UPDATE: At first I was concerned about this poll and the language involved. Now from comments I’m seeing a number of people whom aren’t worried and see an opportunity to voice their opinion. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide if they wish to participate. – Anthony
Wow, just wow. Who would think we’d see this sort of language and lack of sound judgment from a science museum? In the Now playing at a museum near you, the “Day After Tomorrow Map” thread, something interesting was discovered.
Once you click the “count me out” button, you enter a netherworld of governmental lists. The London Science Museum might want to think about redoing this web feature. The images are below, here’s the link.
Okay…now look what happens when you click “COUNT ME OUT”. Yellow highlighter mine.
Not only is this insulting and threatening to the reader, it virtually ensures that all responses logged by the London Science Museum are “COUNT ME IN” if you originally chose to vote otherwise.
Future presentation of results to the government: “The results show overwhelmingly that people agree with us. Hardly anyone chose COUNT ME OUT.
Even with the caveat the list*, how many people would trust it? I wouldn’t. I doubt many people even get to the caveat. The main statement is just too worrisome.
Perhaps the “COUNT ME OUT” respondents get a visit from these chaps? 😉
To be fair, respondents get a similar message if they choose to be counted in.
However, one wonders how many people will respond at all once they see that language.
The Science Museum really ought to pull this feature or redo language in it in my opinion.
h/t to alert WUWT reader coddbotherer
UPDATE: 10/24 @11:30PM
It appears some robovoting hit this poll. Robert Phelan’s letter pretty well sums up my thinking on this issue.
Sirs:
By now you must be aware that your on-line Prove It poll was seriously compromised. I voted “count-me-out” once under my own name, but after the individual who corrupted your poll revealed himself, I tested your polling system with two consecutive “count-me-in” votes, which were both apparently accepted.
Leaving aside my distaste for your support of politicized, Lysenko-style “science”, as both a social scientist and computer systems consultant I respect data and am appalled by the shoddy manner in which your organization collected it. A few suggestions:
1. State clearly the purpose of your poll and exactly which data will be used for that purpose.
2. You stated that you would pass the results to the government:
a. if the results had fairly resulted in a “count-me-out” majority, would those results have been passed on?
b. it would be helpful top explain what you would do with the comments you requested from the “count-me-outs”;
c. since the results were to be passed, presumably, to the UK government, foreigners such as myself should have been excluded from the voting. Checking the IP location of voters should be easy.
3. No one, either inside the UK or outside received the follow up e-mail. The explanation provided about ensuring one vote per person, frankly, makes no sense.
4. Maintaining a confidential list of voter names, e-mail addresses and IP’s to verify non-duplication would be easy. Making the voting a two-step process, where the voter had to respond to a follow-on e-mail would be even more secure.
5. Maintaining a list of non-acceptable names for screening: Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Mickey Mouse all claimed to have voted no, as did Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.
7. Create a display page where interested persons can view the names who have voted. Given the politicized nature of the topic, a unified alphabetical list would be appropriate.
8. Test the security of your poll before putting it on-line. Find a good hacker and pay him only if he succeeds in breaking into your system.
If you people can’t even run an on-line poll, why should anyone consider your opinions on climate? If this poll was so important that you needed two ministers of HMG to introduce it, why didn’t you get it done right?
I intend my suggestions to be helpful; if you find them so then I would be glad to be of further assistance. I am bitterly opposed to the position you have taken on “AGW” but I would not allow that to interfere with my professionalism.
Oh, one last suggestion. Don’t even try to salvage the results of this poll. Wipe them, make the changes I’ve suggested and start again.
Robert E. Phelan
Adjunct Instructor of Sociology
Business Systems and Automation Consultant
A commenter on our site, “lihard” has seemingly confessed to adding a thousand votes via a script. There was a period of about 15 minutes where the count jumped about 1000 votes. It appears “lihard” was at fault as he pre-announced it here in comments. Of course there was little anyone could do about it. I speak for myself and the moderation staff in saying we strongly object and are offended by his ballot stuffing and want to make clear that it is not condoned in any way. Whether or not the poll was put together with apparently no security in place does not justify any kind of dishonest activity.
However, since that burst (if indeed he, lihard, did one) the vote count has steadily risen, I believe those to be valid. If the Science Museum has any logs, they should be able to filter those ~1000 in question out. I hope they do.
I don’t condone ballot stuffing in any form. Unfortunately it can happen when polls like this one don’t appear to have the most basic simplistic security. The interesting thing here is that if anybody wanting to stuff the poll, no matter what side of the argument they are on, could easily have done so. No special skills are needed to boost the counter…just keep clicking the submit button. Any kid can do it.
Perhaps the Science Museum didn’t think of security for cyberspace like they do for their exhibits. The internet is a harsh place and prone to such things. The lack of due diligence for security is as troubling as the language they used which originally caught my attention.
The polls we do here at WUWT don’t suffer from these problems, as they have anti-ballot stuffing security built in courtesy of WordPress. I hope that the Science Museum will upgrade their poll security if they choose to continue with it. Also for the record, you’ll find me logged once in poll, shortly after posting this story on 11/23 approximately 9:30-10AM PST, with my full name and email address given. If anyone from the Science Museum (or the UK government) wishes to contact me, they can use that email address. – Anthony
They are coming to burn your anti-AGW books.
Count me out and count me in have the same language. They are passing along the results to the government. You see that allot in the US.
There’s about to be an economic civil war IMO.
Moveon.org is advocating for boycotting FOX and other nonconformists for Obama and this may expand to a tit for tat boycott surge.
So you can be counted in anonymously but to be counted out you must identify yourself. Smacks of intimidation.
Unless, of course, someone were to visit that site with a phone book from the UK and simply start entering names at random. But that wouldn’t be nice.
They can count me out. Me, my kids and all my relatives and progeny will never visit them until we have a complete turnaround and regime change back to the days of sensability. Want to report something to “government”? Report them that their days are numbered and the gangsters we have in charge will be on the run for life.
Now that I think about it, maybe it isn’t so bad. They only want a name and an email address. That is not enough to identify a person with as many people could share a first/last name. And the “name” could be something like “crosspatch”.
I was London science museum last year, it was fascinating to see the progress of technology starting with atmospheric steam engines to space rockets. Then i got to the end and it was some rubbish displays on climate change, it felt like a step backwards.
Note the results on the page 333 in 234 out, hardly a landslide in favour.
They can have my address. I am counted out. I’ll even burn a tree in sacrifice if they want.
“…(As a) lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…” –Albert Einstein
I voted count me out, and submitted my comments:
“There is nothing at all unusual about climate today, nor is there any convincing evidence that C02 itself, let alone man’s measly contribution of 3% to it can, or ever has driven climate. It is primarily changes in the sun and oceans which drive climate.
Any sort of climate agreement at Copenhagen is not only completely unnecessary, but could have disastrous effects on economies worldwide.”
What are they gonna do? I double-dog dare them.
This looks like one of those polls that could go horribly wrong 😉
“The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.”
What more proof could you possibly need?
Fortunately we have some good news too:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/chinaindia_accord_to_scuttle_u.html
Better yet, try the link at the bottom for making your own message
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/send.aspx
Invite your friends and family to be part of PROVE IT! First, choose a point that you think will motivate them:Choose a point that you think will motivate your friends and family.
“Climate change has already started and we’re causing it. ”
“Whatever the plan, it must be economically viable.”
“Copenhagen must protect people who are most vulnerable to climate change.”
“If greenhouse gas emissions keep rising, we will experience severe consequences.”
“The UK wants the world to share its strong stance on climate change.”
“Countries must share the global responsibility for tackling climate change.”
How about none of the above?
Guys, this is really silly. Of course they are not making a note of everyone who dissents from AGW with a view to putting them on lists. To do what with them?
There is in fact quite a lot of very legitimate debate in the UK about climate. It seems to be generally agreed in official circles that AGW exists and is a threat and that carbon emissions should be limited. But after that, in terms of priorities and implementation, there’s a lot of fairly reasonable discussion. Ordinary people are probably a bit more skeptical – the British public is fairly bloody minded about some things, and don’t greatly care for being told what to do or think.
Even in official circles you have real debates. For instance, does the probability (in the official view) of rising sea levels mean we should give up on sea defences, they being futile? Or does the probability of climate disturbances mean that food security is going to be a major problem, so we should reinforce coastal defences so as to preserve farmland? Conservative Party policy seems to be inclining to the latter. There are vigorous debates going on about windmills, about tidal barrages, about the tradeoffs with wildnerness protection and power generation. People express themselves fairly freely on these matters.
You see that policy and evidence and prediction and their fit with a given view of climate is actually a very complicated set of issues, and there will be debate in the UK on lots of aspects of this for some time.
However, it is true that the default position in the UK is to worry about Global Warming, to see it as a problem, and to see it as the UK’s duty to participate in international programs designed to alleviate damage from it. That is true. But I think you’d be hard put to find anyone seriously worried about what the Government will think of him if he expresses skepticism about AGW.
You’re misrepresenting the science museum. If you click ‘count me in’ they ask for the same information. This article is being disingenuous if it does not make this clear.
REPLY: No they are responsible for the situation. If a visitor clicks “COUNT ME OUT” first. Then leaves is disgust, the vote becomes lopsided. They’ll never see the other option and how it is presented.
They need to redo this language to be less threatening, IMHO. But I did add the screencap from the COUNT ME IN response to be fair. -A
I see no evidence there. The Science Museum gives the same old unsubstantiated propaganda. The Science Museum used to be a good place to visit, which I did regularly when I was a student just round the corner (and it was free). It can’t be trusted anymore.
count me out
but it doesn’t seem that sinister to me
perhaps i’m naive
Well, I have clicked on ‘count me out’. After that you get invited to
“Let us know what you think
The Science Museum is planning an exciting programme of new climate change exhibits and events, including a major new gallery launching in June 2010.
Tell us what you think about climate change, Copenhagen or PROVE IT!. Your comments will help inform what we do next. ”
So I wrote them a little essay about climate change hysteria, exaggeration, lack of warming, failure of computer models etc.
I wonder if I will get a visit from the Thought Police.
I counted myself out last night without noticing the possible “menace” in their message.
Still, given the Governments track record of incompetence, the thought police will be beating down the wrong door as I type.
“Climate change has already started and we’re causing it. ”
Agree. Climate Change Hysteria has started a stampede and panic, and is out to silence the opposition. They are already starting thier intimidating operations here, across the pond from the UK.
However, today, the MSM refused to go along with the Administration’s plan to isolate FOX News from the White House interviews.
If FOX can’t come, nobody will.
My Advice: Forget submitting names and addresses to the phony poll.
Throw a Tea Party instead ( or a Magna Carta Party), out in the open, where the public can see what happens. Do not fall for phony polls that seek to target individuals with midnight visits.
So lets see how many spam email addresses we can type in there in the shortest amount of time and have counted out. 🙂
Well I’ve ‘counted myself out’ and am pleased that the government is going to see my negative response to this plainly wrong science.
I would recommend everyone who is sceptical about AGW does the same. You can also leave a comment if you feel it will do any good. It would be great if the sceptics outnumbered the rest in this pole 🙂
I tried to count myself out. Gave them a false name “Whatta Lyingsackofsh**e” and a valid throwaway email. I was supposed to get a “confirmation email” that never arrived, but just got taken back to the screen where I can “Prove it!” and “Count myself in!” along with all the links to the “proof”.
So what actually is happening with those who count out? I wonder.
Steve S. wrote:
“Moveon.org is advocating for boycotting FOX and other nonconformists for Obama and this may expand to a tit for tat boycott surge.”
Not sure a boycott by the Moveon crowd would be noticed at FOX. They are not exactly FOX’s core audience. CNN looks conservative to them.
Call me overly optimistic, but based upon what I am hearing where I live in the heartland, I think that the regular everyday folks on Main Street U.S.A. (aka voters) are slowly waking up to the reality of what’s going on.
We , the sheeple, get brainwashed by these overpaid winkers.
I voted “count me out” and submitted the comment:
Your “How do we know humans are responsible” page says:
“The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes.”
I see no supporting evidence, so your assertion simply begs the question.
Your poll seems aimed at getting the answer you want. Hardly scientific, and you are the science museum! I used to believe in AGW and could not understand why anyone would not believe in it. Then I looked into the arguments more closely. I am a working scientist with a degree in geophysics and I now believe most climate change is natural.
I am counted out, too. Anthony, why not publicise and encourage other visitors to WUWT to log their view via this poll too?
Mickey Mouse just counted himself out three times…
Too bad it’s only in China that the government climatologists understand (from the article linked by Ron de Haan):
It is easier to stay independent of the climate paranoia if one does not believe the planet is in peril. Xiao Ziniu, director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, told the British Guardian newspaper recently that “There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous….Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects….In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today.” He disputed the disaster warnings of the UNIPCC, saying, “The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”
That’s me counted out. It’s now standing at 339 in and 328 out. The “outs” are catching up!
Leif please advise if you get any confirming emails. I think perhaps they filter non UK IP addresses.
In the bottom right of the museum page http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx I found this inquiry:
“Got an opinion?
If you’re not convinced by the evidence, tell us what you think. ”
I then submitted the following:
“Try this for your map name: “Day After Tomorrow Map in 15 million – 100,002,060 years: possibly the next natural “Hothouse Age””.
Are you fossils nuts? Check the AGW predictions! They’ve all been disproven, so far. AGW only exists in ill-based models that have failed. First YOU need to PROVE those failed predictions correct.
Wy are you are eager to destroy your country just to enrich Al Gore’s and George Soro’s pockets – and over a giant fraud?
You have my permission to print this response – internationally.”
