A Climategate poll that might go terribly wrong

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.

click to vote

So far as of this writing, with almost 10,000 votes, here are the results:

Link to poll here

About these ads

111 thoughts on “A Climategate poll that might go terribly wrong

  1. Great, typical of MSNBC they don’t even understand the subject so they create a poll that doesn’t reflect the true issues involved.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. One click for man and another click for . . . . reversing The Muir Russell Report (mankind)

  5. 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).

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. I voted and then started posting the address on all the sites I frequent. Vote early and vote often!

  11. 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!

  12. “”” 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Reply to:
    “Edward Bancroft says: July 8, 2010 at 9:57 am”

    Good point. However, by selecting data that supported their view, or what is now called “cherry picking,” one gets a biased result which I think can be called a “fabrication.”

    Also I have a hunch that, in certain cases, some of the “adjustments” which have been made blurr the line between “data” and “fabrication.”

  19. yep its been worded so that ‘honest’ peeps can’t answer. Did they FABRICATE data…well we can’t say they did. But they just cherry picked it to suit, or left out stuff that didn’t….like Briffa suggesting he could not say the MWP was any diff to now, contradiucting Manns HS.
    So friends, you are left with a choice. Answer ‘No’ and in truth you will be fibbing, but you can’t answer ‘Yes’ either………gosh…anyone would think polls were worded to get a certain response. Anyway, s!d them I thought, I’ll vote ‘No’ anyway……….am sure Phil, Michael, Eric etc would not worry about the finer ettiquette.

  20. Muir Russell – All right, Jones, did you engage in any naughtiness?

    Phil Jones – No.

    Muir Russell – Oh, well, carry on.

  21. OK, their security to prevent people from voting twice is cookie-based. Just marginally better in that regard than the Science Museum poll, which seemed to have no security at all. Just rmember, folks, real skeptics are honest and only vote once. The purpose of the poll is transparently PR…. nothing nuanced or even accurate. Just another stupid skirmish in the culture wars….

  22. I voted “present” on this one.

    I didn’t like the choices, as there is only two diametrically opposing ones. It’s a false dichotomy. There is much room in between the two statements offered.

  23. Is this confirmation MSNBC think something is wrong with the panel conclusions ? And why would they think that? Why else would you think to do a poll?

  24. Won’t matter what you vote – the ChickenLittles at MSNBC will continue to bask in the religion of Goreism….

  25. Kate says:
    July 8, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Kate,
    It’s probably worth repeating how we all feel once again for the “scratched record”.

    Everyone I’ve read here supports Stewardship.

    The “Incomplete Truth” clouds the issues and turns out to be little more then a “Cheap Trick” that promotes pollution instead of logic and convenience instead of Science.

    Note: mutations aren’t uncommon in Nature – see the press on Darwin Evilution.

    Best,
    John from CA

    pS IMMO there isn’t anything that justifies the Malaise other then…

  26. Probably not right to say they fabricated data – they just manipulated what they had, but no way could you say that the panel was fair so…..

  27. One more vote!
    At the moment:

    43.3%: Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data:
    5,705 votes
    56.7%: No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming: 7,485 votes

    Ecotretas

  28. I think readers are being unduly picky about the subordinate clause in the question and the qualifications in the answers. If you strip these out, the question reduces to:

    “Are you satisfied with the panel’s conclusion that their science was sound?

    Yes or No?”

    Christchurch, New Zealand

  29. George E. Smith says,

    “Surely you jest. The whole process of homogenisation (rendering robust); is a process of making up data.”

    While I don’t disagree with you from a technical viewpoint, any poll that has “fabrication” as the only alternative is not going to garner as much support as one that is more nuanced. A lot of the public are naturally sceptical of alarmist claims, and while they would probably support the proposition that the scientists “over egged” or “sexed up” their claims, they are not yet ready to countenance deliberate fabrication.

