“Getting your mind right” in Australia, round 2

The “I Can Change Your Mind about Climate” website of the ABC TV in Australia reminds me of the famous phrase “your gonna get your mind right, Luke” from the 1967 classic movie “Cool Hand Luke” with Paul Newman:

The round1 voting, which I talked about here,  is over, and the skeptics, listed as “dismissive”, well outnumbered the alarmists, looking to be 2 to 1, as seen in this Google cache image from Apr 26, 2012 11:50:33 GMT, ending with 19,900 votes counted:

Now, they profess to have changed people’s minds with their video and website, and Round 2 voting is open here…the alarmists have a lead.

So for those of you in Australia, no matter which side of the debate you are on, you can vote again.

For expats living abroad, you’ll need to remember your old Australian postcode to vote.

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

UPDATE:

Jennifer Marohasy reports that according to Jo Nova, the video interview with the skeptic side mainly ended up on the cutting floor:

“We did 4 hours of footage at our house, and they showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Rose’s questions. I repeated my favourite lines about 28 million weather balloons, 3000 ocean buoys off by heart at least 4 times [which show no global warming and therefore a mismatch between reality and theory]. Obviously everything I said was too ‘dangerous’. But we have the full tape of the whole event, so sooner or later the world will see the parts that the ABC deemed to be not ‘interesting’ to the Australian public. So all in all, pretty much as we expected. They trimmed it down to the point where it’s tame, they gave the alarmists the last word (they always do)…”

About these ads

138 thoughts on ““Getting your mind right” in Australia, round 2

  1. It has all the feel of brainwashing. The poor sod on the other side was worn down until finally he confessed that it wasn’t a good idea to rely on fossil fuels. What a joke.

  2. I thought maybe they might have changed the nature of the ‘scoring’ to lean towards the ‘alarmism’. But proably not – I took the ‘quiz’ again, putting the same answers down as before, and came up ‘dismissive’. – as occurred the first time.

    I suspect they have a LARGE number of ‘plants’ to take the survey, answering the questions in a way ‘stack the deck’ to the alarmed. But what else would we expect – they must have the poll go ‘their way’ . . .

    . . .What a joke . . .

  3. “What we got here is… failure to communicate.”

    If you don’t like the results of a survey, re-do it until you get the results you like.

  4. Hey, we can save millions, billions, in scientific research! Who needs labs and all that expensive manpower and equipment? Just set up a poll!

    -What is the value of the cosmological constant? less than one / one / greater than one

    -What causes leukemia? Genetics / environmental toxins / radiation exposure

    -Does the Higgs Boson exist? yes / no / not sure

    Wow. The next great leap in science.

  5. This was a mindless programme with the “skeptic” ex parliamentarian displaying his ignorance, This was nothing more than the ABC pushing the warmist wheelbarrow.

  6. @Stephen
    Expect a HUGE surge in alarmist (numbers as well as percentages), the ‘lady’ in the debate has ~57k green-shirts in her corner, then there’s the ‘Getup’ crowd that will also be mobilised.
    The silent majority are ignoring the whole thing and waiting on the General Election.
    I am expecting the MSN to trumpet the poll ‘results’ to indicate most of us actually support the ‘Carbon’ tax.

    The real vote will be when Julia runs out of tricks to keep a HOR majority (currently 1) – if she does then if will be Nov 2013 before we get chance to destroy Federal Labor and Green as they just did in QLD, we are hoping the independants realise they backed the wrong Hack – er – horse and allow Abbott to win a ‘no-confidence’ vote in the HoR. That should force a General election. if it doesn’t then the Governor General should dissolve the HoR.
    BUT – her son in law is a minister in the Labor ‘government, if she wont act then it’s up to HRH herself to act
    Interesting times indeed :\

    Aidan (avid reader of this blog, science dunce but old enough to recognise yet another scam when I see one) – Perth WA

    PS: Thanks to this blog and links and comments in it I have been able to have one mate become doubtful (from pro-AGW) and got another friedn in the UK looking at it instead of trumpeting the CAGW ‘doctrine’ – both a much more ‘scientific’ than myself – so thanks all your really smart people here :)

  7. Excellent, excellent movie that. Saw it when I was 16 and hatin’ on the establishment (43 years ago).
    Re-took the poll and came up ‘Dismissive’ again.
    Cheers,
    Henry.

  8. I can change my mind. When the facts change. The ABC didn’t present any facts.

    And Anna has made up her mind. Nothing will change her mind. She’s on a mission. A mission from Gaia.

