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
Your attitude is commendable, Robert.
The ‘in’ box is being stuffed with a script at the moment.
Let the record show.
It looks as if they are going to have to run it all over again if they are going to have legit results.
Geoff: I agree their arguments are terrible.
The in box is increasing by 7 votes per minute, count me out by 1.4 per minute.
It is after Midnight here in UK, so where are all these votes coming from ?
It looks like someone is slowly stuffing the count me in box..
Yeah, it looks like they should break even in about an hour. Everbody should make a screen cap now for evidence later. So some other stupid SOB just couldn’t resist…. hope it’s one of theirs this time.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right…. the museum decided to mount the exhibit and poll at the last minute after a briefing from Ed Miliband’s department. Much of the “evidence” cited by the exhibit is factually incorrect or misleading at best. The exhibit is primarily a propaganda device and the poll was constructed with absolutely zero safeguards against tampering. The poll is now being massively compromised for a second time, despite the fact that the museum already knows of the first tampering.
The Miliband brothers opened this exhibit, lent their prestige and the prestige of their offices to it and essentially commissioned it in the first place. As Geoff Chambers pointed out above, both are ambitious of high office and are being touted as the New Saviours of Labour (UK spelling intentional). If they are associated with anything this cynical, ill conceived and shoddy, what will one of them be like as PM? Just asking.
I estimate that, on or about 00:00 GMT the ‘Count Me IN’ figure started a regular increase of about 7-8 per minute. The ‘Count Me OUT’ figure at this time was increasing irregularly, by an average of about 1 per minute.
I am going to bed now – the figures at 01:00 GMT are 1515 vs 4248. If this process continues the ‘Count Me IN’ figure will pass the ‘Count Me OUT’ figure in approximatly 8 hours.
Unless, of course, someone writes a similar script for the OUT side…..
dodgy geezer (18:01:39) :
“…unless, of course, someone writes a similar script for the OUT side…..”
God in Heaven, NO! Just leave it. After all we’ve written here today…. the columns and blogs this week are going to be fascinating. I just hope they have the nerve to ask the right questions.
Alec J (10:57:51) 24/10 suggested standing at the forthcoming election in Britain on a Climate Sense ticket. I’ve just opened a discussion on this subject at harmless sky
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=53#comments
Moderator: Could you give Alex J my email address?
PS Thanks Robert E Phelan for your totally cynical question. This is why Alex J’s suggestion needs following up. There’s not much I’m proud of about my country, but at least you can have an effect in elections in Britain without spending billions.
Presumably the aim is to discredit the poll.
If you can’t win, then get the poll declared invalid by cheating. Fairly standard process in politics nowadays. Even allows the Science Museum to announce that the poll will be withdrawn ‘due to widespread cheating’ and leave the impression that it’s the ‘deniers’ who cheated….
Robert E. Phelan:
“…unless, of course, someone writes a similar script for the OUT side…..”
“God in Heaven, NO! Just leave it… – Robert E. Phelan”
I should point out that this was a tongue-in-cheek comment – though, dispassionately, it is always a possibility that this may happen. For the avoidance of doubt, my comment should not be construed as an instruction to cheat – I am on record earlier in this thread as calling for fair play…
geoffchambers (18:17:28) :
Not quite as dumb as I look. I think you and Alec should get together. I’ve also got two other thoughts I definitely don’t want to air in public, so if the moderator would send Geoff MY e-mail address, he can ask me what they are, if he is so inclined.
dodgy geezer (18:27:50) :
I know. Maybe I should have made it God in Heaven, NO!
By the way, a THIRD script seems to have just started up incrementing the count-me-out counter. Can’t you guys get some MP to stand up tomorrow and demand to know how this could have happened? I’m sure the Energy Secretary would be delighted to offer an explanation.
Geez, WordPress thought my brackets and slash commands were real and stripped them out. that was supposed to be /mockhorror …. /mockhorroroff
Someone from the “IN” side has obviously got a script going. The “IN” votes and going up ate the rate of about 1 evert 10-15 seconds.
Either that or they have some trained monkeys.
Yup, an IN side script is running.
3830 counted in so far 4545 counted out so far
The only thing that surprises me at this point is that any of the “count me out” folks are still bothering. Guess they didn’t get the word.
3879 counted in so far 4572 counted out so far
At about 2:40 a.m. EDT this morning the script was apparently stopped at 3879 in and 4569 out. Over the next five minutes three more “outs” were added. I’d love to be a fly on someone’s wall right now…
Lihard (14:42:18) :
I’ll seriously consider revealing my identity so that this won’t do damage to the sceptics.
-Lihard
Relax.
Catastrophe is when little children die, and your impulsive reaction is nowhere close.