  30. The only sound science coming out of CRU was when Phil Jones stated that there had been no statistically significant warming the last 10 years, possibly 15.
    The CRU 91,94,99 data sets proved it.
    Data was witheld to mislead, leaving open the question of data being manipulated to reinforce that deception.
    Now, it is CRU’s reputation that is in the frying pan, and it is Phil Jones who must reinvent himself as open & honest in the public eye. By reinstating him, they are no longer in control of thier own path.
    Was that wise?
    Phil has been given a 2nd chance. Only he can answer that question.

  31. It’s actually been fun watching MSNBC try to balance and test the response.

    Having done my bit of market research, they are attempting to validate the response by shifting the comments con to pro. They have currently elevated a majority of pro response to the top of the initial response page.

    I think they are actually taking the response seriously for a change. Good to see a few pros left at MSNBC who take the science seriously.

  32. Just a small side point but research at one time showed that people are less likely to vote “no” than “yes” on any issue, thus the poll is immediately biased to a yes vote. Fear of negativism. This was research I saw about twenty years ago but suspect that it is even more true today with the bedwetters’ philosophy having been taught in our schools for many years now. Agree vs disagree is a more sound, less biased methodology, depending, of course, upon the phrasing of the statement to which one is being asked to agree or disagree.

  33. If anyone is moved to write to Sir Muir Russell, here is his office address:
    Sir Muir Russell
    Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland
    38-39 Drumsheugh Gardens
    Edinburgh
    EH3 7SW
    Scotland

  34. It’s now 22:18 BST, and the poll stands at 57.4% in the blue!!
    I did add my tuppence worth.

  35. You have to register to make a comment. Maybe they are attempting to make a ‘list’.

  36. Edward Bancroft says: “…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 (al)ways been that they selected only the data which supported their AGW case, and suppressed the rest. Not the same as fabrication.”

    I consider grafting temperature records onto dendro plots to be fabrication.

  37. !! “British” !!

    ‘Not the AMERICAN ‘Hockey Stick graph’ !!!!

    Last time checked Michael Mann was in a lot of the emails…

    So probably skewed by the ‘Obama’ ‘British’ Petroleum effect..
    Even though it has been called BP for ten years and employs 2 americans for evey one ‘british’ person……………

  38. How about another poll?

    Enquiries which allow the university under investigation to compile the list of publications that will be scrutinised are a waste of public money and and insult to the public’s intelligence:

    Agree

    Disagree

  39. This is another one of those polls that will quietly “disappear” when the results aren’t what they wanted.

  40. I wonder about the broader implications of this vote. If this was a court of law with twelve voting jurors, one vote is enough to establish “reasonable doubt.” I would have thought therefore that even if the “yes” case gets only a minor number of votes, then there is in fact “reasonable doubt” (as far as the law is concerned) that jiggery-pokery ever occurred. But on the other hand if the “yes” case cant get an absolutely overwhemling margin, then “reasonable doubt” of the whole climategate/AGW issue would have been established. A 50-50 result could surely be of no comfort to the “yes” camp. I dont think you establish a “consensus” by beating your oponent by one vote – surely “consensus” implies “overwhelming consensus”.

    Just for the record, it was Trenbreth’s email (!2/10/2009) turned me from AGWer to sceptic. “The fact is we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and its a travesty that we cant.” Confirms no warming, confirms cant explain why, confirms the confidence levels on AGW they assert are a sham.

  41. Pascvaks at 10:18 am

    No I don’t think it is loaded on the “yes”. They record whether you have voted based on a cookie (I won’t tell which one to avoid the temptation of cheating).

    Joseph Murphy says:
    July 8, 2010 at 10:25 am
    Will I be put on a “Black List” for voting?

    Might be. If you have a static IP or vote from your University, work, etc. They will know who you are and the records will be kept.

  42. AC of Adelaide says:

    Just for the record, it was Trenbreth’s email (!2/10/2009) turned me from AGWer to sceptic. “The fact is we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and its a travesty that we cant.” Confirms no warming, confirms cant explain why, confirms the confidence levels on AGW they assert are a sham.