  9. What a stupid survey, the last time i was classed as “dismissive” and now “Doubtful”.
    They ask what political affiliation you are, well i vote depending on the issues of the day
    and have voted for all the major parties at some time.
    The tide is turning and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is still flogging a dead horse
    along with most other main stream media.It was a great organization but for the last
    decade in my opinion they have been very one sided in many issues including AGW.
    I used to be a great fan as well as working for them but now i get 90% of my information
    from non main stream internet sources. The old style media is on the way out and are
    making the demise faster with their attitudes. As more inquiring people turn to other forms
    of information the ABC is only perching to the converted and the audience will shrink.

    David Stuart

  10. I came out as “dismissive”, which makes a change from “denier”. I was never too happy about being referred to as a gauge of fibre density.

  11. You can say the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 392 ppm and then really scare someone with armageddon stories because it sounds a rather large number, or you can express it as a decimal fraction in which case it is 0.000392 and then when you try to scare them they would think you’re a lunatic. Same data, different agenda.

    So all this ‘let me change your mind’ crap proves is how good of a spin doctor they are when trying to convince the sheeple. No better or worse then Joseph G., the father of all spin doctors.

  12. Anthony.
    Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans took the initiative and had a camera guy film the ABC crew which was filming them for this documentary and has the full story on tape. What the ABC edited out is a disgrace!

    Good stuff. It’s worthy of knowing.

    (:

  13. I will say to the alarmist, who wants to take my money and my rights for a bogus cause, “Stop feedin’ off me!”

  14. “1519 votes counted”, alarmism showing ahead of us ‘dismissives’ by a small margin.

    I think the system is rigged; the fix is already in … dismissive counts are probably routed to the logical ‘null’ device (as found in the DEC OS I/O assignments).

    Scored a ‘dismissive’ here as well BTW.

    .

  15. Rather than bothering to total the actual votes, I’ve heard that they are just going to publish a computer projection of what the vote SHOULD have been.

    you want to know my sources? YOU CAN’T SEE MY SOURCES!!!

    (Michael Mann told me to say that)

  16. Anna Rose is co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. AYCC.
    Anna Rose was asked in the ABC documentary if her participation in this show was a mistake? It’s on the record. Obviously it was, ( My Opinion ) but we can hope she wakes up and smells the roses. I’ve got not no qualms in suggesting she in herself will see her name figure on this website simply because of her commitment to the cause and her beliefs. Anna will come across it eventually.

    When she does, maybe she will do some personal research outside of her mainstream media commitments and perhaps wake up?

    Let’s wait and see.

  17. Actually I thought the film favored the skeptic position. The girl was obviously not very intelligent and did not have data from even pro agw sites such as CT etc…

  18. Is the poll supposed to be for Aussies only? I don’t think so. I used my U.S. postal code and they accepted it both times. I think if they were going to only count Aussie answers they would be good enough to say that up front, before people take the time to fill in the poll. I just double-checked and they state no such limitation.

  19. One word to describe the likes of the ABC and “Anna”, scary! If this is representitive of Australia, as Bender would say, we’re boned!

  20. Jerold says:
    April 26, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Yeah, now tell them there is about 80% nitrogen in the atmosphere… a gas pretty much useless than only keeps the planet from burning up…

  21. Jerold says:

    you can express it as a decimal fraction in which case it is 0.000392

    If your going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. It’s 0.0392.

  22. No MartinGAtkins if you are going to say 0.0392 you need to put the % sign behind that. If you are using it without percentage then CO2 would be 0.000392. Hope that helps.

  23. MartinGAtkins says:
    April 26, 2012 at 10:21 am

    you can express it as a decimal fraction in which case it is 0.000392

    If your going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. It’s 0.0392.
    ____________________________
    You spell “strait” this way: straight
    PPM stands for one part per million. [ One million (1000000) or one thousand thousand ] so that is a one divided by 1,000,000 = .000001 therefore 392 ppm is 392 times .000001 = .000392

  24. Just did my vote (my view hasn’t changed). Numbers have changed from 1361 to 1594, but the dismissives are rapidly catching up with the alarmed. It looks like all the 200 odd votes are all dismissives.

  25. Just watched the vid and done my round 2. Apparently I’m now dismissive and have done my homework , rather than being doubtful and not having researched the issues (in direct contradiction of the information I supplied in round 1).

    It seems their film must have changed my mind about some key questions…

  26. Typical bit of media really – so much footage of them travelling from hither to yon that the modest percentage of actual climate talk was almost incidental and wouldn’t convince anyone either way anyhow. Had a look at their quiz, but balked at question 1 (“Do you think that global warming is happening?”) because my answer to that is “On what timescale?”, and they didn’t say.

    Hey ho. There goes another hour. :-|

  27. Well, I sat through the whole video and retook the test. I went from being Dismissive before to being Dismissive after. I still don’t get the C in CAGW. If it’s sea level rise it may be true sometime in the next hundred years or so some people will have some tough decisions to make. You know, do I stay here and drown or move? The amount of land opening up based on warmists’ theories will more than replace future lost coast land. The truth is at some point in the earth’s future the sea level would most likely rise higher and fall lower than now anyway. It’s happened before. Using natural gas to help lift people from poverty should not be put on hold based on alarmist CAGW Model outcome. Besides, warm good …cold bad.

