I never thought I’d see this from MSNBC. But, here it is, your chance to weigh in. Of course the choices are rather weird, but then so is MSNBC. Make some noise, maybe Olberman will label me as the “worst person in the world”. Heh.
So far as of this writing, with almost 10,000 votes, here are the results:
Link to poll here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thats probably the fastest vote I’ve ever made.
Great, typical of MSNBC they don’t even understand the subject so they create a poll that doesn’t reflect the true issues involved.
Only takes 2 clicks, one on the MSNBC.com link, and one to vote.
Thank you, Mr. Watts. I voted too.
I voted correctly: NO
The second option, ‘No’, is odd. It assumes that the responder to the option already had an opinion on the issue, ‘I still believe…’. Whereas in the ‘Yes’ option you can include those who are fresh to the subject.
The use of the term ‘fabricated data´is misleading, as the ‘Climategate scientists’ have never been accused of making up the data. Rather, the issue has laways been that they selected only the data which supported their AGW case, and suppressed the rest. Not the same as fabrication.
The results have changed from 65.6% “No” to 55.8% “No” in just a couple of hours. I suppose it’s been pushed by alarmists sites. This push here should get it back on track where it should be.
One click for man and another click for . . . . reversing The Muir Russell Report (mankind)
I think MSNBC understands the issue. I think they’ve intentionally constructed a set of questions that skirts the issue. The panel didn’t confirm anything about the science itself. They concluded that nobody hid data but the U.K. government says they violated freedom of info laws by not sharing the data.
Anyway, we didn’t need the panel to confirm that the science sucked because Mann already admitted, on the eve of the panel’s decision, that his hockey stick graph was crap.
“”I [Mann] always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it [the hockey stick graph] a central icon of the climate change debate,” (Telegraph.co.uk, June 28th).
Someone should right a book about the snow-job cover-up. It’s more telling than the original crime (yes, I mean crime in the sense of criminal activity).
Thanks for the heads up. What are the odds that these poll results will see the light of day on MSNBC? Do you remember the British Science Museum poll?
Question fo MSBNC: Dumb down much?
Thank you for telling us, I will be forwarding the link to interested friends.
I am not sure how long the poll will stay up if the voting continues to go this way.
I’ve decided to change my name from Thomas to Doubting Thomas.
“Doubting Thomas is a term that is used to describe someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; a skeptic.” (Wikipedia)
Yours truly, Doubting Thomas
Yesterday it was 2 to 1. Now there are folks pushed to vote yes and vote often.
The second response is rather odd. I don’t necessarily believe “those scientists fabricated data”. They just took the existing data and tortured it until they got the answers they wanted.
I voted and then started posting the address on all the sites I frequent. Vote early and vote often!
Is it true one can push “Yes” as many times as you want, but “No” can only be pushed once? Hummmm….. I smells a rat!
“”” Edward Bancroft says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:57 am
The second option, ‘No’, is odd. It assumes that the responder to the option already had an opinion on the issue, ‘I still believe…’. Whereas in the ‘Yes’ option you can include those who are fresh to the subject.
The use of the term ‘fabricated data´is misleading, as the ‘Climategate scientists’ have never been accused of making up the data. Rather, the issue has laways been that they selected only the data which supported their AGW case, and suppressed the rest. Not the same as fabrication. “””
Surely you jest. The whole process of homogenisation (rendering robust); is a process of making up data.
When either GISS or HadCrud or anyone else for that matter issue any version of their “Temperature anomaly” data; they are simply replacing what may have originally been actual real true measured data with a completely fictional substitute faux data; that nobody ever measured anywhere at any time.
Their running five day or 13 month or whatever “averages”, simply thow away real expensive actual data, and replace it with unreal, and unmeasured ersatz data.
So yes; they do fabricate it; and they choose their fabrication algorithms to artificially create the impression they want to convey.
If they really want to report on the true global mean surface Temperature (or lower troposphere or any other); which of course we actually have no way of measuring accurately; then that would be a single number; not a graph; like 57 deg F or 15 deg C or 288 Kelvins; or whatever Dr Trenberth thinks it currently is.
55.4% Who said no at this moment
I agree with Edward and Thomas – what a foolish poll.
Comment I posted on MSNBC:
The problem is in the wording of the question and answer options.
“No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.”
The majority of scientists publishing papers on Climate Change do not openly support the IPCC conclusions. Only 7% support the findings. The remaining 93% either openly oppose the findings (about 6%) or are undecided.
The problem isn’t with the Scientific community, its a political issue where governments are dictating support.
If the IPCC findings had been properly Peer Reviewed with open access to the data, we would not be confronted with such an absurd MSNBC poll.
Will I be put on a “Black List” for voting?
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could vote on whether increased GHG concentrations led to warming?It’s clear that improper conduct by scientists has no impact on climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other GHG).
Phil Jones has made many positive contributions in the research of Climate Change.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.13483!p_jones_formatted.pdf
So has Michael Mann
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
So has Gaven Schmidt
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html
In the long run, the truth will emerge, the wheat will be separated from the chaff.
I cannot conscientiously enter a vote on the MSNBC site, because neither of the choices make sense or match my views.
Sir Muir Russell summarizes his CRU inquiry as follows:
* This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
* We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
Let’s subject these statements to a logical mathematical analysis:
* (1) The scientific work was not an issue.
* (2) The conclusions of the IPCC assessments were not undermined.
Combining (1) and (2) we conclude that what Muir Russell effectively says is: “IPCC conclusions are not based on scientific work”. Seems correct.
One of the most curious comments on the MSNBC site was this:
You don’t get a vote; it’s not a beauty contest, the science is the science. There is global consensus.
Adjusting measured temperature data, and refusing to reveal the exact methology used in doing so at each individual temperature measuring site speaks enormously for itself. Of scientific dishonesty. There are no “rules of thunb” which could be applied.