    It could be interesting to know how each of us rejected the AGW hypothesis. Me, it was by reading realclimate.org. Especially because at the same time I was reading Feynman, and then by sheer contrast I realized that there was something that didn’t work there. After that, once you start looking for it the evidence is overwhelming.

    (sorry for the OT)

  43. This is another one of those polls that will quietly “disappear” when the results aren’t what they wanted.

    Not really. One purpose of these polls is for news outlets to test what the readers want to see. In polarising issues they don’t want to lose readers by backing the “wrong” side for too long.

    What this shows them is that a decent investigation into climate result “fabrication” would have quite a lot of traction.

    That is totally contrary to the well-shouted view that only a trivial proportion of the world are “deniers” but accords rather better with the world as it actually is.

  44. re: Bancroft
    I too had to pause at the word ‘fabricated.’ But I have to agree with Smith that the process of homogenization as practiced pushes us over the line. Consider the scarcity of arctic surface stations and the extent of interpolation to fill in the blanks. Sure sounds like fabrication to me.

  45. Marge says: “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).”

    Or not.

  46. @ Pops July 8, 2010 at 10:51 am:

    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.

    I counted earlier when I voted. I saw only FOUR “yes” voters who quick commented who actually made comments suggesting they had either read the panel’s decision or read some of the emails. The vast majority of “yes” votes were people saying generic global warming stuff or making as hominem attacks on skeptics.

    How many “no” voters who quick commented made comments that sounded like they’d read the emails or panel report? I counted 28. That was all around 2 pm.

    Granted my count was subjective (most were clear, but not all were). But it suggested that those who support the AGW claims were not as well informed. Thaat has ALWAYS been my experience off line; not one AGW supporter in my real life has ever read ANYTHING other than MSM accounts and headlines. None of them can defend their position. And when they get backed into a corner, their defense of last resort is, “Well what if it is true?” – using the Precautionary Principle as their only real argument – to hell with whether the science is actually there or not! Let’s all just put gazillions of people (all over the world) out of jobs by closing down their plants.

  47. @ LarryOldtimer July 8, 2010 at 10:56 am:

    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.

    Larry, that is the single most astute statement I have read in over 10 years of reading on this subject. You are not the only one who has thought of it (I did, too), but I’ve never seen anyone say it: Averaging or rounding or using rules of thumb at the individual data point level is NOT science!

    SCIENCE IS THOROUGH. The only reason to not look at each one individually is laziness and lack of thoroughness.

    Each station and proxy has its own peculiarities. If that makes too much work for the CRU crew, then HEY! Get the hell out of the kitchen, people! Leave it for real scientists!

  48. @ Caleb July 8, 2010 at 11:03 am:

    Also I have a hunch that, in certain cases, some of the “adjustments” which have been made blurr [sic] the line between “data” and “fabrication.”

    I’ve made this point before (and so have others), here and elsewhere:

    When you adjust and that adjustment averages different types of datasets with differing time scales and different time precisions to their data points, it is inevitable that you get a flattened curve. And then when you take the averaged and blended data and make a 13-month rolling average curve out of it, you flatten it all even more. And then you extrapolate proxy values from ice cores out over the entire globe and over several decades and centuries, based on some assumptions someone made before about how Antarctic temps relate to the rest of the world.

    So what you end up with is something that has no extremes in it. And then any current values a little bit on the outside of the Standard Deviation “wow” in the real data looks like something way out of whack. (Personally, I want to SEE parallel traces on both sides of any curve showing the SD on the “+” side and the “-” side.)

    So, they blur the blurring and then blur that some more, and smooth that out, and end up with a nearly flat curve over many months and years, when the ups and downs all over the place were – well, all over the place. That is why the anomaly graphs all have such small deviations in them (in ranges like +0.5C and – 0.3C). Everyone here has to have asked very early on, “HOW in hell does a +0.7C cause an MWP, or a -0.3C create an LIA? We can’t even SENSE that small of a temperature change from hour to hour, and THAT is supposed to bring on catastrophe????”

    It is all because they DO blur and blur and then blur some more. ANd then flatten it with 13-month rolling averages.