  28. Taphonomic says:
    April 26, 2012 at 8:17 am
    “If you don’t like the results of a survey, re-do it until you get the results you like.”

    Much like the EU did when convincing the Irish to accept greater integration…

  29. Hello All, I did my part, filled out the ridiculously baised and leading question survey and came up as dismissive again. I hope they count my votes since I live in Wyoming, USA. BTW Dismissives were at 32%.

  30. Anna Rose is walking proof that the real long term problem with this Global Warming Scam is that there is a whole generation of young Australians which have been taught to believe that not only is man-made global warming/climate change real, but also that it’s up to them to “convert” everyone else to their cause. It’s almost a cult-like mentality.

    AGW will eventually be filed under “what were they thinking?” when the predicted catastrophic effects fail to materialise, but that wont stop this brainwashed generation believing that the catastrophe is still on its way. The predictions of catastophic events date to the year 2100, so it’s possible that this cult could survive the rest of the century.

  31. And if I can’t change your mind I’ll wash it for you! Just let me put on some dark sunglasses and you just watch the light.

    Keep voting until you get the result you want. What a crock. Hey Jo (I’ve always wanted to say that here for some reason) if you have a copy of their edits post it on youtube and send the link our way! It’ll get enough hits to keep your site funded for years.

  32. dave ward says:

    April 26, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Taphonomic says:
    April 26, 2012 at 8:17 am
    “If you don’t like the results of a survey, re-do it until you get the results you like.”

    Much like the EU did when convincing the Irish to accept greater integration…

    Dave Ward got in before me.

  33. MartinGAtkins says:
    April 26, 2012 at 10:21 am

    you can express it as a decimal fraction in which case it is 0.000392

    If your going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. It’s 0.0392.
    ____________________________
    Gail Combs says:
    April 26, 2012 at 10:36 am

    You spell “strait” this way: straight

    And since we’re on this bent, if I may, in the above, please, it’s ” you’re ” (a contraction of YOU ARE) instead ‘your’ (* which means ‘some thing the other guy/gal which you-are-addressing owns’) like “your hat is on crooked” (and not “you are hat on crooked” as a difference) …

    Let’s try substitution with the two and see how they turn out:

    If SOME THING THING YOU OWN going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. [sic] It’s 0.0392.

    vs

    If YOU ARE going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. [sic] It’s 0.0392.

    Thank you for your attention. From now on, you’re on your own.
    .

    .

    * your [yoor, yawr, yohr] adj.
    1. (a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective): Your jacket is in that closet. I like your idea.
    2. one’s (used to indicate that one belonging to oneself or to any person): The consulate is your best source of information. As you go down the hill, the library is on your left.
    3. (used informally to indicate all members of a group, occupation, etc., or things of a particular type): Take your factory worker, for instance. Your power brakes don’t need that much servicing..

  34. I figured I should watch the video before taking the poll and I came out dismissive.

    I found the girl to be very annoying in her ad hominem arguments and flat out refusing to talk to some people. And what the hell was Muller doing in this thing?

  35. A pathetic excuse for a documentary. I learned almost nothing.

    The clip with Lindzen was telling. Rose threw up an irrelevant distraction that was quite inappropriate. (Minchin’s outrage was right on the mark.) Rather than omit the distraction so it could include some information that viewers might gleen from Lindzen, the ABC production focused entirely on the controversial but irrelevant distraction.

    Someone in authority needs to take a long hard look at the ABC, right after we get a new government!

  36. Apparently Anna Rose is married to Simon Sheikh, director of the activist organisation GetUp which specialises in mobilising leftist/green votes. Google Anna Rose Simon Sheikh to see details. Details on GetUp at their website http://www.getup.org.au, Also Google GetUp.

  37. Ray said @ April 26, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Yeah, now tell them there is about 80% nitrogen in the atmosphere… a gas pretty much useless than only keeps the planet from burning up…

    You don’t know much about biology and nitrogen fixation, do you?

  38. Hmmm… 5 digits in the first pic, “results so far”, only 4 in today’s.

    Somebody’s been trimming data. And not noting the fact.

    REPLY: No, two rounds of voting, starting over in round 2 – Anthony

  39. The fight was rigged and the whole affair was designed to make sceptics look foolish.
    But the ABC Q and A program is notorious for being fixed by ignoring real experts that can represent the Right side of politics and then outnumbering them by those of the Left who receive rapturous applause from the audience.