A bit blunt and brash – guilty. I did submit my email and will be making the most of my remaining hours or days.
Can we all use the names of well known AGW supporters?????
It’s well known in police states that voting counts are very different if the ballots are secret, thought to be secret but aren’t or are known NOT to be secret.
In the UK right now, you wouldn’t say you were against global warming if you are ambitious. Unless the vote WAS secret.
You will be ‘economically disadvantaged’, is the phrase I believe.
The Labour Party doesn’t DO democracy. It just has to be seen to.
It’s very sad that this country is so immature that political views count for more than competence.
But they do.
It’s why we’re headed toward bankruptcy.
wattsupwiththat (10:27:57) :
Leif please advise if you get any confirming emails. I think perhaps they filter non UK IP addresses.
340 out, 339 in. No email [using my correct address] yet.
The reason is simple to understand, the science museum wants funding and who now holds the science funding purse strings?
The government now holds a sword of Damocles over every science group in the UK, they toe the party line and they get funds aplenty, they have the temerity to actually want to stick to the scientific method, they get nothing.
Its Stalins hearts and minds campaign, when you have them by the balls their hearts will follow OR when you pays the piper you calls the tune.
The outs are now ahead. Wonder how many are actually duplicates though.
Re: michel (10:01:38) :
> There is in fact quite a lot of very legitimate debate in the UK about climate.
There is no debate in the UK. The powers that be have decided that man is to blame for climate change and no deviation from this viewpoint is allowed or tolerated.
You can discuss/debate what the impacts are or how to remedy it, but you have to accept the underlying principle that man is to blame.
No email acknowledgment response from The London Science Museum (or MI5!), yet.
I’m in the UK and never got a confirming email after voting. Not yet, anyway, after 20 mins.
I didn’t think of it in time, but it might be best to type in the address if you are going to vote, not just click on the link. A large influx on their web stats from WUWT might inspire them to some climate-type data adjustment!
“Then i got to the end and it was some rubbish displays on climate change, it felt like a step backwards.”
If it makes you feel any better, the madness is not limited to climate change. The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia got rid of a wonderful room dealing with electricity and electromagnetism and replaced it with glorified posters talking about race, diversity, and discrimination.
My annual membership expired 4 days later … I have yet to renew it.
Given the threats made by major AGW supporters, with references to “trials” and “death trains”, concern over one’s safety should be expected. It would be irrational not to worry about how individuals or even the government might respond to those who disagree. Look at the Obama enemies list that is headed by Fox News.
Your “before the jump” teaser is somewhat misleading; I was really expecting different treatment of the two poll options.
I love your blog and the high quality work you do–but this post shows not even the best of us can bat 1.000.
The ‘count me out’ count is now 362, compared to 340 for the ‘count me in’ count. Brilliant.
Wake up, America,
and listen, what this guy has to say
…we know, that no matter how spineless our poilitcians are here in europe and elsewhere.. as long as Americas first amendment remains inviolated, there will always be an oasis of freedom…
From my european (german) point of view, I can not do more, than agree to him in the strongest possible way.
crosspatch (09:43:57) :
Now that I think about it, maybe it isn’t so bad. They only want a name and an email address. That is not enough to identify a person with as many people could share a first/last name. And the “name” could be something like “crosspatch”.
At times like that, I use a name and email address that lets them know where I stand. It’s not something I can print here, but the email address usually ends with “@you.com.”
You sometimes have to creative with the spelling to get past the obscenity filters. Try using a phonetic spelling.
Counted out and left the following message:
**********
I will quote Finnish professor Atte Korhola:
“Wen later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.”
It is sad that UK, in the past the world leader of scientific advance has sunk so deeply, promoting that politicized junk science.
**********
So far, outists are leading 365:340 😮
I was counted out to. If you don’t hear from me on this blog again, you’ll know that I had a visit …. hang on, there’s a knock at the door and a blue light flashing outside.
I also voted ‘out’ and left a comment. Maybe they’ll send all us sceptics a copy of the government’s recent ‘scary’ ad and try and frighten us into acceptance!
I told them that their institution had just become a propaganda arm of the government; that there is no man-made global warming; that the CO2 hyopthesis is broken.
I expect they are going to receive a lot more traffic than anticipated 🙂
If you poke around the “proof” documents, you come across some pretty interesting stuff. Here is their explanation of climate modeling:
How do scientists predict future climate?
Complex computer models can predict how greenhouse gas emissions will affect the climate in the future. Based on well-understood physical laws, they recreate the interactions between many processes that affect the climate. This allows scientists to simulate changes in elements of the climate such as rainfall, humidity, the rate of glacier melt and many others.
Models split the world into millions of points on a 3D map, and divide time into thousands of intervals for each century. The state of the climate is calculated at a particular place from one point in time to the next. This builds up a detailed picture of the future climate around the world.
Before making predictions, the computer models are used to simulate the past. This shows how accurately they can recreate the processes that determine the climate. If these simulations of the past accurately match what really happened, scientists can be confident about the models’ predictions of the future. Models can forecast the climate for hundreds of years to come.
Calculating a century of climate change on some of the world’s fastest supercomputers can take months. Scientists run lots of models together to get a range of predictions.
—
The amusing points:
(1) Climate models are based on “well understood physical laws”!? Really? That would surprise most fluid dynamicists (and others) … I guess we don’t need any of those nasty “parametrizations” and unphysical numerical artifices – you know, mass fixers, shapiro filters, empirical precipitation models, ice models, vegitation models…
(2) “If these simulations of the past accurately match what really happened, scientists can be confident about the models’ predictions of the future. Models can forecast the climate for hundreds of years to come.”
I just don’t know what to say here – this is so ignorant of how numerical processes work. You cannot say you can predict the future just because you can hindcast, which is really all GCMs can do with any accuracy…
(3) “Calculating a century of climate change on some of the world’s fastest supercomputers can take months. Scientists run lots of models together to get a range of predictions.”
Translated to you and I, this should read “We need millions of your tax dollars to run these huge computer models that produce poor results, so please let us tax you more to pay for some new computers!”
—
So there you have it, part of the “proof” for AGW! It’s enough to make anyone a true believer!!
Well, I had some fun with my comment re. the soon not-to-be government.
I’m anticipating that the real-time results of the poll may be pulled soon.
I am among unknown number of people in the US who received unsolicited emails from the Obama White House. They had my correct name and email address and I received several political and propaganda messages, some supposedly from the president himself.
If an individual or business sends unsolicited emails like that, it’s a federal felony, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. I am not aware of any exemption for the government, presidential aides or politicians.
What are the applicable laws in the U.K?
I see the statement that they won’t pass on your email address. But does this mean you are automatically enrolled in their mailing list?
341 counted in so far 383 counted out so far
I’m with you on this one, Mr. Watts.
I don’t generally walk around with a tinfoil beanie on, but “give us your name and we’ll pass it on to the government” is spookie.
I wish I’d thought of give Joe Romm’s name & address… that would have had me chuckling to myself all afternoon.
ipcc-sec@wmo.int
too naughty
The Science Museum. Ahh, I spent many a happy hour in my last visit in February, wandering amongst the exhibits of marvellous advances in technology; Harrison’s chronometers (no relation), primitive TV systems, steam pumping engines, cars, ships, planes, rockets and the IMO slightly confusing DNA display. Then I ended up on the top floor, which was mostly set aside for refurbishment.
One thing that was operating was a computer game, where the object was to prevent a tornado from destroying your city by zapping it with your raygun, which would deflect and eventually dissipate it. However the other players in the game were also zapping away, which deflected the tornado in different directions, often back at the city you were trying to defend. Once our cities were battered to destruction the game was over and we were treated to a homily about the dangers of tampering with nature. What actually stuck in my mind was the game’s designer told us 1) Tornadoes ALWAYS do damage to a city when they touch down. 2) Every time a tornado dissipates, it respawns moving faster and is more powerful. 3) Eventually tornadoes will wipe out every city on the planet, regardless of whether we attempt to do anything about it.
I left the top floor and went back to wandering about the steam engines, which are at least based firmly on reality. I know, because I used to have a toy one.
My name now logged with the government. 🙂
Can all the readers at least become “openly realist” and vote to be “counted out”?
Or are you chicken? 🙂 I have included myself to “Count me out” just now. It would be good to convince Matt Drudge and flood the bastards with a few million of “Count me out” people.
341, 393. Can we call it “The Watts Effect”?
ok so now many more people in the survey are “opting out.” Will the science museum still send it to the government?
My guess is this:
1. The museum will say the data was “tampered with” and throw the poll out.
2. The poll will magically have many many more opt in vote just before the poll closes.
and of course the emails of those who opt in at the last minute will be never shown.
Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I’m not voting any poll that wants my E-mail address. Very bad things can happen when you give it out indiscriminately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bender%27s_big_score
346 “Counted In So Far”
404 “Counted Out So Far”
Including me.
It will be interesting to see their response if these ratios hold.
They don’t need your name or address to filter: They have your IP address. When you hit send they can tracert or ping you back to origin. They don’t even have to go that far, as soon as the route goes to a major node outside the UK (in Viriginia in the US), it’s exit the loop.
* 346 counted in so far
* 404 counted out so far
stretching the lead! I’m surprised they post these poll “results” – when will the modelers take over?
We are watching the end of an era. Interesting times indeed.
The vote is actually pretty close; sounds like the voters understand science better than the folks at the museum…
Ummm… the site is pretty clear, and it makes sense, and there’s no reason to doubt it. They say that they ask for the name and e-mail only to be sure that people are only counted once, and to send a confirmation, and that all they’ll send to the government are the final numbers.
I mean, come on. What would the government actually do with this info? Track you down and put a sniper team on the roof of an adjacent building, to eliminate your potential opposition to the global plan of evil scientists to make a marginal living by hyping climate change which they know to be a crock but it’s so easy to fool people that simply didn’t pay attention in science classes in high school? Revenge of the nerds? Spare me.
Talk about bizarre paranoia.
I love the way we do science now in the UK!
Route leaves the UK site to this one:
193.63.111.143
OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
OrgID: RIPE
Address: P.O. Box 10096
City: Amsterdam
StateProv:
PostalCode: 1001EB
Country: NL
ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43
NetRange: 193.0.0.0 – 193.255.255.255
CIDR: 193.0.0.0/8
NetName: RIPE-CBLK
NetHandle: NET-193-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Allocated to RIPE NCC
NameServer: NS-PRI.RIPE.NET
NameServer: NS3.NIC.FR
NameServer: SUNIC.SUNET.SE
NameServer: SNS-PB.ISC.ORG
NameServer: SEC1.APNIC.NET
NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET
NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET
Comment: These addresses have been further assigned to users in
Comment: the RIPE NCC region. Contact information can be found in
Comment: the RIPE database at http://www.ripe.net/whois
RegDate: 1992-08-12
Updated: 2009-03-25
ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-10-22 20:00
Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN’s WHOIS database.
So, if you know who RIPE works for….
Yesterday I noted on my blog that if you voted Out – they thanked you by saying “…thanks for being part of PROVE IT! By adding your voice, you’re supporting a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”
I note today they have dropped the second sentence…
“Perhaps the “COUNT ME OUT” respondents get a visit from these chaps?”
Experience says junk mail
This is their “What effects are already being felt”:
Earth’s rising temperature is causing knock-on effects. Rainfall patterns are changing. After three centuries of stability, sea level is now rising. Ice in the Arctic is melting further back year on year. Extreme weather, such as droughts and hurricanes, is becoming more common or more intense. The changing weather patterns are causing plants to flower earlier in the year and species to migrate as the climate in their habitats changes.
Wow, talk about getting it wrong big time!
I counted myself out, and gave them something to think about when they read it on Monday morning. Bunch of tossers, as we say over here in England. I note with great amusement that there are far more counted OUT than IN! Ha, ha.
While..OT..Remember the warm “south pacific sea”?…see it now:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Cold west, cold east, cold middle. Cheers Hansen boy!
Yes, I am afraid subtle hints at intimidation are standard operating procedure now. However this will backfire. On Monday I will ensure this link is emailed to as many deniers as myself. Mostly oilfield, mostly geologists and engineers and all hard nosed.
Word will get out, from this site and others and count me out at first become an embarrasment and then probably be suspended.
I counted out at 424.
Shame they dont have a readers comments page.
Welcome to our brave new world.
I can tell you for sure that James Hansen is now on recrd as doubting AGW.
A phony name for a phony crisis.
I’ve been counted out, and entered a lengthy tome on the reasons that AGW is flawed. I don’t suppose they’ll read it though – they’ve already planned their day after tomorrow exhibition, so I don’t expect to see rational thought intruding.
Reading through their literature on climate change is like reading a school boy’s essay, so obvious are the flaws, appeals to authority and plain fawning over climate model specifications. As has already been posted here, these people make the oft repeated error of imagining that a successful hindcast implies predictive skill. In a different age they would be labelled “one born every day” suckers, but in todays Alice in Wonderland world, the nonsense the peddle is never questioned.
I wont be surprised if they themselves start voting in to counteract the outs.
Or maybe just falsify the numbers given to the gov’t. I dont trust them.
Is it my ageing eyesight, or have the just hidden the ‘count me out block’ while still showing ‘count me in’ as white on grey? Thereby a cursory glance would miss the count me out panel.
Time: 19:40 UK.
michel (10:01:38) :
But I think you’d be hard put to find anyone seriously worried about what the Government will think of him if he expresses skepticism about AGW.
There speaks someone who is happy that millions of people who have never even been charged with a crime have their DNA data stored on a government database, despite a court ruling that it is illegal.