Guilt is a useful feeling if it keeps you from a similar situation, i.e. a sign post “don’t do it again”, otherwise futile.
Skeptics have a tough hide.
* 3880 counted in so far
* 4582 counted out so far
Moderator – please pass on my email to Geoff Chambers
Maybe the poll should look only at the comments. It will be obvious if the writer voted in or out.
paullm (00:16:15) : May I point you to the revelations of Lihard further back? The poll is corrupted and meaningless. Presumably the Science Museum will pull it today when they get in to work shortly.
Whilst deploring the behaviour of Lihard and any other deliberate corrupters (it is not cricket!) we can reflect that at least Lihard science is real science. He or she made a prediction and it came true!
As a Brit, it is extremely embarrassing that the publicly-funded Science Museum launched this tacky PR stunt. Since they did launch it, they might at least have displayed competence in protecting the integrity of the poll.
I counted myself out and also posted the following comment to ‘Got an opinion?’, though I doubt it will be given any serious consideration…
The information on your ‘Evidence’ page seems rather weak and unconvincing when one considers the basic science behind the theory of human induced climate change.
As I understand it, the science behind human induced climate change is based upon two distinct theories.
1) CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, traps heat and thereby raises the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.
2) positive feedback mechanisms then amplify this warming by a factor of two or more.
Based upon measured changes in CO2, Theory 1) predicts a temperature rise of 1-2C, more than half of which should have already taken place. The resulting impacts on both environment and society are expected to be relatively small and, therefore, insufficient to justify the proposed remedial actions. My understanding is that most scientists agree that Theory 1) is valid, based upon experimental evidence.
Theory 2) builds upon this to predict a temperature rise of 4C or more, the majority of which we have yet to experience. The resulting impacts on both environment and society are expected to be relatively large and, therefore, sufficient to justify the proposed remedial actions. My understanding is that a significant number of scientists are not yet convinced that Theory 2) is valid, based upon observational evidence.
In science, unambiguous observational evidence is a fundamental requirement if a theory is to be accepted as fact. Furthermore, it must be possible say how a theory could be falsified in order to help confirm its ultimate validity. Unfortunately, the models that justify Theory 2) predict such a broad spread of future climates that:
a) it is extremely difficult to identify an unambiguous signature that matches to the observational evidence;
b) any significant deviation that could falsify them will only be discernable many, many decades into the future.
Given these facts, the statement on your ‘Evidence’ page seems rather speculative when it says “The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained”. This suggests that the models are sufficiently complete to include all of the relevant natural causes. However, this is then undermined by the statement that “Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater” because it raises the obvious question: if the models are sufficiently complete, why did they not predict the current non-warming trend?
I understand that this subject is both scientifically complex and politically charged, which makes presenting it to the general public a real challenge. However, to re-iterate my initial comment, I do feel that the explanations you present as ‘Evidence’ are rather weak and unconvincing and therefore do a real disservice to science in general and the Science Museum in particular.
If you really want to be of service to the public, I may suggest that you concentrate on presenting the science, rather than the political rhetoric, to explain the subject of human induced climate change.
“So, unless you are willing to put your full name to your intentions, so that I can pass the blame on to you, no more from you on this subject. Feel free to comment on anything else on other threads. Comprende?”
What’s with the comprende? Some sort of coded threat?
My name is Trevor Vernon. I’m 56, English, and live in Spain. It’s hot here today, but it may get cooler soon.
These are my own views on this topic and in no way do they represent the philosophy and/or moral standing of the owner of this web-site.
++++++
What a bunch of hand-wringing, nail-biting, fretful ninnies most of the commentators on this thread appear to be. I say, stuff the ballot-box until it explodes. Why? Because the fools who put it on line were obviously so arrogant as to believe that the sheep would blithely stroll through the IN door with not a thought as to where they were heading. Just take a look at their site. In all that evidence PROVING the myth of man-made global warming, as far as I can tell, there’s not one word of dissent, not one counter-argument that might allow a sheep to make up its own mind. They are completely brainwashed themselves, and as such they believe that everyone else is too… or should be. So, if stuffing their box to destruction causes even one of the fools to think again, then it’s a victory for cooler-sense.
But it would be only one small victory in a heated debate raging across this cooling planet, a debate not refereed according to the Marques of Queensbury’s rule-book. No, the disciples of heat are using every trick in their own rule-book. They lie, dodge the question whenever pressed, fiddle the books, truncate the data, turn the charts upside down, and use their money to buy-off dissent at every opportunity. You can say nice things about them, you can send them endless letters calmly stating your point of view (the truth), but it will make not the slightest difference. They are in this to win, whatever the cost to mere sheep; which is why we sheep must fight back.