    The Thames didn’t freeze solid because of a 0.3C dip in the temps.

    Greenland did not become arable because of a 0.7C increase in temps.

    We should all be asking – even in the non-Hockey-Stick curves – “Where in the hell are the ups and downs? What happened to them? THEY DID HAPPEN.”

  49. Patagon says:
    It could be interesting to know how each of us rejected the AGW hypothesis.
    —-
    Me: I studied physics at the University of Copenhagen around 1995-2000. Already at that time governments were trying to push through the AGW hypothesis into the mind of people. At least 3 different professors whispered to us during classes saying basically that the science of CO2 had been hijacked, and that we can’t trust what IPCC is telling us.
    As time passed I anyway started to believe what I was told in the media. Especially when I was told that thousands of scientists agreed etc. Through reader comments on a mainstream Danish newspaper blog I was pointed to CA and WUWT mid-2009 before Climategate. To begin with I was skeptical about WUWT/CA (there is so much junk on the Internet). Then came Climategate, I started digging and realized that AGW was indeed a gigantic hoax, remembering what teachers had told me more that 10 years ago. To this day I am still in shock.

  50. Of course MSNBC does not even understand what serious allegations were. There were two important ones (1) Withholding data and (2) Deletion of emails *after* the FOIA request. That is illegal and for this we have clearcut evidence from the emails. This is from Phil Jones himself:

    “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”
    “About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. “

  51. Re: comments from George E. Smith, John from CA, Caleb, juanslayton.

    If there was fabrication, it was after ignoring the Medieval Warming Period, de-selecting inconvenient tree ring data, and selecting-in AGW corroborating temperature data, that they produced the Hockey Stick. The HS was the crystalising point of fabrication, an artefact wholly without substance, but used by the AGW supporters as truth.

    In science, we all use extrapolations, and may reject unsound data with good reasons, or base results on statistical probabilities. However, there is a difference between a recorded/reproducable methodology used by the diligent, and the casual methods of the CRU which lost the raw data, refused reasonable requests for explanation of their approach to data validation, and promoted only the more extreme GW conclusions.

  52. Just wait until Olbermann and Maddox get through foaming at the mouth over the “no nothing” conservative fascists who voted no.

  53. Whatever gobbledy goop MSNBC sticks on the end of it, NO. Capital NO is the correct answer.

    I’ve seen a couple of you begging off because the wording of the question didn’t fit your personal opinion exactly.
    Here’s a little clue for you.
    The next time MSNBC reports on “Climategate” will be the first time it reports on Climategate.
    Google search of the MSNBC domain for articles with “climategate” in the title.

    So get over yourself. Quit whining, lift your skirts Nancy. VOTE NO. VOTE NOW.

    Push MSNBC into making a decision

  54. Hey—I thought that the Muir investigated only procedures, not science. Funny how MSNBC can conclude that the “Science is sound”. Maybe they mean, “Sounds like science, sorta.”

  55. I became a confirmed doubter when real climate wouldn’t answer my questions, or anyone else that dared to ask tough questions. When I found out that they didn’t have answers, or were obfuscating, I knew that they were skating on thin ice. Sort of like holding onto sub-prime mortgage and hoping that the value of it doesn’t drop before selling it to some poor slob.

  56. Sorry, I thought I would take part in the poll. How do you answer when the questions are biased, and their poll results are even worse?

  57. I went back and voted “no,” but the questions are as strongly biased as the data and the theory.

  58. Since WUWT pointed its readers at the poll:
    Now 58.9 percent NO (including mine, of course);
    17,374 total votes. . . . .
    Demonstrating once again the power of WUWT readers of the #1 rated science blog.

  59. David Davidovics says:
    July 8, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Thats probably the fastest vote I’ve ever made.

    I love you man.

  60. Heading south for the AGW side.

    I doubt they’d have had this poll had they known the results beforehand.