There speaks someone who is happy about the government’s plans that everyone should have to pay around £100 for a biometric ID card with over 50 pieces of information about them stored on the associated database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it.
There speaks someone who is happy that anyone who wishes to have any contact with children will have to prove that they are no a paedophile, with data stored on a database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it, that data including totally unfounded, anonymous accusations.
There speaks someone who is happy that the government plans that every child born in the UK will have all information relating to him/her entered onto yet another government database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it.
There speaks someone who is happy that the government plans that every “client” of the National Health Service has every part of his/her medical history entered onto a government database, with over 1 million government employees having access to it.
In short, the speaks a man whose mantra appears to be “If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”.
I apologise for this rant but Michel is hopelessly naive if he believes that the current UK government is a benign group of people who have our interests at heart. THEY DON’T. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “The government is the problem, not the solution”
I have voted in this poll, in the “Count me Out” box of course. I have absolutely no fear of the Government gathering the personal information of their dissenting citizens to use against me.
They’ll lose it, just like they have lost the personal data of millions of their citizens already.
I’ve been reading this blog for a while now and really appreciate the climate sanity here. So thank you Watts for this site.
As what goes for the poll on that uk site, anyone wanna bet the out wotes are up by 1000 after a few minutes?
-Lihard
If you want to change people’s opinions, first you have to know what that opinion is.
For example, suppose that you think that closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is a horrible idea. You can be targeted with a message that says: “The detention center is a cause of friction with our allies and by relocating it; the bad publicity will be put behind us”.
That’s a lot more reasonable than saying we are going to just let them go. (In the past, many released inmates returnrd to terrorism and killing Americans.)
That’s what those surveys are for: If you tell them why you disagree, they can target you with specific propaganda to get you to change your mind.
I don’t know if that’s what they are going to do with it, but that is a technique used to target small groups of voters with common concerns. The power of the computer and digital printing has made it possible.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
At 20:00hrs on 23/10/2009 the score stands at 349 IN, 485 OUT.
Somebody is roboposting “OUTS”
the 769th person counted out.
And I thank you.
A big jump – 349 In, 1388 out.
Either someone has kicked in a ‘bot, or, I predict the SM will claim this, and take the votes down….
Huge spike now.
349 counted in so far 1496 counted out so far
I have a feeling someone wrote some script as there’s no captcha in place.
Unfortunately, such an idiotic poll DESERVES to be “roboposted”.
My submission in the comments:
“First, the climate, and Earth’s temperature – as far as it can be ascertained – has always varied.
Second, the probably provable warming from 1977 to 1998 is well within natural variation. See the MWP.
Third, the land based surface stations which purport to show continued warming have been shown to be hopelessly contaminated by poor siting, urban heat island effects, and other drawbacks. Worse, the methods of collating and processing data, even the data themselves have been hidden from view. Where they have, finally, been exposed they have been shown to be seriously flawed. CF the recent Yamal expose.
Fourth, the most reliable measurement of temperature we have, the satellite record, shows a cessation of warming in 1998, and a slight colling since.
Fifth (and for the moment finally) the attribution of what warming we have seen to atmospheric carbon dioxide, a trace gas amounting to fewer than 400 parts per million, is completely implausible. In fact the record shows that for reasons which are clear to anyone who understands the solubility of air in water, CO2 follows temperature, it does not lead temperature.”
The Director of the Science Museum is Chris Rapley, former Director of the £40 million a year budget, British Antarctic Survey. His last few years at BAS were occupied with proclaiming that the West Antarctic Ice Shelf was an awakening giant.
Antarctic glaciers thinning fast
BAS press release No: 03/2005 02 Feb 2005
The contribution that rapid thinning of the Antarctic ice sheet is making to global sea-level rise is a cause for concern according to Director of British Antarctic Survey, (BAS), Professor Chris Rapley. Speaking this week at a conference hosted by the Met Office in Exeter he summarised the latest understanding from one of the frozen continent’s most remote and inhospitable corners.
Professor Rapley said,“Satellite measurements tell us that a significant part of the West Antarctic ice sheet in this area is thinning fast enough to make a significant contribution to sea level rise, but for the present, our understanding of the reason for this change is little better than hypothesis.
The last IPCC report characterised Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change. I would say that this is now an awakened giant. There is real cause for concern.”
He made big headlines especially in the UK Independent: “The head of the British Antarctic Survey, Professor Chris Rapley, disclosed that the vast West Antarctic ice sheet, previously thought to be stable, may be beginning to disintegrate, which would cause a sea-level rise around the world of more than 16ft”
Strangely he didn’t seem to know what research his own scientists were doing; this very next press release came out just 3 weeks after his statements at Blair’s Exeter scare fest on Dangerous Climate Change.
Antarctic ice shelf retreats happened before:
No: 4/2005 23 Feb 2005
The retreat of Antarctic ice shelves is not new according to research published this week (24 Feb) in the journal Geology by scientists from Universities of Durham, Edinburgh and British Antarctic Survey (BAS).
A study of George VI Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is the first to show that this currently ‘healthy’ ice shelf experienced an extensive retreat about 9500 years ago, more than anything seen in recent years. The retreat coincided with a shift in ocean currents that occurred after a long period of warmth. Whilst rising air temperatures are believed to be the primary cause of recent dramatic disintegration of ice shelves like Larsen B, the new study suggests that the ocean may play a more significant role in destroying them than previously thought.
The University of Durham’s, Dr Mike Bentley, one of the leaders of the project said,‘We know that rising air temperatures can break up ice shelves but there has been a suspicion for some time that the role of the ocean may have been underestimated. This is some of the first evidence that a shift in ocean currents can actually destroy ice shelves. In this case it’s possible that a preceding warm period may have primed the ice shelf to disintegrate when the ocean currents shifted.’
Of course, that didn’t make the papers.
Sent to WHO in the government is the real question.
At 20:15 on 23/10/2009 it’s now 349 IN and 1508 OUT!!!
349 in, 1518 out. Will they work out why the change?
I think Global Warming is causing a rise in the “Count Me Out” levels.
Think it was yesterday I mentioned first that I had not only voted Count me OUT but also left a comment.
The 2 things I remember quoting were Harold Dennys account of drifting within 300Nmls of the North pole in 1938 on Dec 12th & later getting frozen in on the 18rh. Also the fact that the breaker was free again in mid Feb 1939, also reported by Denny.
I also quoted Soden & Held “Quantifying Climate Feedbacks using Radiative Kernels”, which effectively says models are bollocks.
What I, (half jokingly), said here on WUWT, was, something to the effect that I was expecting a call from the climate police as I did not hide my identity nor use a proxy server.
Personally, I couldn’t give a stuff what they think or do!
DaveE.
I just got counted “out” and left the following suggestion for exhibits:
I’d like to see an exhibit about scientific theories that have been proved wrong, which is what I expect from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory. It will fit nicely with Eugenics, Lamarkian adaptation, and the Piltdown Man.
I detect a slight paranoia amongst some posters and a failure of the funny bone. This is what it says in small print after threatening to shop us to the government:
* We won’t pass on your name or e-mail address. We’ll just use it to send you a confirmation email, and make sure that we only count people once.
I voted OUT and left this comment:
“Temperatures are no longer rising but CO2 is; the sun has gone quiet permitting more galactic cosmic radiation to affect the planet; many different scientists are now turning their attention to CLOUDS as providing NEGATIVE feedback to the tiny amount of warming due to extra CO2 in the atmosphere (rather than the runaway amplification promoted by the catastrophists); Antarctic sea ice extent is now the greatest on record; Arctic ice seems to be recovering from its recent summer lows; the sea level is NOT rising more than its millenial trend and the oceans’ temperatures are NOT warming rather “oscillating” as normal; Atlantic hurricanes this year have been very few in comparison with years in the first half of the 20th Century; islands and areas claimed to be suffering inundation because of sea-level rises are in fact SUBSIDING due to plate tectonic activity and ice-age rebound; the concept of “global” temperature is a nonsense because of inadequate recording over time and space and because of the impact of urban heat islands – the majority of measuring stations used by the IPCC are located at airports; so-called “consensus” scientists are unwilling to reveal their data and methods to other researchers who wish to investigate their claims; the Mediaeval Warm Period was warmer than today and the Little Ice Age cooler; and lastly, trees ARE NOT to be confused with thermometers!”
If someone is actually soliciting your opinion it seems churlish not to respond in good faith, especially when it is an organisation like the Science Museum which is a well-loved British institution.
Toodle-oo!
I’m ashamed. I went to their site yesterday(?) – from “tips and notes” – and voted “out”, but allowed myself to be intimidated into backing out. Emboldened by the reminder that the jack-booted thought police will probably come to the wrong house, I just went back and voted. Left ’em a message that I didn’t see any “evidence”. Thanks, guys! (quite a difference in poll numbers since yesterday!!! They must wonder Watts up?)
Best,
Frank
I’m out. 349-1540
It’s now 2040 on 23/10/2009 and the count stands at 1541 OUT. I have been watching the site for anbout 25 minutes and doing the F5 refresh every couple of seconds (my aching finger!).
It would appear that there’s no robot posting. The changes are appearing at random time intervals ranging from a couple of seconds to two minutes or more.
wattsupwiththat (10:27:57) :
Leif please advise if you get any confirming emails. I think perhaps they filter non UK IP addresses.
I still haven’t got my confirming email Anthony & I AM UK based.
DaveE.
Final post at 2045hrs.
It’s now 350 IN and 1553 OUT
Let’s see what tomorrow brings. BTW,I have voted, using a valid UK e-mail address and I have received no ‘validation’ e-mail.
Well I am hoping nothing untoward happens, I voted count me out. But I did abandon the first attempt and check the same information was requested for a Count Me In vote.
I then complained to the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) about the child scaring anti-warming/change adverts which my taxes are paying for. No point in doing things by half.
Just counted myself out and gave reasons. Results so far 350 counted in and 1557 counted out. We seem to be doing well. I guess this thing will just be buried quietly.
The science museum link states:
“Scientists can tell the extra carbon dioxide around the Earth comes from fossil fuels by looking at the type of carbon.”
It was my understanding that 1-4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere has a fossil fuel origin, based on C14 studies. Unfortunately I can’t find my reference for this. Is this figure correct ?
Mr. Bradbury would be proud.
Dear All,
I suspect this is becoming a newsworthy story that will interest the MSM – government embarrassment etc. Can I suggest that anyone with MSM contacts phone them now so that it may have a chance of hitting tomorrow’s papers. Last time I looked at 21.00 BST the score was 352 to the church of AGW against 1573 sceptics.
Regards
S
This would be a good story on The Register. Get emailing people.
Just added my “out” vote.
353 / 1585 now…
Cheers
Mark
353 counted in, 1589 counted out, as of 2 minutes ago.
Pretty funny. Teach those yahoos a lesson about web polls.
Hope it makes the BBC. Headline should read:
Climate Outies Swamp Innies in Alarmist Museum Poll
Wasn’t it settled already, we are doomed.
1603/353.. which of you lads used Hansens´s NASA e-mail??
😀
Dr A. Burns (12:51:22),
I hope this helps:
“Segalstad (1992; 1993; 1996) concluded from 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations, in accordance with the 14-C data, that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth’s interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important; and the sum of burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic releases (4%) much less important, than assumed (21% of atmospheric CO2) by the authors of the IPCC model (Houghton et al., 1990).”
Source:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Mr Green Genes (11:44:23)
There are many reasons to be concerned about civil liberties in the UK, real reasons, and some of the things you mention are among them, though there are more, some more serious than the ones you allude to, and no, I and many of my acquaintance are not at all happy about recent trends. You did not mention, for instance, the very disturbing arrest of Damien Green. I do not take the same attitude either to all the items on your list; some are more alarming than others.
However, one of the things I am not concerned about is that responding to a Science Museum poll on whether I believe in Global Warming may get me onto some government enemies list or other.
And no, I do not think that the innocent have no reason to fear. I just think that there’s no evidence that the UK government thinks that people expressing opinions about the scientific basis for AGW is a security issue. You are far more likely to get on government lists if you join protests against power stations, attend climate camps, take up animal rights, demonstrate against the G8, all that sort of thing. Because they are not actually total idiots, and they do not have unlimited time and energy to worry about every personal opinion everyone may hold. And they have something very real to worry about in the background: terrorism.
You are right that there is a sort of uneasy consensus in the UK, where it is ‘not done’ to express reservations in public, but in private you find lots of reservations, including from opinion formers. The further away from Westminster you go, and the further away from the devout Labour Party membership, the more scepticism you find. But even within that, there is a lot of vigorous debate about policy implications, and its funny, as in the sea defence matter, that people who think identically about warming can take exactly opposite views on many of them. And the reverse, by the way – people who think differently on warming often end up agreeing on policy.
As for example, its warming, sea defences are consequently under threat, therefore we must act now and strengthen them. And, no, of course its not warming, but sea defences are in disrepair, and we must act now and strengthen them.
Under the surface, a lot of what this is about is not the reduction of emissions, but UK energy security, which is a nightmare. That is why I think joining the Kingsnorth protests probably really would get you on lists, and quite right too.
Tell me about it!
Remember dabs & mugshot too!
I’m there, pulled on sus!
DaveE.
I have a dozen quite legitimate e-mail addresses (personal and business) and I’ve just used each one to be “counted out.” From what Mike D. just reported, I can see the site being quietly closed very shortly.
Don’t do that. Both sides should play fair.
If they took the temperature of the globe the way this poll is shaping up, we’d all be busy talking about more important things, rather than going to the mat with Big Environment.
Like sending a fleet of trawlers out into the Pacific Gyre and fishing up that mass of swirling plastic. Put that $100B invested into Carbon Bubble shares to work. Mop it up.