    In this case Clive Palmer, the successful coal mining magnate, but not so well read, was selected because they knew he would make some outlandish statements and be shot down by the opposing scientist planted in the audience from the University of NSW. I did not hear one scientific sceptic comment from the panel or from the audience whereas on the panel we had the head of the CSIRO and in the audience the scientific expert from the NSW University who was given lots of opportunity to expound on his interpretation of data.

    Bob Carter alone would have won both the undecided TV and live audiences over with one arm tied behind his back.

    Unfortunately for the naive ABC, they believe the people cannot see through their ploys. But look at it this way – two or three years ago we would not even have had a debate.

  40. I used my French postcode. It does not seem to mind. There is no statement excluding non Aussies from the poll. Dismissive of polls.

  41. I’ve just done the survey and would you believe it – I was a “Dismissive”…….I’m shocked!

  42. The warmist media bloc around the Western hemisphere is really stunning. The Warmists have achieved one thing: I will never trust public media again on anything, and I would vote for the defunding of them if ever given the chance. Here in Germany we have ARD and ZDF and Deutsche Welle. They are not only useless but harmful – by trying their best to maintain and amplify the trillion $ fra*d, they help to bring down an otherwise potentially sane society.

  43. I was dismissive before and after.

    Then it occurred to me that some people might deliberately answer the questions to be Dismissive before and Alarmed after.

  44. 4:43 EDT

    HTML Page With Results
    PostShow

    Dismissive 36%
    Alarmed 30%
    Concerned 19%
    Doubtful 8%
    Cautious 6%
    Disengaged 1%

    1765 votes counted

  45. I’m Dismissive and apparently Australian too!

    As a Dismissive I apparently do not see the issue as personally important and will not change my mind – yet on both of these questions I answered it was personally important (why else would I participate in a blog like this and I’m already forced to pay a carbon indulgence?) and would be perfectly willing to change my mind (not asked but with the caveat if the data showed I should).

    Oh well – boilerplate text can’t always be perfect.

  46. If you refresh the page while watching the voting bars, you are able to view percentages.
    Record the page (Screen Movie Recorder, Mac) and play it back and you will be able to freeze the image at the proper moment.
    1795 votes counted, 36% Dismissive, Alarmed 30%, Concerned 19%, Doubtful 8%, Cautious 6%
    can’t see Disengaged.

  47. Why bring Happisburgh into the video?
    That erosion has been going on for time immemorial!
    Are we to blame for the tides too?

    DaveE.

  48. When the polar ice caps on Mars were observed as reducing in size by NASA during the warm period here on Earth one has to wonder what fuel the Marsians use. We are in trouble but it’s planetary cycles folks, Carbon has absolutely nothing to do with it

  49. But we have the full tape of the whole event, so sooner or later the world will see the parts that the ABC deemed to be not ‘interesting’ to the Australian public.

    An extremely good call, and a lesson to anyone ever being interviewed for such a program.

  50. SPreserv says:
    April 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    If you refresh the page while watching the voting bars, you are able to view percentages.
    Record the page (Screen Movie Recorder, Mac) and play it back and you will be able to freeze the image at the proper moment.

    Wow!

    Or, alternatively, one can simply click:

    . . . . . http://www.abc.net.au//tv/changeyourmind/inc/vote_central_results.htm

    And get:

    HTML Page With Results
    PostShow

    Dismissive 38%
    Alarmed 29%
    Concerned 18%
    Doubtful 8%
    Cautious 6%
    Disengaged 1%

    1912 votes counted

  51. The ABC program was devoid of facts, observations or science. Political points of view were in evidence everywhere. Anna (the young Greenie) used many of the well-known counters (Concensus science, appeal to authority, tobacco/oil funding, ad homs, etc). Nick (the retired right-wing politician) was more aware of sceptic viewpoints, but the only one of his counter-punches that was included in the final program was his response to Anna’s attack on Dick Lindzen.

    The Panel was stacked: all the “good guys” were girls (pro-CAGW) and the “baddies” were boys (sceptics). In the media, girls being assertive = good; boys being assertive = bullies.

    No anti-CAGW scientist on the Panel or in the studiio audience.

    But I would wager that the program’s producers believe that they have made a “balanced” program.

  52. Nick Minchin has a column on the show in the SMH this morning. It is a very rare sceptical article in that usually extremely CAGW flavoured newspaper.

  53. not one iota of that terrible pre Q & A programme would have convinced me to be a CAGW supporter……. if I had already been (which I was NOT) I may well have changed my mind after seeing that pompous young lady refuse to dialogue with people who’s precepts she disagreed with. She sure as heck showed her true clours and let everyone on the planet and those in outerspace know just how ignorant she is. I am DISMISSIVE and proud of it…….. T-SHIRTS anyone?

    Clare in Tassie

  54. 2045 votes counted. Dismissive leads. Seems to be honest vote counting. Good for them.