  61. Yes Evan,
    One should never instigate any inquiry / poll unless the result is already known :)

  62. What made me a skeptic?
    (1) An Inconvenient Truth. Normally, someone who wants to mislead gets fairly far into their argument before slipping in some shoddy logic. Here, the first logical fallacy was out on the marquee: begging the question by asserting that what we were going to see was truth. I recognized the movie as propaganda even before I bought my popcorn and saw Al Gore’s puss;
    (2) RealClimate: The endless ad hominem attacks presented in lieu of argument, the snark, the spittle-spewing rants, the sycophantic posts, the hubris, the elitist attitude all convinced me that CAGW must be bogus. People who have the truth don’t have to do these things.
    (3) SolarCycle24: Many good posts there regarding the science. Also, SC24 comments had the links that led me to WUWT and CA;
    (4) My college courses in radiation into gases, astrophysics, and logic;
    (5) My experience in constructing computer models of complex systems. Models, no matter how clever, never really replicate the mathematics of an actual system. Any claim that the models validate AGW theory was obviously false.

  63. The question to ask is not whether they fabricated data, but whether their interpretation of the raw data was using flawed methodologies.

    Also, whether conclusions drawn are incompatible with the data analysis concluded.

    Neither of those two lead to scientific ostracism, unlike data fabrication.

    Both lead to inappropriate public education, political action and unbalanced media reporting.

    I consider those to be completely reprehensible.

    But the debate doesn’t reach that position. Presumably because interests do not wish it to do so.

    About time they did……

  64. I became a sceptic researching density for power generation and came across salinity changes and wanted to know why, when there was no MASSIVE evaporation to concentrate the salt. Every excuse for everything later was a single gas CO2.
    The research I was doing showed absolutely NO mechanics was incorporated into understanding how this planet actually works only math and figure graphs on gases and temperature and pressure.
    Evaporation and gravity also planetary slowdown are very sketchy in the science department.

  65. A quick decision followed by a ‘no’ vote. Hopefully, when the pollsters realise the strength of the ‘no’ vote, at least some rational material may appear on MSN.
    I become a sceptic after asking an innocent question about standards for official climate thermometer siting and equipment on the Grauniad’s CIF and getting pretty much vilified as a ‘Denier Troll’ for my very mildly-phrased question. At that stage of my pursuit of climatic information, I understood ‘Denier’ to be a term used for the diameter of threads of man-made fibres. After that, my sceptical senses alerted, I trawled through various web sites, was apalled by the nastiness of some to innocents abroad such as me and soon stumbled upon this site, which has become a daily neccesity. I have read a significant number of the Climategate emails and have been drawn to examine ‘the science’ to the best of my admittedly limited ability. I now regard M and M and other committed forensic analysts as heroes and admire Anthony, the team and their work at WUWT tremendously.

  66. It’s 11:15 Ontario time and the poll has hit 60% for no. The consensus is they are lying sacks… Have a great weekend all!
    Jeff

  67. I have known that the CAGW idea was a sack of crap for many years, I have been looking at what really drives the weather, solar wind variations from the interactions of the Earth with the other planets, and the Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere that drives the Rossby waves, and moves the jet stream positions, generating the global circulation patterns, that drive the weather, that results in the climate.

    The common periods of oscillations in the ocean basins are a result of the compounding of these planetary and Lunar declinational interaction periods, creating the QBO, PDO, PDV, ENSO, ANO, and other patterns that are the trees mainstream cannot see through to see the forest. Co2 is just a fog generated by the greedy to subvert the funding that is in too short a supply for real science already.

  68. Despite the loaded question I had no difficulty voting no – ‘hiding the decline’ pretty much equates to concocting the data in my book . Now 39.9% to 60.1%.

  69. Don’t be too picky about the polling choice. As is often the case, you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

    60.2%

  70. I always thought the ‘Yes Minister’ poll was the best.

    .

    Vote 1:
    a. Do you want your children to experience the great outdoors, with plenty of excercise and discipline, and to learn valuable trades that will assist them with their careers?

    b. Are you in favour of national service?

    A. Yes, of course – you bet.

    .
    .