I counted out, with a real e-mail addy. And responded.
W@nkers, they must need some funding for something.
# 353 counted in so far
# 1624 counted out so far
353 to 1633. I would have preferred, though, that “our side” didn’t resort to ballot box stuffing. It would be so cool to see those numbers represent real votes.
Respectfully, “evanmjones”, when have the catastrophists ever played fair?
[REPLY – In order to have the right to complain, we must play fair, regardless. Besides, having the moral high ground has serious advantages of its own. I doubt we can prevail without it. ~ Evan]
354 Counted In, 1637 Counted out. Added my thoughts to the out.
Like others above I “Counted” myself out. Dropped a short explanation also. Let us not spam this site – allow the “outs” to prevail legitimaly.
I think they’re not accepting none-UK votes. I live outside the UK and I haven’t had one confirmation e-mail yet. Perhaps tomorrow.
Um, if you have a generic “dial up” account for nearly no money as part of your service (often included as a free backup) and a decent low cost long distance plan, you can dial a UK phone number and get a UK IP address…
Not that I would ever have a long list of phone numbers from all over my providers network so that I can “be” anywhere I want to be… no sir, that would be wrong. Effective, but wrong.
Yes, it is slow, but there are times…
One of my favorite things to do is send email to a friend in Florida from the Florida dial up node I use when visiting him. Yeah, he’s a computer geek too and appreciates the irony… “But I’m there in spirit! … and in IP.”
With my “free long distance” it really makes no difference what hub I use. AND you get to see the “customized for your location” local ads and know who’s looking at your IP and who is not. (And frankly, having a few “odd ball” IPs mixed in with home, work, and the Starbucks Hot Spots adds a certain spice to the database of anyone collecting such information… “Now how did he get from New York to Atlanta in 10 minutes?!”)
I know, geeks are easily amused… But it’s like delivering coffee to the guys watching your house. It says “Hi, know your there, want a donut too?” 😉
(FWIW, we once tracked a “probably Russian based on plodding by the book hacking style” guy who bounced off two other sites, hit our front door router but could not get past the firewall, then used our “honeypot” machine to hit a military base in Hawaii.
We called up their admin contact phone number that we dug out of their router [it was an modest hack…] to tell them they were being hacked. The response? “How did you get our phone number, this is a secret site! Who have you told?”. Not real interested in the fact they were actively being hacked, but worried someone would find out they had an internet connection that was not supposed to exist.
Sigh. We told them what they needed to know, even though they didn’t want to hear it, then hung up. Called the FBI to tell them there was a break-in in progress at a secure facility. They told us “The guy who handles that is out until next week. Do you have a number he can call when he gets back?” I hope things are better now, a decade+ later … We shut down the guys access once it was clear nobody cared. He could go bounce off somewhere else. So this kind of thing is a handy thing to understand…)
Haven’t voted yet. Trying to decide who and where I want to be 😎
Voted “count me out” and commented:
“Proponents of the idea that the activities of human beings are causing undesireable climate changes are wrong on several counts.
They claim that the issue is scentifically settled when it is not, ignore evidence contrary to their hypothesis, and demonize their opponents. They claim that a consensus of experts supports their position, even though that is not true, acting as if scientific matters were decided by a vote
instead of by comparing the predictions of theory to observation and experiment. All their alarmist predictions result from models with great uncertainties in the data input and the dynamic relationships of climate influences, and which have made predictions subsequently shown to be overstated or false when compared to reality.
Even if AGW turns out to be true, supporters of the idea have failed to produce a cost-benefit analysis that shows that their remediation proposals will result in a net benefit. It is a definite possibility that following their prescriptions will instead cause death and impoverishment.”
voted OUT, at 354 IN / 1640 OUT … no UK IP, no confirmation mail arrived.
Not that I had plans, but will I see a visa if I’ll ever need one 😛 ?
Pops.
I’m UK & still not got a confirmation email
DaveE.
Added my vote, too…. it looks like they may have accepted the vote, but there is no confirming e-mail yet… wait, I hear helicopters…
It would be nice to know if those votes represent valid one-time and eligible votes or not. And I completely agree with Evan Jones… it is vitally important to maintain the higher moral ground.
My email address is UK and I didn’t get a confirmation, although I’m sure my vote counted. I fully expect it to get stuffed by the other side once they reaslise they’re going to lose the vote.
“Haven’t voted yet. Trying to decide who and where I want to be 8-)”
Has big Al voted yet?
How soon do you suppose before the warmistas tweak to this one and call out the trolls?
Bruce Cobb (09:55:04) :
I voted count me out, and submitted my comments:
…Any sort of climate agreement at Copenhagen is not only completely unnecessary, but could have disastrous effects on economies worldwide.”
What are they gonna do? I double-dog dare them.
Dog dares are no longer allowed as they have been exchanged for edible, low carbon pets like chickens, ducks and rabbits. But thank you for your e-mail address… we’ll keep it on file.
Symon (10:03:29) :
You’re misrepresenting the science museum. If you click ‘count me in’ they ask for the same information. This article is being disingenuous if it does not make this clear.
REPLY: No they are responsible for the situation. If a visitor clicks “COUNT ME OUT” first. Then leaves is disgust, the vote becomes lopsided. They’ll never see the other option and how it is presented.
They need to redo this language to be less threatening, IMHO. But I did add the screencap from the COUNT ME IN response to be fair. -A
I’m sorry Mr. Watts, but I still don’t see what point you are trying to make. It’s the same for both sides, so where’s the bias you perceive?
To paraphrase your reply, what if a visitor clicks “COUNT ME IN” first. Then leaves in disgust, the vote becomes lopsided. They’ll never see the other option and how it is presented.
Anyway, thank you for adding the other screencap.
I counted out, and added a full page vent to comments. I’m not sure if this will carry much weight as I am not a UK citizen. However I have no problem supplying an email address as I am happy to be identified as a climate realist. I would encourage others to give an email address as well as adding comments. It would be good if those organizing this propaganda at the museum could see the commitment and scientific literacy of the skeptic community. While my vent in comments was about the science, I did end with a comment on the ultimate futility of such propaganda exercises.
“Only humans can be swayed by propaganda, Nature doesn’t care. At present Nature is not cooperating with the alarmist hoax. Even if humans are stupid enough to destroy democracy at Copenhagen, how long will the new regime last in an extended solar minimum? No amount of over heated propaganda will help heat your house in winter.”
After some hesitation due to not being a British national I also counted myself out and left a comment about the skewing of the survey through the exclusion of historically relevant climate information.
“…it is vitally important to maintain the higher moral ground.” And that’s precisely the attitude that has brought us to the situation we find ourselves in just 50 + days from the great Copenhagen warm-fest. Fight fire with fire, or you’ll end up getting your nuts roasted IN the fire. The numbers may be reversed by this time tomorrow anyway (if the site is still up) but that will only prove what a joke, and waste of tax-payer’s money, it is… was. Talking of nuts, what head-case picked Copenhagen for a December meeting about global warming? I’ve been there in December and it’s freezing. Surely they should be meeting in Sydney, Australia?
rbateman (13:48:02) :
Like sending a fleet of trawlers out into the Pacific Gyre and fishing up that mass of swirling plastic. Put that $100B invested into Carbon Bubble shares to work. Mop it up.
———–
Yeah, the lady who posted about that “plastic soup” a few days ago sure as hell created a lasting impression on me, and I’m sure others, with that one (she might be surprised to know). I found those pictures astounding.
Now helping to clean that crap up is something I could get behind and support. The Out/In score may indicate that it’s getting close to the time when WUWT posters may be looking for other ways to help tackle the real pollution problems.
Now standing at 357 “in” and 1710 “out”. I went back and commented; my concluding paragraph was:
“Suffice it to say that I think the current drive to throw vast amounts of money and resources into “tackling climate change” is misguided. Tragically, much money that could have been spent on genuine problems, such as improving infrastructure in the developing world, will probably be wasted, before the tide begins to turn and a more honest, less blinkered assessment of the Earth’s climate gets under way.”
The Government have my e-mail address already, and are aware of my opinions about AGW. If they are compiling some sort of Dodgy Dossier of Denialist Doom, I’m probably already in it!
The only dodgy issue bigger than the AGW con (CON!) is the idea that the so-called “scientists” know more about science than the rest of us. Just remember that Einstein was NOT a scientist, but a patent clerk. And I know some clerks (not just working on patents) who have a better idea of the inner workings of the Universe than any so-called scientists.
So to all you so-called skeptics (as opposed to the honestly skeptical), I say this: Rome wasn’t built in a day. It takes two to tango, right? And when the fat lady sings, beware of the PC thought police!!!!
I’m sorry Mr. Watts, but I still don’t see what point you are trying to make. It’s the same for both sides, so where’s the bias you perceive?
It goes something like this (Note, this is an analogy, not a direct comparison.):
Vote “Up with the Powers That Be” or “Down with the Powers That Be” — and both responses are labeled “Will be reported to the Powers That Be”.
What’s unfair about that? Same message for both sides, isn’t it?
As for me, there’s little difference. After my articles in the Register, I’m on the bad list anyway.
I counted myself out.
Chris Rapley in the Telegraph article:
“Climate change is real, driven by humans and potentially threatening… so discipline is required, worldwide”
This is the first time I have seen the ‘D’ word introduced into the GW alarmism… though I’ve been waiting for its inevitable appearance.
Chris fails to say who is going to administer this discipline, what will happen to those who are considered undisciplined and which historical political group ‘requiring discipline, worldwide’ is so inspiring him.
Perhaps he’ll tell me in the Science Museum’s return email.
* 357 counted in so far
* 1718 counted out so far
and still no confirmation….this could become quite embarrassing.
I shamelessly plagerised and expanded tallbloke’s excellent post the other day and sent in this in the comments.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re…1-chapter9.pdf
Here’s the key passage as most see it:
In all simulations shown in Figure
6.13, the late 20th century is warmer than any other multidecadal
period during the last millennium. In addition, there
is significant correlation between simulated and reconstructed
variability (e.g., Yoshimori et al., 2005). By comparing
simulated and observed atmospheric CO2 concentration during
the last 1 kyr, Gerber et al. (2003) suggest that the amplitude
of the temperature evolution simulated by simple climate
models and EMICs is consistent with the observed evolution
of CO2. Since reconstructions of external forcing are virtually
independent from the reconstructions of past temperatures, this
broad consistency increases confidence in the broad features of
the reconstructions and the understanding of the role of external
forcing in recent climate variability. The simulations also
show that it is not possible to reproduce the large 20th-century
warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which
solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used (Crowley, 2000;
Bertrand et al., 2002; Bauer et al., 2003; Hegerl et al., 2003,
2007), stressing the impact of human activity on the recent
warming.
So by ignoring all the studies whose reconstructions show a warmer medieval warm period, they are able to claim that the models and the reconstructions mutually reinforce each other. And by downplaying medieval temps, they can claim a good correlation with co2 and therefore the AGW hypothesis is strongest in explaining C20th temp rise.
Mann is debunked,
Briffa is debunked.
The IPCC has ignored 180 years of co2 records
There is considerable doubt about how a global temperature reconstruction can be accurate especially before 1958 when there were only 20 thermometers in the bottom 40 degrees of the globe.
What’s left?”
The nays continue to pile in. 357 – 1735 at last count.
Heck, I think there has been a small amount of warming and that man is partially responsible (though mostly via non-CO2 means). But I wasn’t in favor of “measures” even when the economy was good. And especially not now.
I’m out with comments name and email posted.
Lets see whether any headlines come from this poll?
I’m in the UK and voted at 3pm. So far there has been no confirmation e-mail
I’m with the BNP on this one!
* 357 counted in so far
* 1746 counted out so far
Ive just plotted the counted out votes vs time and they look like a hockey stick standing on it’s blade
That’s me counted out too, with an appropriate comment about the bad science currently fuelling the AGW case.
“…at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources”
Thanks NickB
I had seen other references claiming atmospheric CO2 was as low as 1% fossil fuel derived. Any other pointers appreciated.
Well, I didn’t vote. I’ve got enough check marks after my name on government lists as it is.
Love the picture of Oskar Werner as Fireman Montag.
And the counted outs keep climbing! Ouch.
The influence of the blogosphere may yet save us from this madness.
Keep waving the flag Anthony.
359 counted in so far 1781 counted out so far
I counted myself out and got carried away screeching the following:
“Climate has always changed, and always will. Going back to its original name, ‘Global Warming’ doesn’t make it any easier, as the planet stopped warming ten years ago. Get over it and move on!! People are more aware of their effect on the environment – just accept that as a victory. Stop pushing this propaganda down the throats of UK citizens and (horrifically) UK school children. It’s obscene, and everyone involved in the climate change scam are the lowest of the low. They will be a joke to their descendants, but they are disgusting criminals to their peers.
An echelon of “scientists”, “climate change ministers” and “environmental correspondents” want to keep their jobs getting money for nothing until they retire. The consequence of this for the rest of the population is having a climate change caused by humans myth forced upon them, leading on to carbon taxes and a personal carbon allowance, which is just a roundabout way of gaining control back over the masses, which was lost when they demanded the rights that they had fought for in WW2, (after their fathers had demanded the same rights after WW1 and were laughed at).
In short, Science Museum, get on with being a science museum and leave global warming to politics, as that is what it is, as any REAL scientist knows.
Oh, and you can give my name to the Government. Even although they are flirting with climate change fascism, they haven’t quite got into bed yet, and when they do I’ll no doubt be out shooting non carbon neutrals with the rest of the sheep, (unless my backbone and my disgust of this eco-fascism stays firm).”