  55. Rather than a futile polling contest against 57000 wundwerkind, I would suggest leaving the poll to them. I would rather see dismissive drop from 60% to 10%. How convincing would that look?

  56. The Delphi Technique. Create a false consensus by controlling information delivery and planting leading questions, and establishing a false consensus early on.

    There are no “journalists,” only propagandists.

    They’re only losing the poll because the public is overwhelmingly tired of the Chicken Little routine.

  57. A number of friends texted me to alert me that the show was on. I decided that my time would be better spent in a karaoke bar.

  58. Who controls the past now controls the future
    Who controls the present now controls the past
    Who controls the past now controls the future
    Who controls the present now?

  59. “They trimmed [the anti-Global Warming evidence] down to the point where it’s tame, they gave the alarmists the last word (they always do)…”

    No, Jo, they gave the Global Warmists the last word, the first word, the middle word, most of the other words and I was surprised when they actually gave any air-time at all to the skeptics. And as for the disgraceful part at the 3/4’s point where the narrator started talking about how giving any air-time to “skeptics” was actually more of a problem than Global Warming is alleged to be.

    The whole program confirmed to me one solid thing: Anyone who goes against the Gaian Religion will be forcefully shut down, while being ridiculed in the process.

  60. I watched the show and it didn’t do too much to my blood pressure. I’d summarize it as, climate change meets reality TV. Not much in the way of science or even relevant information. Just the usual ‘sky is falling’ stuff.

    I came away with the distinct impression that Nick Minchin was using the show to push some business interest of his in ‘renewable’ energy. Not that I blame him for that. Given the opportunity to game the lame-brains at the ABC, I’d probably do the same.

  61. Gail Combs says:

    You spell “strait” this way: straight
    PPM stands for one part per million. [ One million (1000000) or one thousand thousand ] so that is a one divided by 1,000,000 = .000001 therefore 392 ppm is 392 times .000001 = .000392

    Now I know how Bill Shorten feels.

  62. bunch of biased questions based on a supposition that Global Warming is happening and we should be doing something. I got dismissive, even though I said I didn’t know if Global Warming was happening – which I don’t, but not becuase I am apathetic, just that the data, such as it is, appears equivocal to me – but they didn’t have a box for that. As for the next questions on the causes of global warmng “assuming that global warming is happening” what are you supposed to answe then – The ABC is clearly a true believer.

  63. Doesn’t make any difference that I’m not from Australia. I’m from Chicago. We can vote anywhere and as often as we like. Even the dead have the right to vote. It’s one of those special things about Chicago.

  64. The Dismissives are well ahead now with 41%. And I didn’t need my old Oz postcode – not that I could remember any of them. Can’t even remember my current Canadian one.

  65. Alistair,

    You have to click on the map of Australia. It takes some time before the cursor changes and allows you to click and get to the poll. That might be the problem.

  66. Damn I’m Dismissive again. All that propaganda I read on WUWT is affecting me.

    Currently
    Dismissive 41%
    Alarmed 28%
    Concerned 16%
    Doubtful 8%
    Cautious 6%
    Disengaged 1%
    2403 votes counted

  67. So.. they upset both sides. Both looked like fools. TV cameras have a habit of doing just that.

    Each have their window on the world. Both are narrow and cannot see the whole picture. If your mind is made up according to “your window” then this is just simply confirmation bias.

    I stopped looking at the world through “my window” some six years ago when I went from a skeptic to understanding science beyond political bias and green movements. I now accept the fact that the world may enter a dangerous phase of climate disruption over the next 100 years and beyond.

    So here I am some sort of Christian conservative at odds with colleagues, religious unsystematic agendas, politics and knowing what just bad science really is.

    I am alienated and its not pleasant.

    What do I do?

    I actually await the world still gazing through their small windows. Take a fresh look at your world. Get out side. Study and talk to those you disagree with. Get away from web sites that just put a shine your window glass but does not take you by hand and show you a different window.

    TV shows will not do that. You need to get up from your couch and begin to answer those difficult questions you have been putting off. You have allowed others to fill your confirmation bias for too long now.

  68. The survey is essentially push polling for the alarmist cause. For example: I believe that climate change is real, but it’s has always been with us (history shows this.) Instead I’m only given the option in this to say I do believe in AGW (with various degrees) or that I straight out don’t. Again the ABC pushing their hard core left wing green agenda.

  69. Ross Brisbane says:

    “I stopped looking at the world through ‘my window’ some six years ago when I went from a skeptic…”

    Six years ago you stopped being a skeptic. Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. So six years ago you had a religious conversion to climate alarmism.

    How is that any different than believing in witch doctors?

  70. The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.

    Too Funny… they dont get it.. at all..

  71. Before the propaganda, the ABC screened a science programme called Catalyst. The 30minutes is broken into 3 segments, and, sure enough, to put you in the correct mood, the last segment was on trees dying world wide because of stress caused by, by,………(gasp).