“But we’re already winning!” I hear you bleat. “We can afford to be nice to them.”
We’re not winning and we can’t afford to be nice. Can you imagine where we’d be now, just weeks away from the Copenhagen heat-fest, if mother-earth (or father-sun) had decided to delay the current cooling cycle by a few years? The hot-heads of tax and control would have had a walkover. As it is, they yet might get just that because, as we all know, there’s ample evidence of cooling but that hasn’t cooled the warmers’ fire one little bit. Yes, the current incumbent of the White House appears to be more interested in going to Oslo than Copenhagen, and China and India have just given everyone the coal-fired finger, but nearly all of our gloriously-green leaders in Europe are chomping at the bit for a chance get all their sheep safely penned and freshly taxed.
So, my friends, keep pushing, look for any weak-spot, and when you get one of the buggers on the run, chase after them and give them a kick up the arse for good measure. Or, stuff their stupid ballot box until it explodes.
A footnote:
Those of you typing at keyboards deep in the comfort of your mothers’ cellars should give Scotty a call and ask him to beam you up to the real world where, sometimes, you have to fight dirty just to survive from one day to the next, let alone save millions of sheep from being taxed and bludgeoned back into the stone-age. But be careful up here. Some folk will bludgeon you just to get their feet inside your smelly, ten-year-old trainers.
Another footnote:
I’ve put up, now you put up and post it.
REPLY: Well then Trevor, thanks for coming out. I don’t agree with anything you have to say, nor do I condone ballot stuffing. – Anthony
“..Maybe the poll should look only at the comments. It will be obvious if the writer voted in or out…” anna v
Indeed. One of the few ways of seperating human and machine votes left to the organisers will be to read the comments. But I assume they will not do this – certainly not the ‘out’ comments!
Earlier I wrote that we were not receiving out confirmation e-mails back, so the whole poll looked suspicious. I suggested then that, because the votes did not seem to be being sensibly counted, and the comments could well be lost, we should forward our comments to the director of the Science Museum as well as the curator of the Climate exhibition. This suggestion still stands. They have asked for comments, let us provide them.
Their contact page is http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/contact_us.aspx . This gives feedback@nmsi.ac.uk as the general ‘visitor experience’ comment address.
The persons responsible for the Prove It exhibit are noted as:
“The PROVE IT! exhibit was designed by Ab Rogers Design. Graphics are by venturethree, with the Science Museum design studio. The gallery interactives are designed by Spiral Productions Ltd.
We are grateful to the following experts for their advice on content
Ben Booth (Met Office)
Jessica Brown (Overseas Development Institute)
Charlotte Jourdain (Imperial College)
Ralf Martin (London School of Economics)
Stephen Peake (Open University)
Jeff Ridley (Met Office)
Heike Schroeder (Oxford University)
Neil Carter (University of York)
Meric Srokosz (National Oceanography Centre)”
They have specifically requested that non-believers contact them at this address:
“If you’re not convinced by the evidence, or you have a comment about PROVE IT! tell us what you think.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/let_us_know.aspx
”
I suspect that packing votes is not going to have much of an impact one way or another. But we should not ignore a valid request by the UK Science Museum for enlightenment. May I encourage those of us who can make clear cogent points about the poor level of evidence
a) provided in the exhibit
b) provided generally by the IPCC and the scientific press
to write in with examples and references. I asume that the Science Museum will be using Real Climate responses to our points, so ensure that your comment draws attention to the known failings of these responses…
As others have already stated :
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence/science/human_activity.aspx
“Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.”
The words “Natural effects” says everything you ever know to know about this debate. We just don’t know enough about the massive complexity of this planet and to say otherwise is incredible arrogance.
Si
‘due to widespread cheating’
In the usual sense, ‘cheating’ means gaining advantage by not abiding by a commonly recognised set of rules of the game. The science museum set *no* rules about who could vote or how many votes each person could cast. As such, there can be no basis for claims of cheating.
That’s why I repeat my point that votes are worthless. This discussion exposed the poll as the worthless publicity stunt that it alway was. Milliband got his press release, and we can safely assume has moved onto the next.
I agree with the sentiment and the honour of *assuming* OPOV. But, there is no such rule – that’s why there was nothing wrong in the initial point that the poll appeared to be a “horse race”. BTW, I am not encouraging ballot stuffing.
“Can’t you guys get some MP to stand up tomorrow and demand to know how this could have happened?”
Who do you think will stand up in Parliament and raise a question about claims of cheating on a publicity stunt? The web poll is a non-issue in the real world.
It’s a storm in a teacup. Don’t invest any personal capital on it.