Sorry to insult you chaps on the other side of the pond, but this “count me in” or “count me in” business is not proper English – it is American-English.
In voting in the negative, I pointed out an essential part of the traditonal English culture is fair play and hearing both sides of the argument. All this talk about urgency, consensus and castigating the opposition as being biased due to being bribed by oil companies is simply not cricket!
The Science Museum is a fantastic institution that has inspired many to study the various branches further. As I child I visited a number of times, getting lost in the many rooms, absorbing huge amounts. The “Prove it” site is an affront to one of the world’s greatest museums and should be taken down.
Given that count, what are the odds they’ll actually send the vote in? 50 Quatloos says they don’t.
* 361 counted in so far
* 1807 counted out so far
However I must admit — I counted out as “John Smith” at notme@yahoo.com.
No cheating, please. I stridently disapprove.
A win isn’t a win unless it’s a win. And that’s all there is to it.
“Well, it has surpassed 5:1”
But it would only be a little better than 2:1 if it wasn’t for Lihard (11:46:46)
I don’t dispute that the link here has probably had an impact.
On the other hand, they themselves say:
Convinced? Want to spread the word? Invite your friends and family to be part of PROVE IT! Follow the three steps. Pick a point. Choose the evidence to back it up. Then send it on.
Turnabout (without cheating) is fair play?
I counted out. But the vote was valid from outside UK??
” valiantdefender (13:52:24) :
Respectfully, “evanmjones”, when have the catastrophists ever played fair?
[REPLY – In order to have the right to complain, we must play fair, regardless. Besides, having the moral high ground has serious advantages of its own. I doubt we can prevail without it. ~ Evan]”
With regard to this exchange, I submit the following comment taken from another blog about another topic, and yet is quintessentially on point (bold emphasis at the end is mine, and is the money quote):
(by “EBD” on SDA)
“Should every blog comment be viewed as a contribution to a debate that is delivered and measured for merit according to particular rules of order? In a perfect world, yes, but on the other hand it wasn’t a Harvard debating team that stormed the beach at Normandy; those footprints were the end-product of an aggregate social force informed not by eloquence and Robert’s Rules but rather by belief and collective anger – yes, anger – and animus. Is that motivation just? Not necessarily, but on the other hand, to pretend that one’s enemies will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one’s decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit.“
Paul Coppin (19:20:13) : “… but on the other hand, to pretend that one’s enemies will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one’s decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit.“
I hear an echo in my mind: “Good guys finish last. A shame; but a reality.
Counted myself out and told ’em why. 362 in vs 1857 out.
I did visit and left then a couple of messages,regarding water vapor/carbon dioxide also read a book entitled “1984”
I’ll see what happens,probably nothing.
0ut……now 362 in v 1862 out – it appears to be going horribly wrong for them
I’m out. Score is now 362 in – 1870 out
Better than the Youth Decide thing we got here in Oz. At least this offers the opportunity to disagree rather than the options (paraphrasing here) of do you want moderate and difficult emission reductions, ambitious and impractical reductions, or realms of fantasy reductions. Incidentally, I clicked the least insane option just so I could write a comment about the ridiculous bias and said that if offered a stop-worrying-business-as-usual option I’d have gone for that. Predictably they’ve spammed the disposable email I used with messages thanking me for my support and promoting assorted eco-guff.
I counted myself out, but expected to get an email asking for confirmation. This email never arrived. Did other people get an email, or is this normal?
I think a better saying is ” good guys are the last to finish” Remember it takes time to do a good job. Fakers finish up early.
I left them a message at: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/contact_us.aspx
“great way to get a list of people to put in concentration camps in an upcoming eco-fascist regime
p.s. I’m a geologist, you can’t fool me”
I also got no email, but it’s 368 / 1945 now^^
You it doesn’t matter what the polls say, and what people want, the decision has already been made.
I counted out, with my real address.
Don’t spam them, bros! We are strong enough to play fair, and it gives them an excuse to reject the ‘survey’, by saying it was hijacked.
I also have not received a confirmation e-mail. If I don’t after a day or so, I will send my comments (which I have saved) to the museum director and the curator of the exhibition, on the assumption that my e-mail did not get through.
I encourage everyone else to do likewise….
369 in, 1954 out. When will there be 2000…?
Presently 360-1961.
A couple of comments on some of the above posts.
I do not see anything which limits the voting to people in the UK. Why should it – we are told this is an international problem which requires internaltional co-operation. Would be a bit rich to ignore the views of people we’d expect to co-operate with.
On commenting and voting, it is possible to leave a comment without necessarily voting – see the link “tell us what you think” to the bottom right of the home page.
I made various comments about the state of the science, and not accepting models as substitute for good empirical science. I adding that nobody would have their child vaccinated against swine flu on the evidence that somebody said the outcome had been demonstrated by a computer model.
Also note this comment at the top of the page “about this project”:
“The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.”
I asked them to cite the scientific literature that they found most compelling in reaching that conclusion (not articles reporting model results).
Anyway, I think an overall count-me-out will be ignored on some excuse like having been hikjacked by a concerted no campaign. I voted count-me-out.
I am out.
looks like they might have to wonder why there are more out than in.
Here is what I wrote..
Of those ‘challenging’ AGW theory.
Very few of us ‘deny’ that the climate changes and has ‘warmed’ in recent times.
Most of us know that climate change happens !!!
The world temperatures have been falling for 11 years now. This is Climate change in action !!! . It warmed, and now it is cooling.
Here is an analogy.. A volcano erupts on a ‘regular basis’…
We ‘know’ this because we can sample the strata laid down by the volcano over very long periods of time, and find that it erupts cyclically over that long period.
But along comes the IPVC (International Policy on Volcano Change) and the AVW (Anthropogenic Volcano Warming) who tell us that next time the Volcano
erupts, it will be ‘our fault’ and will be ‘unprecedented’… we are doomed.
Billions, nay, Trillions are spent showing us ‘the error of our ways’ and how we are ‘causing’ the eruption… and when ‘deniers’ point out that the volcano is not ‘unprecedented’ and ‘how can we possibly have caused the volcano to erupt in the past’ (look at the record) not our fault, as it has erupted many times before (without ‘our help) We are accused of ‘denying’ the facts when we say past evidence shows it is a ‘natural’ volcano eruption, was then, is now!
Well the Climate over the past 12,000 years of the current interglacial, has (at least 11 times), been as warm (or warmer) than ‘now’ (up to 2 deg.C warmer)… and we have had cold periods, up to 2 deg.C cooler than now. That is a 4 degree overall ‘change’, sometimes in as little as a decade.
AGW is only talking about less than 1 deg.C OVER 150 years… (and they ‘choose’ the end of the last cold period to start from !)
All the World temp. has done over the past 150 years, is to get back (almost) to where it was before the last LIA (little ice age) happened
These periods are cyclic, and evidently not caused by ‘us’ nor Co2. They were/are NATURAL, And the whole point is this….
Whatever mechanism nature itself ‘uses’ to have made these ‘swings’ has not gone away ‘just for us’ in this time period.
I align myself with the comments of Kevin Marshall (17:30:32)
This barefaced exercise in political eco-fascist advocacy is an affront to the superb heritage of british science, of which the Science Museum is the ultimate curator (plus 386/2021 suggests they have shot themselves in the foot). This ‘Prove It’ campaign should be removed with immediate effect and replaced with an apology. For educational purposes, climate change can be presented by the Museum in a factual and balanced way, in the true tradition of scientific professionalism. I consider that the reputation and dignity of this once great institution has been irrevocably tainted by it’s ill-judged partisan foray into a crumbling quagmire.
I Counted me In as Josef Jughashvili. hehehe
hehehe
michel (13:36:32) :
Mr Green Genes (11:44:23)
There are many reasons to be concerned about civil liberties in the UK, real reasons, and some of the things you mention are among them, though there are more, some more serious than the ones you allude to, and no, I and many of my acquaintance are not at all happy about recent trends. You did not mention, for instance, the very disturbing arrest of Damien Green. I do not take the same attitude either to all the items on your list; some are more alarming than others.
Fair enough. As I said, it was a bit of a rant (memo to self, remember to drink the wine after you post, not before and during!) and I apologise if it appeared to be aimed at you personally.
You are probably right in everything you say, but, as someone who has had his identity stolen from a government database, I am somewhat paranoid, particularly over data demanded by the government which has no relevance. My simple question is “why do they want this, except for some nefarious purpose?”.
Anyway, back to the topic, I will be dropping by to register as an “out” shortly, since my paranoia levels are lower in daylight!!
I have to say I am astonished but pleased to have set off this show of disapproval for the Science Museum’s Prove It poll. I admit that I wasn’t very keen on voting but I’ve got caught up in the excitement and have now done so.
But I wanted to go a step further and add a comment. Thinking about what I wanted to say has focussed my attention on the direct evidence for the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I can’t recall ever having seen anything written about how one tests its effectiveness in the laboratory. All that I have seen presumes CO2 is potent and then tries to infer its potency from the temperature record, which plainly presumes the consequent. What would people posting here suggest I read (ideally in the peer reviewed literature)?
Just got myself counted out ( hope i wasn;t boxing).
Score now 393 in vs 2077 out.
A graph of these results vs time might be a pretty thing to see. How do you represent a sledge hammer on a graph?
After counting me out, I posted this:
Science has long ago established that our climate changes. Our climate is dynamic: this is a well known truth. There are four broad competing, but not mutually exclusive, explanations for our planet’s climate dynamics:
(a) Solar and related processes. This includes irradiance, matter, electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
(b) The internal oscillations of the climate system itself.
(c) Humanity’s re-engineering of the planet, especially since the 17th Century.
(d) Humanity’s production of various substances such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.
The weight of direct observational evidence is in favour of (a). There are literally 1,000s of papers published in the highest quality peer reviewed scientific journals that corroborate this category of explanations. See for example:
See the websites of:
http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta
http://www.cdejager.com/about
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
Here is a small sample of peer-reviewed published science corroborating the hypothesis that the Sun is largely responsible for our planet’s climate dynamics.
Ruzmaikin, A., 2007. Effect of solar variability on the Earth’s climate patterns. Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.076; published online 3 March 2007.
Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J. and Yung, Y., 2006. Is solar variability reflected in the Nile river ? Journal of Geophysical Research v. 111 D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462 published 11 November 2006.
Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J., Jiang, X., Noone, D. C., Waple, A. M. and Yung, Y. L., 2004. The pattern of northern hemisphere surface air temperature during prolonged periods of low solar output. Geophysical Research Letters, v 31, L12201, doi:10.1029/2004GL019955, 2004.
Salby, M. L. and Callaghan, P. F., 2006. “Evidence of the solar cycle in the tropical troposphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D21113, doi:10.1029/2006JD007133, 2006.
Morner, Nils-Axel, 1987. Short-term paleoclimatic changes: observational data and a novel causation model, Chapter 14 in Rampino Michael R., Sanders, John E., Newman, Walter S., and Konigsson, L. K., Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Essays in honour of the 70th Birthday of Rhodes W Fairbridge. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA .
Morner, Nils-Axel, 1995. Sea level and climate – the decadal-to-century signals, chapter 36 of Finkle, Charles W. Jnr 1995. Journal of Coastal research Special Issue No. 17: Holocene Cycles: climate, sea levels and sedimentation, A Jubilee Volume in Celebration of the 80th Birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge pps 261-268.
Kuroda, Y. 2003. Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900 1999. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(4), 1175, doi:10.1029/2002GL016584.
Kuroda, Y., Coughlin, K. and Arakawa, O. 2007. Possible modulation of the connection between the Pacific and Indian Ocean variability by the solar cycle, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L03710, doi:10.1029/2006GL027827.
Kuroda, Y., and Kodera, K., 2005. Solar Cycle modulation of the Southern Annual Mode, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L13802, doi:10.1029/2005GL022516, 2005.
Labitzke, K., 2007. Effects of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Chapter 18 in Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer; pps 445-466.
Labitzke, K., 2006. Solar Variation and Stratospheric Response. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 247-260.
Kodera, K., and Y. Kuroda, 2003. Regional and hemispheric circulation patterns in the northern winter, or the NAO and the AO, Geophyical Research Letters, 30, 1934, doi:10.1029/2003GL017290, 2003.
Kodera, K., and Y. Kuroda, 2002. Dynamical response to the solar cycle. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D24), 4749, doi:10.1029/2002JD002224,
Feynman, J., 1982. Geomagnetic and solar wind cycles, 1900-1975 Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 87, pps. 6153-6162. 1 Aug. 1982.
Feynman, J., 2007. Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture? Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.077.
Feynman, J. and Ruzmaikin, A., 2007. Climate stability and the development of agricultural societies, Climatic Change Vol 84, Nos 3-4. doi10.1007/s10584-007-9248-1.
Bengtsson, L., 2007. On the response of the climate system to solar forcing. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer.
Bochnicek, J., Hedjda, P., Bucha, V. and Pycha, J., 1999. Possible geomagnetic activity effects on weather. Annales Geophysicae 17, 925-932.
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M. N., Showers, W., Hoffman, S., Lotti B, R., Hajdas, I., and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science 294 No. 5549, pps 2130-2136; doi:10.1126/science.1065680, 2001.
Bonev, B. P., Penev, K. M., and Sello, S., 2004. “Long-term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century”. The Astrophysical Journal 605, L81-L84, 2004 April 10.
Bronnimann, S., Ewen, T., Griesser, T. and Jenne, R., 2007. Multidecadal signal of solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th Century. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 305-317.
Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2005: Empirical Mode Decomposition of Climate Variability in Hilbert-Huang Transform: Introduction and Applications; edited by N. Huang and S. Shen; World Scientific Publishing.
Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2004a. 11-year solar cycle in the stratosphere extracted by the empirical mode decomposition method. Advances in Space Research 34, 323-329.
Coughlin, K. and Kung, Ka Kit, 2004b. Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. Journal of Geophysics Research, 109 D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.
Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2001. QBO signal found at the extratropical surface through northern annular modes. Geophysics Research Letters, 28, 4563-4566.
Currie, R. G. 1987. Examples and Implications of 18.6 and 11 year Terms in World Weather records, Chapter 22 in Rampino, Michael R., Sanders, John E., Newman, Walter S., and Konigsson, L. K., Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Essays in honour of the 70th Birthday of Rhodes W Fairbridge. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA .
Currie, R. G. 1995. Variance contribution of Mn and Sc signals to Nile River Data over a 30 8 Year bandwidth” Ch. 3 in Finkl, Charles W., (Editor) Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 17, Holocene Cycles: Climate, Sea Levels, and Sedimentation. A Jubilee Volume in Celebration of the 80th Birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. Coastal Education and Research Foundation.
Da Silva, R. R., and Avissar, R., 2006. The impacts of the Luni Solar Oscillation on the Artic Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L22703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023418,2005.
Duhau, Silvia, 2006. Solar Activity, Earth’s rotation rate and climate variations in the secular and semi secular time scales, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Vol. 31 pp 99 to 108.
Perry, Charles A. 1995. USA Association between Solar-Irradiance Variations and Hydroclimatology of Selected Regions of the USA Proceedings of the 6th International Meeting on Statistical Climatology, 19-23 June, 1995, Galway, Ireland.
See http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/homepage.galway.html
Soon, W. W.-H., 2005. Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature for the past 130 years, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429.
Yndestad, H., 2006. “The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate”, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Journal of Marine Science, vol 63, pps 401-420.
Cerveny, R. S. and Shaffer, J. A., 2001. The Moon and El Nino, Geophysical Research Letters vol 28, No. 1. pps 25-28.
Lambeck and Cazenave (1976), “Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climatic Change” published in 1976 in the Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society Vol 26 Issue No 3 pps 555 to 573, reported that there is an established relationship between the Earth’s decadal variable rotation and climate dynamics. As LoD shortens, (i.e. the Earth rotates faster) the planet warms; in contrast, as LoD lengthens, the planet cools. There is a time lag of most likely six years between the change in the Earth’s rotation and global temperature changes. Their paper is available here: http://rses.anu.edu.au/people/lambeck_k/pdf/37.pdf Stott, Peter A., Jones Gareth S., and Mitchell, John F B., “Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?” Journal of Climate Vol 16 pps 4079 to 4093 15 December 2003. It is to be noted that the methodology used by Stott et al has two key shortcomings in the way it takes the role of the Sun in climate change into account. One is that although it contains a more accurate measure of the several elements of solar output, specifically allowing for greater variation in ultraviolet than total radiation, it does not contain measures of all of the elements of solar output. The other is that although the interaction between solar output and climate is known to be non linear, the methodology only allows for linear relationships. In addition, although the climate models used by Stott et al are more complex than those of the IPCC, they are still highly simplified and subject to many of the critiques made by Professor Leroux in his recent book, Global Warming Myth or Reality: The Erring Ways of Climatology Springer Praxis Books in Environmental Science. 2005.
Lockwood, M., Stamper, R., and Wild, M. “A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years”, Nature 399, 437 – 439 (03 June 1999); doi:10.1038/20867
Meehl et al. (2003) “Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the twentieth century”, Journal of Climate, 16, 426-444. See http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_solar.pdf
Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Schussler, M., and Mursula, K., “Solar activity, cosmic rays and the Earth’s temperature: a millennium scale comparison” Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 110, pps 1 to 23, 2005. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A., “Solar Irradiance Variations: From Current Measurements to Long Term Estimates” Invited Review. Solar Physics, Vol 224 pps 197 to 208. 2004. Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Schussler, M., and Beer, J., “Unusual activity of the Sun during the recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years” Nature Vol 431 pps 1084 to 1087, 28 October 2004. (See also in the same issue a highlighted summary article in Nature’s News and Views “Spots from Rings” by Paula J Reimer Nature Vol 431 pps 1047 to 1048 28 October 2004. Solanki, S., and Krivova, S. K., Solar Variabilty and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850”. Advances in Space Research Vol 24 pps 361 to 364 2004. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A., “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 108(A5), 1200 doi: 10.1029/2002JA009753, 21 May 2003. Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Schussler, M. Mursular, K., and Alanko, K., “Millenium Scale Sunspot Representation: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s.” Physical Review Letters Vol 91, 211101, November 2003. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A. “Solar Total and Sprectral Irridance: Modelling and a Possible Impact on Climate” I Wilson, A. (ed) Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth’s Environment. ESA SP 535. European Space Agency 275 2003. A Power Point presentation of the findings of Solanki and co workers can be found at http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/abstract104.html
Willson, Richard C., and Mordvinov, Alexander V., “Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 – 23” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 30, No. 5, 119, doi:10.1029/2002GL016038, 2003.
See the publications at http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm_print.htm . Scafetta, N., and West, B.J., “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32 L18713, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023849. 28 September 2005. Scafetta, N., Grigolini, Imholt, T., Roberts, J., and West, B. J., “Solar turbulence in earth’s global and regional temperature anomalies” Physical Review E 69, 026303. 26 February 2004.
See the proceedings of the international scientific conference, Solar Variability and Earth’s Climate, in June/July 2005 in Rome, published in the Journal of the Astronomical Society of Italy, Memorie Della Societa Astronomica Italiana Vol 76 n. 4 2005. The papers can be found on the website http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/index.html. See especially Brekke, P., “Closing Remarks on the Sun influence on climate change”; Georgieva, K., Bianchi, C., Kirov, B. “Once again about global warming and solar activity”; and Ponyavin. D. I., Barliava, T. V., Zolotova, N. V. “Hypersenstivity of climate response to solar output during the last 60 years”. Labitzke, Karin “On the Solar Cycle QBO Relationship: A Summary” Journal of Atmospheric, Solar and Terrestrial Physics Special Issue Vol 67 pps 45 to 54 2005; Labitzke, Karin, Kunze, Marcus and Bronnimann, Stefan, “Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region 20 years later” Meteor. Z TBA; Coughlin, Katie and Kung, K., K., “Eleven year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere” Journal of Geophysics Research Vol 109 D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873, November 2004; Cordero, Eugene C., and Nathan, Terrence R., “A new pathway for communicating the 11 year solar cycle signal to the QBO” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32, L18805, doi:10.1029/2005GL023696. September 2005. R. Abarca del Rio, D. Gambis, D. Salstein, P. Nelson, and A. Dai, “Solar activity and earth rotation variability” Journal of Geodynamics Vol 36 pps 423 to 443. 2003; doi:10.1016/S0264-3707(03)00060-7. C. J. Butler, and D. J. Johnston, conclude: “Our data strongly support the contention that solar variability has been the principal cause of temperature changes over the past two centuries”. “The Link between the Solar Dynamo and Climate – the Evidence from long mean Air Temperature Series from Northern Ireland” Irish Astronomical Journal, Vol 21: pps 251 to 254; 1994. USGS website : http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/
Scafetta, N., Grigolini, Imholt, T., Roberts, J., and West, B. J., “Solar turbulence in earth’s global and regional temperature anomalies” Physical Review E 69, 026303. 26 February 2004. See also http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm_print.htm . Scafetta, N., and West, B.J., “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32 L18713, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023849. 28 September 2005.
White, W. B., Lean, J., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D., “Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance” Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 102, pps 3255 to 3266, 1997. Reid, G. C., Solar total irradiance variations and the global sea surface temperature record”. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 96 pps 2835 to 2844, 1991. Harrison, R. G., “The global atmospheric electrical circuit and climate” Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 25, Numbers 5-6, November 2004, pp. 441-484(44) DOI: 10.1007/s10712-004-5439-8. see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506077. Barkin, Yu. V., and Ferrandiz, J. M., “Tidal Elastic Energy in Planetary Systems and its Dynamic Role”, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions Vol 23, No. 4, pps 369 to 384, August 2004.
Yasuda, I. (2009), ‘The 18.6-year period moon-tidal cycle in Pacific Decadal Oscillation reconstructed from tree-rings in western North America’, Geophysical Research. Letters, 36, L05605, doi:10.1029/2008GL036880.
Good access to the published science about (b) can be found within:
Bengtsson, L., 2007. On the response of the climate system to solar forcing. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer. Delworth, T.L., and Knutson, T.R., 2000. Simulation of early 20th century global warming. Science 287, 2246 2250. Tsonis A A , K Swanson & S Kravisov 2007 . A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophysical Research Letters 34 L13705; doi:10:1029/GL030288.
Good access to the published science about (c) can be found at:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com
In relation to (d) there are published model simulations and speculative papers but no actual direct observational evidence.
The hypothesis is actively promoted by a political committee of the United Nations. Because it has been heavily promoted by politicians and others for ideological purposes it now dominates discussions which principally take place in a political, ideological and even semi-religious context. As a result, the entire debate about our planet’s climate dynamics is dominated by political and ideological, not scientific, considerations. In this environment, scientific institutions, such as the Science Museum have a special responsibility to present science free of politics, ideology and religious considerations. Regrettably, the Science Museum is not presenting the science of our planet’s climate dynamics; it is presenting political and ideological propaganda dressed up in science. It is presenting pseudo-science of the worst type. Why would a reputable scientific agency do this? Please, in the name of science cancel this absurdity and replace it with a scientific account of our planet’s climate dynamics. Please contact me directly for assistance to do this.
24/10/2009 at 1350hrs (UK time) the tally stands at 405 IN and 2122 OUT
It looks as if the Science Museum website poll is receiving many more “out” than “in” votes.
For all the United Kingdom citizens, here’s a petition addressed to Downing Street to have your voice heard.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/
Here’s my contribution on why wanting to be counted out:
There is no evidence for human influence, since all the CRU Data is contaminated and biased to fit in the pre-set hypothesis of global warming. But there is no warming, the is cooling for at least 5 years, despite increasing CO2. The UK Met Office,Hadley, CRU and all the other alarmists deny. Their “corrections” of temperature data are simply pathetic. The alarmists phantasize about ice-loss in the arctic, but the arctic ice is building up for two years, as is the Antarctic for decades. There are many more reasons not to believe the warming crap, just visit e.g. wattsupwiththat.com.
There’s more (and yet less). Check out http://www.mad.co.uk/Main/News/Disciplines/Design/Articles/c03123d569b646f9bf2054ad5dce21e1/Exhibit-at-Science-Museum-focuses-on-climate-change.html.
I thought this statement was most telling: “‘Rather than using arguments about recycling or not, we were trying to get a broader vision of climate change,’ says Rogers.” Evidently the entire exhibit is bogus, not just the website.
What kind of museum did they say it was again?
I counted out, full name and e-mail and reasons in a nutshell.
# 410 counted in so far
# 2247 counted out
It will be interesting to see if the pro AGW blogs will be able to raise the numbers for in.
Brilliant :-))
# 415 counted in so far
# 2343 counted out…
Please keep up the good work and spread the word.
The For-Against ratio seems to be inching toward 1:6… gone horribly wrong indeed. I would still urge “our side” to avoid “vandalism” and “ballot-stuffing” – using names like Mickey Mouse or Joseph Stalin simply discredit us.
This foray by the Science Museum into Lysenkoist Science is a disturbing development. They need to be made to re-evaluate what they are trying to pass off as science, themselves, and their opinion of the level of public intelligence.
And thank you, Richard Mackey, for that reading list.
I really hope that the site is not being spammed.
At 16.12 BST the count was 416 in, 2401 out. Since the votes are going up steadily in the ratio of between 5:1 to 6:1, I guess that this is a genuine response – perhaps a statistician could give a view.
I have alerted my local MP.
Unfortunately we have a serious problem in the UK because all 3 main political parties have bought into CAGW and we run the risk of running out of electrical power around 2015. Indeed David Cameron (Conservative opposition leader) was careful to insist that he was a true AGW believer at a seminar held recently with Black Swan guru, Nicholas Taleb. Taleb declared himself “super-green” whilst not necessarily believing in the “anthropogenic thing” and Cameron jumped in to insist that he was of the faith.
Regards
S
The Times says 0bama isn’t going to Copenhagen. Some of the comments are interesting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6888165.ece
I have read the comments (as usual) with interest and some amusement. Of course, hypochondriacs do get ill sometimes and, I guess, paranoiacs might get a 2:00am knock on the door. But I agree with the comment that the “Powers that Be” have better things to do than to follow up on those whom they consider to be just irritating cranks. Start mixing in death threats with the comments and it will be different! And you don’t need to fill in a “count me out” vote in this pathetic “poll” from the Science Museum, (who should be thoroughly ashamed for having traduced the very idea of “science”). The security services / police will certainly keep tabs on those who regularly visit Jihadist and child porn sites and, personally, I’m glad they do so. If they want to list people who regularly visit WUWT and CA and a dozen more Climate / political sites then I will have been on that list for long enough, anyway.
As it happens I’m on holiday in Romania and spent an absolutely fascinating couple of hours going round the Museum for the December 1989 revolution against Ceausescu and Communism in Timisoara. The heros who laid down their lives for freedom weren’t scaredy cats when the time came to be counted. OK, there is a difference between Al Gore or Prince Charles (and the whole silly gang of them) and Ceausescu.
But never forget how many of the eco-fascists who have tirelessly promoted the AGW hoax have the same mind set and many of the same objectives as the old supporters of Ceausescu, (although Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Che were always more ‘popular’ in the West).