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3488105.htm

    Trying to be clever, they are tripping themselves up.

  72. I’ve just voted, and I’m with 43% of other Australians in being dismissive. However, I dislike their categorisation. Their description says dismissive believes there is no global warming and my first answer said I believed there was. Then I said I believed it was natural…. so, despite the clear definition at the top the page, they clearly changed the definition part way through to make global warming to mean AGW.

  73. As far as I can tell this survey allows an individual to submit multiple entries!!

    I have NOW completed it 3 times! Each time the system appeared to have accepted my survey results using the same email address adn post code etc. No duplication notice was received…

    I am very suspcious about this!! Can anyone assure me that multiple entries are filtered-out? How is that done – according to unique email address? And if I had multiple email addresses?

    Has anyone else tried to see if they can submit multiple surveys…?

  74. Smokey,

    I’m quite sure your window is just fine from where you sit on your couch. I said skeptic – meaning YOU because the true word meaning is banned here. After moving from my comfortable couch and going outside – it hit me. Being seven at night I released the stars I was looking at was not the whole picture. That inspired me to go on a journey. Not easy for man over fifty but I was on the threshold of a new discoveries. I would look and I would BEGIN to take ownership over what I was fed by the TV. Then came the visits beyond the home to speak to real climatologists as my universe expanded. For every argument, I looked for the counter argument. Checked and cross referenced dates, graphs, blog popular commentary and science. My head spinning and reeling, it took me about two years to get my head around the physics and the studies of the radiative properties of CO2. With new understanding I came to see I was wrong, mistaken, tricked, hoodwinked and caught in a confirmation bias treadmill.

    I realised for the first time – I was a fool. Stupid, lazy minded allowing Newcorp and Fox Networks to brain wash me into thinking it was all fraud. The journey of self discovery took time – over four years I remained undecided – an agnostic.

    But over time whilst confronted with colleagues who thought the “baby” stuff of the anti-camp. I realised it was all clichéd nonsensical science argument. It went in circles. It was brilliantly implied to be a PUB or CON political of which I had to be anti-green, I had to anti-evolutionist. I had to hate liberalism. I had to be a libertarian and nothing else. I had become pure. Post-modernist stuff and new age stuff evil.

    For me I felt dirty, grubby as I began to see. The ice core drilling proved 7 day literal creationism was wrong. Other findings pointed to progressive species of man – not explained. Irrefutable evidence was found across Europe. Then the next shift – climate change – global warming – the great mentioning for the last decade. I looked into it. Got away from the confirmation bias.

    I found it it was real. It is a danger to our security. Our well being. We are utter fools in believing it is all going to go away. We utter fools to believe in oil, coal for all time.

    Ultimately we often like the saying: “In God we trust”

    Not really…………..

    It’s more like: “In Oil and Coal – we trust”

  75. its now 53% not believing in AGW Dismissive plus doubtful. It is a watershed for Australia and for the ABC. I think you will find that from now on there will be less and less believers by the day

  76. i’ve been using different email addresses and postal codes…

    but then again, i live in Lost Angels,here in the People’s Republic of California, so theoretically i shouldn’t be voting at all…

  77. i’ve been using different email addresses and postal codes… with no problem what so ever.

    but then again, i live in Lost Angels,here in the People’s Republic of California, so theoretically i shouldn’t be voting at all…

  78. I’m part of 44% dismissive. There was NO mention of the program on my social media.
    That program was the final straw that signed me up to the “Privatise the ABC” collective. Let’s sell it to Andrew Denton who, with his wife, Jennifer Byrne, has lived off the ABC for the past 20 years.

  79. I was able to vote without giving my email address, age, gender or postal code!
    (BTW, I always try to give potential marketers as little information as possible. I hate getting unsolicited advertisements/spam.)

    Oh, I was judged to be Dismissive. Even though I strongly believe that global warming is happening. It’s just that I don’t think mankind is causing it nor can we do anything to stop it.

    Poll results are now:
    Dismissive 45%
    Alarmed 25%
    Concerned 15%
    Doubtful 9%
    Cautious 5%
    Disengaged 1%
    2911 votes counted

  80. rossbrisbane says:
    April 26, 2012 at 9:57 pm: [ ... ... ... ... ..., etc. ]

    I’m told that Valium will help in your situation.☺

  81. We need a concerted effort by all pro-science readers to take the ABC poll and reveal their interest in the truth and not the Warmist progaganda distributed by the ABC. We need to get the Dismissive vote well above all others.

  82. If you want to see the actual percentages;

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/inc/vote_central_results.htm

    I have been watching the progress on the site since soon after they reset the tally.
    At about 800 votes the Alarmists were ahead… not now. I wonder if the ABC (and others of like mind) might actually start to get the message?

