmbnf (10:45:05) : So you went to the root of the issue. Ok. But what about carbon markets?, nothing will be produced, no goods at all. If you have a private land with trees somebody will come and give you a carbon credit, then, that somebody will sell that carbon share say at 10 times the price of the original carbon credit. That is chemically pure speculation, like pouring the empty into the void and make a big profit out of this. This simple operation will devaluate not only currencies but work itself. There will always be a differential, this translates into the following: Everybody will perpetually owe that “somebody” this “spread”. This is what the liberal revolution meant for the world since it was invented many years ago. but this time it will literally mean:
    I owe my soul to the company store but to the Nth. power.

    ….and then we realized we have been turned into the “gamma” class.

    However their compassion allow us to take some “soma” to forget and forgive.

  130. Stephen Shorland (01:52:27) : “Thinking about my flyer design. (THIS BOARD COULD DO WITH A FAQ)!”

    Second. At least a summary of talking points suitable for dissemination to friends, etc. A lot of propagandized people need to know the facts. I can remember most of the results of studies and summarized data, but there’s a lot to cover. I still think the deck of cards is a good idea.

  131. hunter (05:05:46) :

    Once people know it is OK to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes, it all comes together pretty quickly.”

    And man-o-man, that is one ugly emperor!

  132. Bill Marsh (07:44:15) : “Why do people insist on starting sentences with conjunctions?”

    And why shouldn’t we?

    “But sorft! Wot light through yonder winder breaks?” –Jakesbeer

  133. Has anybody here actually been to the museum and seen who was punching the buttons? Could they push IN or OUT more than once? Did they do so?

    Also, are the on-line results being shown in the museum exhibit?

  134. Bill Marsh (07:44:15) :
    Why do people insist on starting sentences with conjunctions?

    And just writing in fragmentary sentences, too.

    Reply: Or being grammar nazis. ~ ctm

  135. “If you think Britain should leave the EU, then by all means campaign for UKIP. But consider this. If Britain did leave the EU, the tariffs that would be erected against this country would be swift, brutal and crippling, for such is the spiteful mindset of these bureaucrats.”

    So Britain should sell out its sovereignty for cheaper French wine?

    SIGH.

Comments are closed.