The price of Liberty may well be eternal Vigilence. But sooner or later you may well also have to “be counted”.
Entering false details in this silly poll will help only those who seek to rubbish the result.
The Times has an article on this at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
which contains the following quote-of-the-week:
he [Ed Miliband, Climate Change Secretary] said that it was also vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. “If Martin Luther King had come along and said ‘I have a nightmare’ people would not have followed him.”
Heh, the Watts effect in action:
* 420 counted in so far
* 2503 counted out so far
420 vs. 2507 and growing.
423 vs.2545 >6:1 against
In the Times article from which I quoted the Martin Luther King remark above, I’ve just noticed this:
“Chris Rapley, the director of the Science Museum, said that a last minute decision had been made to create the exhibition in August after a briefing at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
‘We realised that public interest had flattened out and yet here we were approaching the most historic negotiations in human history,’ he said. The museum had not been planning to run a climate change exhibition until 2011”.
So the Director of a major museum is taking orders directly from a government department, and sees nothing wrong with this. And if the Ministry of Defence called him in to talk about an exhibition pushing the new Trident Missile? Chris Rapley is clearly unfit for the job of museum director.
coddbotherer (06:32:19)
Its a museum of scientific artefacts, who seem be be making Wallace and Gromit, speed dating, and climate change as their dynamic new image.
24/10/2009 at 1845hrs (UK time) 433 IN and 2700 OUT!!!!
For information the Science Museum poll does NOT allow comments which contain more than one link, so be careful.
Just added my penny’s worth to them:
“I have just had a look around the your site on the “Prove it” campaign. I am pretty disgusted as there are “Facts” which are downright wrong, and other statements which are highly misleading, most notably the statement “Ice cores reveal that carbon dioxide and temperature have been tightly linked throughout history.” They have, but as you should be aware, the peak in CO2 levels has always been hundreds of years after the temperature peak. This FACT should have been clearly stated, not the sophistry you have employed.
I am also highly disturbed to read in The Times that this exhibition appears to have been arranged at very short notice at the behest of a government department. Would you have been so quick to mount an exhibition on the Trident replacement program if the MoD had so asked?
I am deeply saddened by this politicisation of your remit. It is likely that I will take further action.”
I’m not sure what further action I can take? Having read through some of the pages, there is so much which is downright dishonest, and if not that, highly misleading. Would the Public Accounts Committee in the HoC take any action?
I’ve been wondering whether to stand against Gordon Brown (neighbouring constituency) at the election next year as a “Climate Sense” candidate – if only to get the free mailing into every household to try to dispel the idiocy, and get the people some other source of info than the MSM.
I signed the science Museum vote— count me out, and havent had an email back yet.
I signed the goverment one about the Advert waste and got and email staright back.
Probably have a mob of green protestor around in the morning to re-educate me about my envirothought crimes—- well they can listen to my Harley Davidson.
If I truely beleived we were in peril I would cut right back on CO2 ( but I’m not bad anyway car does 45mpg, house is double glazed, cavity wall insulation, energy saving bulbs in most light) but all I see is lies , spin and an NGO gravy train
This poll is starting to look very strange. A quick search on Yahoo or Google shows that the opening got fairly wide coverage with a lot of sites linking directly to it. The coverage does not generally seem to be negative…. I’d love to know whether these numbers really represent a popular backlash or whether there are a few skeptic trolls driving up the numbers, or….?
Screen captures of this page are probably in order because it just may disappear Monday morning.
Is Tom in Texas the only one !
24/10/2009 at 1945 (UK time) 441 IN and 2800 OUT.
Signed the Museum site with a count me out several hours ago— still havent had an email back. Probably have the climate Stazi around tomorrow to put electrodes on my bits to re-educate me!
That in/out counter is becoming appalling. The Foreign Secretary and his brother, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, appeared at the opening of this thing and put their prestige behind it. If this exhibit and poll were so damned important why didn’t the morons who put the poll together make sure that voting would be restricted to UK residents and that there would be one vote per person?
UK residents should be howling about the politicization of science, not to mention the gross incompetence of the people doing the politicizing. If you’re going to try a pull a Yamal, at least consult with Keith Briffa to see how you can keep it plausible and under wraps for a decade.
Alec J. : by all means, Run, Alec Run!
2 days & still waiting for my confirmation email.
I guess they may have bitten off more than they can chew.
DaveE.
Count me out, too!
I posted this comment:
/Mr Lynn
AlecJ
A Climate Sense Party is a brilliant idea. Register it straight away with the Electoral Commission or whatever, and counrt me as a founder member. To complain about the Science Museum, you could try writing to some of the trustees, who are listed at
http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/boardoftrustees.asp
Vladimir Illych Ullyanov, thanks for being part of PROVE IT! There’s still lots more you can do…
Well, with the score at “449 counted in so far 2937 counted out so far” & having voted out under my real name & e-mail, I thought I’d give the Holy Church of Warming a bit of a helping hand.
Lenin’s e-mail is VIU@Kremlin.ru if you wish to contact him!
“PROVE IT!” ? hmm, I think they should retitle that to “BELIEVE IT!”
As I tested the poll earlier it showed that the poll has been costructed rather poorly.
The java scripts which handle the polling don’t do any duplicate vote checking. So it doesn’t check for duplicate names, email addresses or ip addresses. And the email addresses don’t have to be valid or the names make any sense at all. So anyone can vote unlimited times and for example put 007 for the name and your@system.sucks as email 😉
As a result this poll is as valid as the Mann made papers.
I also suspect that there isn’t any automated email confirmation built into the scripts. And I would also like to remind anyone who has sent any comments through the web site that there’s a possibility that your comments won’t be sent anywhere.
In the mean time I’ll try to resist the urge not to make the poll end at 0 to 1 000 000 😉
-Lihard
F1yingwellie (11:46:00) :
Is Tom in Texas the only one
The only one what?
The only one to notice the Lihard 1000 vote jump?
If someone stuffed 1000 votes into the ballot box, you can be 100% sure that will wreck everything. If so, they will surely notice and will invalidate the entire poll. I really hope that is not the case. Cheating always nets out to self-destruction in the long run. It always catches up. Not only is it dishonorable, but it is foolish.
I think Lihard was only saying that now WUWT was linked to it, the vote tally would sharply increase. Honestly and fairly. That had durn well better be the reason–and I am quite sure I speak for Anthony and the moderator crew in this.
24/10/2009 at 2345hrs (UK Summer Time) it was 454 IN and 3000 OUT!!!!!
@Evan Jones
I spent a fair amount of time last night, just after the OUT vote started to take off watching the Science Museum poll site carefully. I refreshed the screen every 2-3 seconds to see if there was any easily discernible pattern to the vote increase. I could see none. Sometimes the votes went up by one or two per screen refresh, at other times it would be a minute and a half before a new vote came in.
11:35:24 424 Outs
11:46:46 Lihard: “As what goes for the poll on that uk site, anyone wanna bet the out wotes are up by 1000 after a few minutes?”
11:57 485 Outs
12:02 Somebody is roboposting “outs”
12:07 769 Outs
12:08 1388 Outs
evanmjones, no I wasn’t saying that it would be the Watt’s effect. Didn’t you read my second post? The polling system is so poorly done that there wasn’t any change to begin with it to have any validity.
Anybody can vote as many times they like. The poll is made with the same “high” standards as anything AGW is associated with. If I would put time to it and resolve the underlying technical mechanisms of the scripts I could even make the poll count to go downwards. That’s assuming I could increase the vote count so much that it would start again from zero.
-Lihard
Oh, great. Unless they can filter it out, that is going to invalidate what would have been a solid win.
God, I hate cheating. Cheaters always lose in the long run and they mess things up for everyone else. On both sides.
Didn’t you read my second post?
Not when I posted, no. That sucks.
Maybe they can count only the votes that included commentary?
Lihard, all you’ve done is shown that you’re smarter than they are. Enjoy your triumph.
I suspected somebody wouldn’t like my stuffing of the ballot box. But I highly suspect that there are others too who have made multiple votes intentionally, though I have had the biggest say on things atleast for now.
There’s also the fact that if you push the “count me in/out” button multiple times before it loads the next screen it registers that same amount of votes. So there are possibly many who have made two votes without knowing it. That’s how badly the polling system has been made.
It could’ve well have been made by the “expertise” of David Milibands brother who seems to have something to do with the poll.
-Lihard
454 counted in so far 3009 counted out so far
I too told them that the empirical data shows a very weak warming effect from CO2 and we don’t have a good enough theoretical understanding to make any worthwhile predictions.
Perhaps they will get the message, but I doubt it. In the Warming camp, belief is far more important an honest appraisal of the science.
No you haven’t had the biggest say. All you’ve done is to ensure that you have no say at all. And that none of us have any say. I think the “outs” could have outvoted the “ins” fair and square. But that’s no longer possible.
It’s all wasted. And the skeptics get a black eye. I am ashamed.
evanmjones (16:29:37) :
It’s all wasted. And the skeptics get a black eye. I am ashamed.
——
….. and now we’re even more obviously funded by big oil too.
Lihard:
We were all pretty sure it was a badly done poll, but if they kept any records other than those two counters, you just gave them evidence that skeptics are just vandals. I just posted two “count me in” votes in a row which seem to have been accepted, but you didn’t bother to check to see if the scripts on that side of the poll were any more sophisticated, did you? They may well be tossing duplicate warmer votes but not duplicate skeptic votes. Next week’s Monbiot article may prove interesting indeed.
evanmjones
We’ll get our say in January for Best Science Blog 2009.
I have, of course, contacted sciencemuseum and informed them of this. Perhaps they can separate out the invalid votes. (Or not.)
This has upset me very much.
I do understand what you are saying but I think you’re taking it too seriously. The vote counts have been so low that I think it wouldn’t have made any impact in either direction.
And if you are worried about this thing there’s a high change that the results won’t be nulled, because they propably don’t even store the names and email addresses anywhere. It seems that way keeping in mind the quality of the scripts.
-Lihard
evanmjones (16:43:51) :
I agree with you. You did the right thing. Keep in mind, though, that Lihard confirmed what a lot of us were beginning to suspect even without his contribution: that the poll was just too shoddy. For a survey that was supposed to convey the wishes of UK residents to Her Majesty’s Government, allowing non-UK residents to vote and allowing multiple votes and failing to send the confirmatory e-mail is just too slack. This whole thing stinks. Just like the Lorax flap at Steve M’s not so long ago….
If that exhibit and poll, which involved two UK governmental ministers, was so damned important, why didn’t they do a better job with it?
I’ll have a supply of tin-foil hats ready for sale and distribution shortly.
Expect this to heat up Monday as AGW bloggers jump on the bandwagon.
Since Anthony made this post, outs are “out” voting ins by 22 to 1, but I think that is primarily a consequence of the visibility on this site and a reasonable number of votes as compared to the number of regulars here.
Oh, it’ll heat up, alright. And we’ll likely be in the hot-seat.
I don’t give two hoots if the poll was too shoddy. It’s not going to win over a judge if you plead that the bank was so poorly guarded that it really wasn’t such a bad thing to rob it.
REPLY: “And we’ll likely be in the hot-seat.”
Since when haven’t we been here? WUWT gets trashed daily, yet keeps growing. Looks like another record month in October, and this is before “adjustments”. Heh, ya know it might be funny to take my site data and run it through NCDC’s algrothms, then post that as the “real” measure of WUWT… just to see what pops out. – A
Evan, your conduct here has been above reproach. You have constantly advocated honesty, fair play and even magnanimity. You have nothing to be ashamed of. All I was attempting to point out was that it is possible that the whole poll may have been nothing more than an elaborate honey-trap, which underscores the point you made several times in this thread: honesty is not only moral, it keeps you from getting tripped up later…. especially when clever people of mischievious intent are trying to trip you up.
I giess it shopws that the AGWr’s do not have a monopoly on Jihadists.
Oh Dear.
It’s pretty much as I suspected from a cursory reading of the reports of the count from this very site. The site launch was on Oct 22nd. A day later Mr Watts wrote …
Future presentation of results to the government: “The results show overwhelmingly that people agree with us. Hardly anyone chose COUNT ME OUT.
But what has occurred? One day after the launch the count stood at 333 ‘Count me in’ to 234 out, a ratio of 1:0.7 Right now, the count stands at 461 ‘Count Me In’, and 3034 ‘out’, about 1:6.5. This is so far outside of the domain of every other similar poll in the UK as to redefine the word ‘outlier’.
Sadly, we do not need to look far for the root cause …
I tried to count myself out. Gave them a false name “Whatta Lyingsackofsh**e” and a valid throwaway email.
Mickey Mouse just counted himself out three times…
I have a dozen quite legitimate e-mail addresses (personal and business) and I’ve just used each one to be “counted out.”
As what goes for the poll on that uk site, anyone wanna bet the out votes are up by 1000 after a few minutes?
Shortly after that last WUWT post, in the space of 12 minutes, the ‘count me outs’ jump from 485 to 1496 in the space of just 12 minutes. Heck, might be a glitch in the site sofware, but surely more likely the scripted addition of 1,000 ‘votes’ by the poster who boasted in advance of what he was about to do.
Hint to all riggers of polls:
(1) Do not push your rigged results beyond the realm of plausibility .
(2) Do not boast about having voted a dozen times. This has the double whammy effect of exposing your personal ethical system as worthless, and invalidating the poll.
(3) If you are about to stuff 1,000 votes into the ballot box, it is probably unwise to advertise this fact in a public place. See (2).
