BUMPED for visibility. Originally published on 6/24. Bumped on 6/28 and again on 6/30
This poll will gauge reader perception to the issue that Dr. Hansen of NASA has recently raised that I cover in my post here. One vote per computer, and please spread this permalink to the poll far and wide to get a good mix of input across the blogosphere.
Click on a dot, then click the little yellow vote icon. Poll closed.
I will run this poll 1 week until next Wednesday at 9AM PST, at which time it will close. The results will be submitted to a member of the U.S. Senate for distribution, NASA’s director, and will also be mailed to Dr. Hansen at NASA GISS.
You can subscribe to the results of this poll by RSS. Simply copy the link below into your RSS reader.
http://polldaddy.com/pollRSS.aspx?id=49940E93EC30ACAF
NOTE: A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll. This has accounted for a huge increase in the votes for the first question overnight. This sometimes happens with online polls when agenda driven activists decide to skew it, which is the biggest weakness of online polls.
Addendum: Some other sites that are not Pro Hansen have also now linked to this poll, so I suppose it is becoming a battle between opposing views now. Agenda driven activists on both sides are at work now.
Update 7/1 It appears that about 8000 votes were added for question 1 overnight. -Anthony
Update 7/2 9 AM PST Poll is closed, more here
This is really great reading
The results of this poll demonstrate the power of the media and the environmental extremists. The logical answer – collect more data and act accordingly – is totally overlooked by people whose minds have already been made up.
My blog covers less controversial issues. Considering the lack of clear thinking on the part of those responding to your poll, I’m not sure they’d be happy reading my thoughts.
Jim – http://jimsjourney.wordpress.com/
Sorry to say, one vote one computer is so easy to overcome that the poll is all but worthless; save that it fully illuminates how desperate (sad) are those who advocate man-made global warming. Only those who know their argument is a lost cause would stoop so low as to fiddle a simple, on-line poll. They’d probably steal candy from a baby too.
How to get more than one vote on one computer? Switch it off and on again, or, simply close your browser, disable and re-enable your LAN (internet) connection (always assuming your IP address is regenerated anew when you do so), and restart your browser. How do I know this works? Al Gore told me.
Never mind, Anthony. The fact that so many losers are so desperate to get one over on you only proves how much they fear the truth… and you.
Keep up the good work.
Sorry to say, one vote one computer is so easy to overcome that the poll is all but worthless; save that it fully illuminates how desperate (sad) are those who advocate man-made global warming. Only those who know their argument is a lost cause would stoop so low as to fiddle a simple on-line poll. They’d probably steal candy from a baby too.
How to get more than one vote on one computer? Switch it off and on again, or, simply close your browser, disable and re-enable your LAN (internet) connection (always assuming your IP address is regenerated anew when you do so), and restart your browser. How do I know this works? Al Gore told me.
Never mind, Anthony, the fact that so many losers are so desperate to get one over on you only proves how much they fear the truth… and you.
Keep up the good work.
OOPS! It appears that I’m repeating myself. Sorry about that. You’d better delete one of my comments (and this one). The losers may accuse me of stacking the comments against them. And we don’t want any crying babies, do we?
Since Hansen’s 1988 global warming predictions were so far off the mark, isn’t he the one who is spreading falsehoods here?
Hansen is a hack. If he were honest, he’d admit that all the models have to be rerun with the correct boundary conditions. The atmosphere is not infinitely deep, but all the AGW computer models are based on old solutions to the differential equations governing the greenhouse effect that used an infinitely thick atmosphere as a simplifying assumption.
Ferenc M. Miskolczi’s paper “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” recomputes the greenhouse effect with for finite depth atmospheres, and unlike all the baroque computer models that Hansen and his ilk use, gets a model which matches observation for both Earth and Mars without tweaking. And guess what: the predictions from Miskolczi’s model show the greenhouse effect in a finite-depth semi-transparent atmosphere cannot yield the catastrophic effects the AGW advocates use as an excuse for imposing rationing.
Don’t know about the overnight hit, but if you include the weekend in the count, Question 1 surged by approx 25,000.
Quite a change from the early polling when, before the crash party ensued, Question 3 was around 47% and Question 6 around 40% {had to check out Michael Smith’s link above from 26 June with saved images – see: http://15651.home.comcast.net/~15651/Hansen_Poll_Before_Crash_Party.htm}. The results speak for themselves. I believe that first image; its results are about what I would expect from the readers of this site who exhibit a healthy degree of sketicism {and not just about the AGW fantasy}.
So Question 1 went from 1% to 50%. Perhaps we ought to use a GISS algorithm to adjust the results…put in about 1½ million votes each in Questions 3 & 6…that’d put the results more in line to the original pre-crash party. I’m sure Hansen would heartily approve of such tweaking.
I hate polls. Debate is much more informative and capable of changing one’s views. It is also rather sophomoric and smacks of the new dumbed down News Is Entertainment industry.
What do you expect from Hansen supporters? If you don’t like the data, ‘adjust’ it so that you get the result you want.
The Hansen supporters in this poll have learned well from their master! Fudge it , fudge it, fudge it!
ANY internet poll is meaningless. This poll was meaningless when Anthony posted it. ires random or at least representative sampling – internet polls fail that prerequisite.
Still, this is interesting. Anthony first says:
“please spread this permalink to the poll far and wide to get a good mix of input across the blogosphere.”
So, the link gets spread far and wide, and teh polls starts getting a wider ‘mix of input across the blogosphere” and Anthony says this:
A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll. This has accounted for a huge increase in the votes for the first question overnight. This sometimes happens with online polls when agenda driven activists decide to skew it, which is the biggest weakness of online polls.
And then changes the permalink!
Further down he says:
“A couple of sites have started a “crash” campaign, it happens.”
So, when people do what you invite, and spread teh URL and opportunity to vvote, its a “crash” campaign?
And then. when a reader points out that one can vote multiple times:
You’ve discovered a weakness in the polldaddy.com software. It pretty much renders the poll useless when a hole like this is found.
Anthony, this is an INTERNET POLL.. It is “pretty much… useless” by definition before it is even posted.
I ldo ook forward to seeing you forward the results, though, Anthony. Currently, the results say that 56% % of respondents support Hanson and favor energy executives being tried or investigated.
REPLY: Thanks for the comment Frank (or is it Steve?), BTW if you’ll check the permalink on this post you’ll see that it is in fact not broken but for about an hour. The link changed when I changed the timestamp on the post to bump the position. Once I realized that WP changed the URL because it was day/month linked in the URL, I fixed that. Of course it wouldn’t matter what I did, if I left it in the same location I’d be criticized for “burying” it in older posts. Also, since you keep changing persona’s on this blog, and have 5 that I know of linked to your IP shown by WordPress, why not choose one persona and stick with it instead of the cloak and dagger routine? It’s hard to treat anything you say as credible when you don’t act credible yourself. Why do you need the multiple personalities? Do you have blog personality disorder?
Be sure to check the results post, which you apparently missed.
David Yetter, Miskolczi’s model has numerous fatal flaws. I’ve put up a number of links, but pretty much all you need to know is that the best trashing took place on the Climate Audit Bulletin Board.