    However on reflection I don’t live in hope… I had a conversation about this with some friends to-day. One is a Labor supporter and he was “very impressed with Anna Rose” and “boy didn’t Nick Minchin get angry”?! Another hadn’t seen the show and seemed like he wanted to sit on the fence. Another was noncomittal as I realised he didn’t want to offend the Labor man but I do know how he filled in the survey and he was a “dismissive”. I let the bomb drop that I was a “climate sceptic” and that Jo Nova maintained that she was poorly represented. I didn’t go so far to suggest that Anna Rose was way out of line to bring up the “smoking thingy” with Richard Lindzen because I too didn’t want to offend my Labor voting friend too much.

    I think their are many more out there of this ilk who will hang out to the bitter end!

  83. Smokey says: April 27, 2012 at 2:32 am

    Nope, we have more faith in our real gals here in Australia and their knowledge of science and real estate.
    Friday light entertainment….

    note khaki and eye roll….
    <The Tide is High, I'm Moving on [Tim Flannery], I
    I'm going to be your number one [Julia Gillard MP] and I don't give up just like that

  84. Last week a beachfront house at Palm Beach in New South Wales, Australia, fetched $25 million.
    I just thought I’d share this with the rest of the world.

    That’s all.

  85. Despite the fact that I answered that I was VERY sure that global climate change was happening (always has, always will), I was classified as “dismissive” and told that I did NOT believe that climate change was happenig.
    I also answered that I spent a lot of time thinking about climate and so know what I am talking about.

    WTF ????

  86. I came out Dismissive yet truthfully noted that I voted Greens. (Which I did actually, just not on the West Island.)

  87. Voted
    3261 votes counted dismissive is pulling ahead by a length, Cautious and Disengaged are bringing up the rear.

    Seems most of those taking the poll are firmly on either side of the fence ~DUH!

  88. rossbrisbane says:
    April 26, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Smokey,

    I’m quite sure your window is just fine from where you sit on your couch. I said skeptic – meaning YOU because the true word meaning is banned here. After moving from my comfortable couch and going outside – it hit me. Being seven at night I released the stars I was looking at was not the whole picture. That inspired me to go on a journey. Not easy for man over fifty but I was on the threshold of a new discoveries. I would look and I would BEGIN to take ownership over what I was fed by the TV. Then came the visits beyond the home to speak to real climatologists as my universe expanded. For every argument, I looked for the counter argument. Checked and cross referenced dates, graphs, blog popular commentary and science. …

    I would say, you have probably not been through the archives over at Climate Audit (examining the lacking ‘technical’ math and stats work by M. Mann and others).

    As the ‘global warming’ proclamation is largely based on pronouncements based on statistical manipulation, the ‘running’ of questionable climate ‘models’ which find difficulty tracking even present-day temperatures, your journey has not even begun if you have not reviewed the questionable statistics employed by ‘climatologists’. Physical observations are running counter to these ‘models’ and other projections BTW, yet CO2 levels continue to rise …

    As to your assertions about Fox, what do you subscribe to? MSNBC? C’mon, MSNBC recognized a market niche for the a segment of the population that was not addressed by Fox, a segment that gravitates to the likes of Rachel ‘Pat’ Maddow and Ed ‘The Rage-er’ Schultz, neither of whom are familiar with facts or logic.

    .

  89. Dismissive 49%
    Alarmed 23%
    Concerned 14%
    Doubtful 9%
    Cautious 5%
    Disengaged 1%

    (Total 101%)

    3361 votes counted

  90. Gigatons of additional ice on both poles, sea level dropping… And I’m Dismissive …Gawd those questions were arrogant and condescending….Data VS wishful thinking consensus.

  91. David Archibald says:

    April 26, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    A number of friends texted me to alert me that the show was on. I decided that my time would be better spent in a karaoke bar.

    Methinks David A is properly disengaged.
    David – I’m sure you enjoyed the evening. Wonderful fun!

    And it’s:

    Dismissive 49%
    Alarmed 23%
    Concerned 13%
    Doubtful 9%
    Cautious 5%
    Disengaged
    1%

    3471 votes counted

    David is one in a hundred.

  92. Dismissive 49%
    Alarmed 23%
    Concerned 13%
    Doubtful 9%
    Cautious 5%
    Disengaged 1%
    3477 votes counted

    And i am still a dismissinve!

  93. Survey is dishonest – even if you ticked “I believe in the planet warming somewhat” the dismissive profile at the end says you don’t believe in global warming. The survey is also designed to help the re-education campaign by measuring the various connections between believes and attitudes.

  94. Well, it’s nice to see that the non-CAWG population (Dismissive+Doubtful) are now leading the alarmist group (Alarmed+Concerned) 60% to 35%. Hopefully the Australian government will finally listen to their constituents before they cripple their economy.
    (Note that this is my view as a citizen of the USA. I only wish the best for our Australian friends.)