    Vote 2:
    a. Do you want your children to live in a dirt trench, eat processed dried food, and learn how to kill and maim people?

    b. Are you in favour of national service?

    A. Of course not – terrible thing.

    .
    .

    The art of political polling……

    .

  71. And here is the original ‘balanced polster’ from ‘Yes Minister’. Still brings a smile and a laugh – they don’t make comedy like this any more:

    .

  72. This poll has turned into a Roman Triumph. The voting had been tracking at 3 to 1 against up until the noon whistle hit the West Coast, then it was Katy bar the door. I wonder if the cold temperature “Fonzie” we’re having in Los Angeles and San Diego had anything to do with it?

    At 1:35 PM Pacific time it’s 39.3% for, 60.7 % against.

  73. Yes Evan,
    One should never instigate any inquiry / poll unless the result is already known :)

    Well, that, by analogy, is what they tell lawyers.

    (They were probably relying on their model.)

  74. What made me a skeptic?

    I started out as one from the getgo, based entirely on prejudice: The same damn crowd that had been 180-degrees wrong on every environmental and demographic issue was at it again. With the same proposed remedy — again.

    Sort of like a little kid who has twenty-eleven different problems, all of which will be magically solved if only he is allowed to stay up until 11:30.

    Therefore, inductive logic (i.e., prejudice) predominated. Paint me jaundiced.

    I confirmed my prejudice only by bits and pieces until I happened upon WUWT and Dr. Pielke’s blog. WUWT is what did the job, though.

  75. In the lair of the ecohippy, MSfreakinNBC, the most biased network going,
    the “No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming” votes have eclipsed the 61%.
    This can’t just be due to WUWT readers.

    MAN. We have the stop Al Gore’s eco-guilt cult dead in it’s tracks, proposition 23 coming up in November.
    Boreal Ridge is still open for skiing in July, and the PDO has shifted to La Nina for the coming season.

    Would it be presumtive of me to predict a cold Autumn for California Democrats?

  76. I went to msnbc, voted no. Now at 61.1% no. Now I have to figure out how to wash off the electronic stink of that site…

  77. Apparently skepticism of those enquiries is growing.
    Now @ 07:40 GMT

    Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.
    7,884 votes = 38.9%
    =========
    No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.
    12,379 votes = 61.1%

  78. OK, here is my “why I became a skeptic” essay:

    As a retired particle physicist I was vaguely aware from the media that the consensus was that we were in danger of excessive heating due to burning fossil fuels. Usually one does not doubt scientific statements from other disciplines that come out en mass, trusting in the integrity of the scientists and the peer review system. Equally I would not expect to be questioned on “consensus” statements from particle physics: scientists do the best they can with what means they have. New data may change “consensus” but it is a slow and careful process. Thus, though not a “believer” in AGW I was nodding to the chorus.

    Then came those 6 meters of sea rise by Gore, which surprised me. I have a holiday cottage 50 meters from the sea and I started counting height! I also started reading on the subject, i.e. the physics chapter of AR4.
    Then came the disappearance of the medieval warm period, right on the heels of the discovery of the frozen alpine hunter , due to AGW of course. An obvious oxymoron: how could the present be the highest temperature when the passes were open when he passed and was frozen? The temperatures should have been at least equal and probably much warmer for the hunter not to be aware of the danger of dying in a freeze.

    While reading chapter 8 of AR4 I became horrified at the sloppy way data was handled/presented , particularly the spaghetti graphs that tried to fool the eye on how badly the models fit the data.

    Then came the internet blogs, CA, and Lucia and Whatsup.

    And that was how I started in my small way giving lectures trying to open people’s eyes on the great exaggerations of the CAGW train, let alone the bad science.

  79. Current results:
    No – 62%, 20,467 votes

    Keith Oberman is a pompous twit who hates mankind because he and his ilk are relegated to a newschannel watched by 2% of the population – 100%

  80. Total of 20,658 votes

    Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.
    38.6% 7,969 votes

    No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.
    61.4% 12,689 votes

Comments are closed.