Now I voted in this poll. Being just one person, I used a single identity, expecting that my opinion would count for the same as eveyone elses’s. It appears I am mistaken. If I may quote… Wow, just wow. Who would think we’d see this sort of language and lack of sound judgment …?
Oh Dear.
And Evan, Jimmy Stewart in “Bandolero” made the comment “…if I’d known that banks were THAT easy to rob, I would have have done it a long time ago…”
‘course, only Stewart, George Kennedy and Raquel Welch were left alive at the end, so I guess you’re still right….
Since when haven’t we been here? WUWT gets trashed daily, yet keeps growing. Looks like another record month in October, and this is before “adjustments”. Heh, ya know it might be funny to take my site data and run it through NCDC’s algrothms, then post that as the “real” measure of WUWT… just to see what pops out. – A
All they have to do is homogenize . . .
(Nonetheless, I am confident we can agree that poll rigging is clearly not to be tolerated.)
it is possible that the whole poll may have been nothing more than an elaborate honey-trap
Hmm. Not likely, I think. But not implausible.
Roger Carr (20:51:54) :
Paul Coppin (19:20:13) : “… but on the other hand, to pretend that one’s enemies will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one’s decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit.“
(Me) ” I hear an echo in my mind: “Good guys finish last. A shame; but a reality.”
Some back-tracking. My throwaway line (and it should have been “nice” and not “good”) was just that; a throwaway line, because in fact I fully endorse Evan’s take on this. At the same time I also endorse the quote (above), which Paul noted, as worthy of contemplation.
I voted, once, under my own name… now wish I had not bothered.
p.s. The full quote is, “All nice guys. They’ll finish last. Nice guys. Finish last.” –Baseball manager Leo Durocher, and is not even relevant. (Call me a clown… reformed…)
Sad time for both sides.
A poll so shoddy it was easily stuffed & some people willing to stuff the ballot.
My vote is now worthless, thanks nameless
DaveE.
For what it’s worth, sent this e-mail to sciencemuseum on their contact us page:
Sirs:
By now you must be aware that your on-line Prove It poll was seriously compromised. I voted “count-me-out” once under my own name, but after the individual who corrupted your poll revealed himself, I tested your polling system with two consecutive “count-me-in” votes, which were both apparently accepted.
Leaving aside my distaste for your support of politicized, Lysenko-style “science”, as both a social scientist and computer systems consultant I respect data and am appalled by the shoddy manner in which your organization collected it. A few suggestions:
1. State clearly the purpose of your poll and exactly which data will be used for that purpose.
2. You stated that you would pass the results to the government:
a. if the results had fairly resulted in a “count-me-out” majority, would those results have been passed on?
b. it would be helpful top explain what you would do with the comments you requested from the “count-me-outs”;
c. since the results were to be passed, presumably, to the UK government, foreigners such as myself should have been excluded from the voting. Checking the IP location of voters should be easy.
3. No one, either inside the UK or iutside received the follow up e-mail. The explanation provided about ensuring one vote per person, frankly, makes no sense.
4. Maintaining a confidential list of voter names, e-mail addresses and IP’s to verify non-duplication would be easy. Making the voting a two-step process, where the voter had to respond to a follow-on e-mail would be even more secure.
5. Maintaining a list of non-acceptable names for screening: Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Mickey Mouse all claimed to have voted no, as did Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.
7. Create a display page where interested persons can view the names who have voted. Given the politicized nature of the topic, a unified alphabetical list would be appropriate.
8. Test the security of your poll before putting it on-line. Find a good hacker and pay him only if he succeeds in breaking into your system.
If you people can’t even run an on-line poll, why should anyone consider your opinions on climate? If this poll was so important that you needed two ministers of HMG to introduce it, why didn’t you get it done right?
I intend my suggestions to be helpful; if you find them so then I would be glad to be of further assistance. I am bitterly opposed to the position you have taken on “AGW” but I would not allow that to interfere with my professionalism.
Oh, one last suggestion. Don’t even try to salvage the results of this poll. Wipe them, make the changes I’ve suggested and start again.
Robert E. Phelan
Adjunct Instructor of Sociology
Business Systems and Automation Consultant
The snark doesn’t show through, does it?
I “counted myself out” (only once!). I also made an extended comment for them to read, including my “credentials” (BSc, MMath, Phd) — none of which I expect them to read, put any stock in, or in any case reply to or broadcast to the world. I guess I love wasting my time.
I would discourage anyone from “ballot box stuffing” (’cause it’s dishonest) or from placing any weight on the outcome of this “ballot”, but one must note up front that the whole purpose of the museum’s “Prove It!” online feature was precisely that: For AGW proponents and “activists” to “rally the troops” for a grand show of force during the lead-up to Copenhagen. They say as much all over these pages: Tell your friends! Get them to Count themselves in! In other words, stuff our ballot box.
They even make it easy with a “build my email message” feature so that people can easily mass-mail their friends with all their AGW alarmist talking points and urge them to “take action now” by visiting the site.
I also wasted my time by reading through their “evidence”. For a “science” museum I must remark that there is an inordinate amount of pure politicking, pseudoeconomics and pseudo-social-science. There is no clear threshold where one begins and the other ends. I visited this museum some 25 years ago, when they really were an exhibitor of science and science history. When did they become a propaganda mill? It is very sad.
Filtering out the politics and nonsense to get to the core of their “scientific” argument leads to further disappointment. They aren’t even very good apologists/propagandists, and the number of nonsequitors and goofs in their directories of “Evidence” boggles the imagination!
Anyone wanting a good laugh — take the time to click through the “evidence” they’ve compiled.
Greenhouse gases work like a blanket — no, even AGW advocates don’t claim this; GHG’s act radiatively, not convectively, like blankets. It’s a classical goof.
“After three centuries of Stability, sea levels are now rising”
“Ice in the Arctic is melting further back year on year.”
“Extreme weather, such as droughts and hurricanes, is becoming more common or more intense.”
“[The IPCC] are considered the most trustworthy group of experts on climate change in the world.”
What a lark. There’s plenty more where that came from.
It gets better! Click on their prominent link “About PROVE IT!”, then on “Our climate credentials” and see with what authority they speak.
Dozens of PhD’s in climate-related science on staff, or consulting with them? Awards for innovated study of the climate? Peer-reviewed publications, or any kind of verifiably scientific work at all?
(To give them some credit, they do list some “experts for advice on content” one page up from this — some of whom appear to have valid academic credentials)
No. Their climate science credentials, by their own words, must be read to be believed. “Our credentials”, according to their account, consist of designing the PROVE IT! web page and science exhibit to “minimise its carbon footprint, without compromising on the experience”. They even list about 3 paragraphs of environmentally friendly ways they have done this. Using recycled materials, using a wood floor because “when trees are felled for timber, the area is replanted. This means there are still plenty of trees around to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere…”
By the way, the current count on their site is:
Count me in: 463
Count me out: 3078
The latter group leads by about a 6.6:1 ratio. For about every 2 “count me in”s there are 13 “count me out”s.
I have watched both numbers grow for about 12 hours and it appears that the ratio has remained almost exactly the same the whole time. The robustness of this figure suggests to me that not a lot of ballot stuffing is going on (unless it is done to deliberately maintain a certain ratio — that’s possible I suppose).
The museum promises to “Pass the results along to the government to let them know where you stand”. Is there a hope in Hell that they actually might?
Further to my last long comment — It has struck me as highly likely that the strong “count me out” vote is partly attributable to the “build my email” feature. I know my first reaction is negative when I get this sort of thing from my acquaintances. There’s probably a good number of neutrals or tentative AGW believers who clicked “count me out” in response to prodding from an overzealous AGW-crazed “friend’s” mail.
This site gets about nine thousand regular visitors a day. It is not unreasonable that a couple of thousand legitimate (perhaps not UK based) came from this site over two days.
No doubt.
Mmm, yes. But in this case, the guilty party admitted adding c. 1000 votes.
Robert E. Phelan: Good letter. (Mine was shorter and more direct.)
yeah, that’s why I said a couple thousand and not 3 thousand.
Well, we have the integrity to leave our vote stuffer outed.
It is hard to believe something that poorly constructed would be placed online at the science museum in 2009. It is reminiscent of pre 2k mistakes.
Robert Phelan’s letter pretty well sums up my thinking on this issue. I could not have written a better letter myself. I’m going to elevate it to main post level as an addendum.
[self snip – I’ve moved this commentary up to the main body along with Robert Phelan’s letter]
evanmjones (22:26:58) :
Mmm, yes. But in this case, the guilty party admitted adding c. 1000 votes.
And Tom in Texas as well as at least one other commenter provided a time-line. R. Craigen (22:16:02) : has a good point about the blow-back from that build an e-mail feature…. even without the 1000 vote-stuff the “count-me-out” crowd is still way ahead… whether that is because there were more vote-stuffers, blow-backers or Watts referrals it’s damn near impossible to say. That whole site looks like a high-school kid’s computer project.
The poll would have no value as a sample, but if they would just add a question about “how did you find us?” it would tell a lot about the topography of the battlefield, so to speak…. and would test R. Craigen’s hypothesis about the effectiveness of the build-an-email feature.
Another question I have is why didn’t the warmists take up the challenge? They’ve never been slow to do so before. It may very well be that the AGW trolls look numerous because they turn up everywhere to argue…. but they are always the same trolls. While I’ve come to recognize a number of handles here, it seems to me that there are always lots of anti-AGW enthusiasts I don’t recognize. Maybe our enthusiasts really do outnumber their’s…..
Evan made an interesting statement of principle earlier: “…. ballot stuffing is intolerable…” I think it was…. yet we seem to be tolerating it. The miscreant(s) has/have not been banned or shunned or sanctioned…. just a thought.
REPLY: FYI I did look into “lihard” based on what little info given me by WordPress. Unfortunately his handle, email address, and possibly even his IP address (which WP autologs with each comment) are total fabrications. So banning him won’t do much good. All I can tell you is that according to the logged IP, the comments came from Finland. The real issue here is how poorly designed the poll code is. A 9 year old kid could skew it in an afternoon after school.
BTW I’ve elevated you letter to an an addendum, as it speaks pretty well for me also. Thank you sincerely. – Anthony
Anthony:
I didn’t see your last comment until after I’d posted mine. I suspect you might be able to say it better, but thank you. Quite frankly, I’ve learned a lot from you and your moderators here… you manage to balance quite a bit that would send me over the edge.
Tom in Texas (15:25:58) :
F1yingwellie (11:46:00) :
Is Tom in Texas the only one
The only one what?
The only one to notice the Lihard 1000 vote jump?
Yes Tom,
When I mentioned shunning/banning, Anthony, I didn’t mean you – the last thing we need is to try and turn you into some kind of net-police… I was rather referring to the rest of us. From early on Evan Jones had the integrity to ask that we play fair. The rest of us, the commenters, would do well to emulate that. Too many of us are willing to over-look eye-for-an-eye statements. The anonymity of the web makes it easy to become extreme – but it also makes it easy to simply speak and some commenters need the anonymity. I decided I didn’t and my sometimes salty comments delivered from behind a nearly untraceable handle were not badges of courage… so I use my real name. I find the decency of Evan Jones inspiring.
Whatever the rights or wrongs about the way this poll has been conducted there are a few things to consider.
If the votes for “count me in” ever finished higher than those votes for “count me out”, it would have been reported in the press, and in the Science museum literature, and on the gloating AGW sites.
As it appears at the moment that “count me out” votes will be higher, no mention will be made anywhere. Except from AGW sites crying foul play, ballot stuffing, uninformed skeptics, big oil etc.
Or they will probably only count votes at an arbitrary start point to show AGW support is growing over time…
From the article above “I don’t condone ballot stuffing in any form.”
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/05/wuwt-nominated-for-best-science-blog/, “Voting is now open, for anyone who wants to vote for any of the blogs below. A note about voting. Since you can vote once every 24 hours, this is a horse race. So to pick a winner, voting must be repeated until the poll closes next Tuesday at 5PM EST”
Reply: If one is allowed by the rules to vote every day, then voting every day, by definition of the rules, is not ballot stuffing. Nice try. Go away. ~ charles the moderator.
Has been picked up in the Sunday Telegraph. Note that the result of the poll is due to be published in December. It will be interesting to see whether it is published if the current vote ratio continues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6425738/Science-Museums-climate-change-poll-backfires.html
Let’s face it, the poll was never going to be credible. One or two people here have demonstrated, and others have made recommendations to help improve the situation. This was a service to the science museum and its poll.
I agree with the sentiment about dishonesty and I voted only once, with comments.
But those who showed that poll stuffing was possible also helped to show that nobody was ever going to take the results seriously. Having shown the how slack the poll was, the results were always going to be dogged by questions of vote rigging. Anybody who tries to use the results will be easily ridiculed.
So our votes went from zero value to zero value. And two (or a thousand) votes with zero value still have zero value.
As the poll is designed to favour the “count me in” side, there is another reason not to dignify it with respectability.
The poll has given people the chance to communicate and express an opinion through the comments. It will help the recipients to appreciate there is another body of opinion with substantial concerns about the AGW hypothesis and what is being proposed.
There will be significant value in those letters to the trustees of the science museum. Perhaps even, privately, a measure of sympathy/embarassment.
I disagree with those who suggest the poll should have been restricted to UK residents. As I said above, this is supposed to be an international issue, requiring international cooperation. Why would anybody wish to deny a voice to our prospective partners?
Re anonymity, I agree with Robert E. Phelan that some commentators may need it. But I believe that most probably don’t and therefore, like Robert, should have the courage to use their real name. Strong, controversial and coherent comments that can be traced to their source are IMHO far more convincing that those delivered from behind a cloak of anonymity.