    Poll results to date:
    Dismissive 51%
    Alarmed 22%
    Concerned 13%
    Doubtful 9%
    Cautious 4%
    Disengaged 1%
    3723 votes counted

  95. The Australian Government just awarded a major satellite TV contract to the ABC (it was meant to be up for open competitive tender.)
    This is just the ABC paying its Master back.
    Let’s hope that when the Liberals get into power they de-fund it.

  96. Having looked more closely at the ‘survey’ questions, I suggest that it is one of the most appallingly drafted surveys ever to masquerade as significant (BECAUSE SOME LUVVY BROADCASTER WITH THEIR MOUTH ON THE TAX-PAYERS’ TEAT SAYS IT IS). It seeks, ineptly, to try to categorise respondents along a one-dimensional spectrum.
    Am I concerned about global warming? I can do nothing about the temperature changes – up or down, they’re almost exclusively natural [Urban Heat Islands are real; urban sprawl merely looks to be creating an artefact of warming).
    Yet I AM concerned about the multi-billion dollar/Euro/Pound waste of resources [does the esteemed Pachauri think that money is wasted?]. So called ‘Green energy’, which boosts the pockets of land-owners, at a cost in subsidy [by tax-payers and consumers of over 50% of the 'price'].
    Purely co-incidentally, we read that the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, erstwhile friend of Rupert Murdoch, has a step-father-in-law [Sam Cameron's step-father, Viscount Astor] said to be doing ‘nicely’ out of this subsidy.
    CAGW is doing huge harm to our industry [China is concerned about CAGW? No.]; our politics, our democracy, our way of fairness and n=honesty in public life.
    Now, this survey is important for Australia, and all who have her best inetersts at heart should complete the survey.
    But – don’t expect that you will be able to do so without at least one grimace of dislike; Question 2 alone will have many fair-minded people in paroxysms of fury:
    “Assuming global warming is happening, do you think it is… ”
    I will go away and allow my blood-pressure to fall to merely dangerous levels!

  97. Of the last 260 or so votes, it works out that about 150 were Dismissive, 110 all others. So the “marginal rate” of new votes coming in is about 58% Dismissive. As the numbers build up, this should be the mark that’s approached.

  98. Current results:

    Dismissive 51% 2299 votes
    Alarmed 22% 987 votes
    Concerned 13% 561 votes
    Doubtful 9% 404 votes
    Cautious 4% 194 votes
    Disengaged 1% 37 votes
    4482 votes counted

  99. I watched the whole thing. It was painful but educational. The best analogy to discussing Anna Rose is trying to discuss Soviet Marxist-Leninists. It could not be done. They kept dismissing everything in the name of “science” which to them was “Scientific Communism” and “Scientific Materialism” and it explained everything in the world. Any fact, observation, idea or concept that contradicted the axioms of their system was automatically dismissed as “unscientific”.

    Anna Rose’s other slander was irritating but I found it most disappointing that Nick Minchin did not call her out when she kept wondering how to convince skeptics to believe in “science”.

    It was maddening—just like the smug condescension of every Scientific Commie I’ve ever met. I needed a stiff drink after I suffered through the broadcast because you can only dismiss Anna Rose at your own peril. If you noticed the earnest and intense faces of the young members of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition listening to Anna Rose you know what I mean. I’ve seen such faces before.

  100. The thing is open untill 21.5. What do they want to achieve with that ? To slowly decrease the number of dismissives by organised alarmist votes dripping in ?

  101. Current results:

    Dismissive 50% 2480 votes
    Alarmed 23% 1120 votes
    Concerned 13% 642 votes
    Doubtful 9% 454 votes
    Cautious 4% 215 votes
    Disengaged 1% 42 votes
    4953 votes counted

  102. Just to add that votes seem to not being counted from Portugal. I tried a vote for alarmed and dismissive, but both were not counted. The number of votes stayed the same, several minutes after the vote. The votes were done from PCs/IPs where I had never accessed ABC in the past.

    It would be interesting if other readers from Australia could test if the vote count goes up immediately after they vote…

  103. Go to: –
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/ for the final tally.
    Note – Round 2 results are – ahem – not immediately obvious.
    The Sky-Is-Falling-Team’s hammering is [a bit] less obvious including all results.
    Highlights: PostShow
    Dismissive 49%
    Alarmed 23%
    Concerned 13%
    Doubtful 9%
    Cautious 5%
    Disengaged 1%

    5439 votes counted

    Also shows totals [for round one and round two; possibly statistically significant, but I suggest not.

    Many of the readership thinks highly of Australia.
    let us see if they awaken from their dream [or nightmare] . . . . . . . . .

Comments are closed.