Science Museum Prove It! poll now closed – surprising results

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!

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

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.

Re: alleagra (01:34:22)
Sorry: should be ” tax-payers’ money “

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?

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”.

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?

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.

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!

“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!

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?

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”.”

“More work needs to be done to convince people”…
Is this the Science Museum or the Scientology Museum?

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…”

@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?

“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’.

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.”

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.

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!!

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

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.

“Prove It! remains open until January 2010 and is free to visit.”
They can’t even give it away for free…..

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.

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.

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

“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!

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?

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.

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…….

I disagree with Sarah Palin on a lot of things but credit where it is due. She was absolutely right about global warming;
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/18/palin-global-warming-limbaugh/
What is so interesting and comical is to read the comments below the article.

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.

…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.

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.

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!

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.

“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

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

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:

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

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?

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.

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.

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???

John Hulbert
It is possible that Mr Delingpole’s highlighting of the poll on his blog helped to boost the vote – nevertheless, it was more anti than pro before Climategate and he stuck his oar in.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018299/climategate-science-museums-green-propaganda-backfires/

Steve in SC
Frontbencher is someone in the Cabinet or the Shadow Cabinet, a backbencher is a common or garden Member of Parliament.

@Will
” 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.”
That link works fine for me at least.
REPLY: Works for me too. 302,000 views so far. – Anthony

Its snowing outside in North Texas as I type this.
Big snow event set for Thursday/Friday as well.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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…

Just before Copenhagen count in will “conveniently” surpass count out. Just wait and see.

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.

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?

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!

“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.

THe House select Committee on Energy Independence is about to start a heaing on the State of Climate Science. From the link below is a link to the Webcast of the Hearing.
http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0014
Dr. Holdren is the main guest of Honor.

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.

@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.

RAPLEY’S BELIEVE IT OR NOT ?
Perhaps I’m giving away my age.

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.

Why do people insist on starting sentences with conjunctions?

I think Mann is the whistleblower, he suddenly developed a consciounce

Morningstar: US Lawmakers Seek To Unseal Records In Climate Fraud Case
http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200911251628DOWJONESDJONLINE000568_univ.xml

Those who wish to communicate with Prof R, might like to try chris.rapley@sciencemuseum.org.uk

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Unfortunately, my point about it being a bad thing for sceptics that the BNP leader is anti-AGW is already becoming apparent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/02/climate-denial-far-right
See how many straw men, gratuitous slurs and flat out lies we can spot in this piece by Bob Ward.

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.

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.

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