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
“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.
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.”
So when they can’t explain global warming, it’s human activity, but when they cant explain global cooling, it’s natural.
Brilliant.
Oh, and for those who are interested, the current scores on the doors are
# 4147 counted in so far
# 5044 counted out so far
4159 counted in so far 5150 counted out so far
Sorry Robert, but I didn’t intend to suggest you don’t have experience in using computers and all kinds of software. So you have played with those ancient computer punch cards. I kind of envy you of getting to experience all those old computers.
And by really tech savvy I mean the kind of people who program software or design hardware for a living. I googled you and if I’m correct you are an instructor of sociology. I don’t know if you have written software for embedded devices such as microcontrollers or softcore processors on fpgas using assembly or C, but that’s the kind of expertise is what I meant.
-Lihard
Lihard:
I was mainly being facetious. In this life I’m an instructor. For a good number of years I was a programmer/analyst / implementor specializing in business and manufacturing systems. I still build my own computers and maintain my own network. And I did work with punch cards and paper-tapes in an age when computer coding was done in octal rather than hexadecimal. One of my off-and-on-again projects is to try and preserve antique operating systems and programs on virtual machines. I’m also the bozo who told an IBM engineer that they would NEVER build a 32k memory chip and a 10 meg hard drive was a waste of effort. Maybe I ought to write me memoirs…
Anthony’s comments about ballot stuffing (above) should be heeded by all, especially by the “Count Me In” voters.
On 26/10/2009 at 1945 (UKtime) the numbers stood at 4184 IN and 5274 OUT.
BTW, I voted just the once, under my real name and using my principal e-mail address.
The “Count Me In” total is rising by one or two votes every five seconds. The OUT vote remains unchanged for 30 – 90 seconds at a time.
Timed at 2000hrs (UK time) on 26/10/2009
Right now there is ballot stuffing going into the in side. At 20.00 GMT the score was 4198. At 2008 it is 4258.
Someone with a bit of time could do everyone a service and write down a line-by-line
(a) critique of the survey — including their “build your own letter” style of attempted ballot-stuffing and lack of security; and
(b) demolition of the dozens of pseudoscientific nonsense presented as “evidence” at the site.
For completeness there should also be
-a critique of this whole misadventure into politics — largely in violation of the nature of a museum, which is supposed to present factual information more-or-less objectively (even just a stat giving the percentage of this site devoted to politicking versus actual science);
-a proper treatment of their “Our Climate Credentials” pages, and
-a challenge to openly discuss the science of climate change in a wide forum, as public educational service (public education, after all, is precisely what science museums are SUPPOSED to be doing!)
The whole thing can be packaged under the same title, “Prove it!”. If they want to bring out this forceful phrase, let’s call them to accountability. Or, if you like, avoid confusion by using “No, YOU Prove it!” instead.
The burden of proof, after all, should lie on the side of alarmists calling for wild and potentially harmful socioeconomic “transformation”.
Perhaps this should become a stand-alone web site, or a subsite to one of the main skeptic pages such as this one (assuming Mr. Watt is open to it that is). Or better yet, at a site devoted to the climate debate per se, such as ClimateDebateDaily.Com. I look forward to it, and would contribute material if a way were arranged to do so (I would suggest not opening it as a forum for riffraff. Devote it to pure, serious debate, information and analysis).
Pops/Trevor:
Welcome to the light of day. I still disagree about Jihadism (when I finally snap it won’t be Jihad, it will be M’fecane) but I applaud every poster who comes out and says “I’m not afraid of you or you or you!” Now its time to go out and humiliate the Science Museum and the Miliband Brothers over this piece of @ur momisugly#$%&!
I wonder if the museum will declare tomorrow that 12000 votes in just four days shows how important the topic is and well they are succeeding in accomplishing their goal of educating the public.
I’ve no idea if this will prompt a reply, but I thought it worth asking (as a comment, via the SM website). The ‘results’ are due to be published in December, apparently.
“Since your poll does require any verification, and appears to have been stuffed with ‘yes’ votes recently, may I ask how you intend to present the results?”
Half a league, half a league, half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred (well, three thousand two hundred and ninety two, at last count).
Can’t we stop the squabbling and remember who the REAL enemy is?
Please, let’s not fall victim to the old “divide and conquer” routine!
Surely we’re more intelligent than that.
Steve S
My latest comment:
“Is there actually NO scientific disagreement AT ALL with any of the statements provided here? You certainly don’t indicate any.
If there is no disagreement, why does the Science Museum have to PROVE IT?”
Anthony, may I draw your and your UK visitors attention to the website http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ ?
Under the UK law, UK residents (citizens) can make an request under the Freedom of Information Act and the publicly-funded body must respond on the website – it is the law. The charm of this approach is that the whole correspondence must be carried out in public on the website.
The Science Museum are covered by this legislation. They were advised at 9.00 a.m. this morning that their ‘Prove It’ poll had been corrupted. I intend to use the website to find out what has happened and why the abuse is being permitted to continue.
Regards
S
Robert E. Phelan (12:37:06) :
One of my off-and-on-again projects is to try and preserve antique operating systems and programs on virtual machines. I’m also the bozo who told an IBM engineer that they would NEVER build a 32k memory chip and a 10 meg hard drive was a waste of effort. Maybe I ought to write me memoirs…
———-
Robert, I don’t know where you are located but it seems to me that you might like this particular museum – The Computer History Museum, in Mountain View, California. I have certainly enjoyed my visits there:
http://www.computerhistory.org/
Also, I would recommend reading selected parts of Ray Kurzweil’s “The Singularity is Near”, for a review on the past, present and future of Moore’s Law (much of this can also be found on the net).
Some reporting around the net. They may need some commenters….
http://alt.nntp2http.com/politics/bush/2009/10/2680015eb0f113cabe4a4c172d1eb41c.htmlhttp://alt.nntp2http.com/politics/bush/2009/10/fd957e49a21cf87d4715db5779388120.htm
http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2009/10/better_scratch_the_poll_about.htmll
http://www.extremewisdom.com/
http://www.buzztracker.com/category/museums
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2370670/posts#comment
http://stupidica.com/content/tag/climate-change/
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4240&linkbox=true&position=5
http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=501345
http://ekoscommunications.com/aggregator?page=11&from=540
philincalifornia (14:32:08) :
Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, I’m on the other coast with no immediate travel plans. When I get the travel plans, I’ll probably be advised that I’ve exceeded my carbon limit.
Since both sides have hacked the poll outrageously, any results are completely meaningless.
I’d like to inform everyone that I have kicked up a quick hack to check the site every second and collect the http packets which include the vote count. All I have to is to write a script which extracts the vote count from this raw data.
So as of now I have the raw data being stored from which I can create a graph that shows the votes accumulated vs time.
This can be then analysed by anyone and determine when there was a bot voting on the poll.
I’m not sure if anyone is interested in this data but for now I’ll gather it.
-Lihard
At 2200 (UK time) on 26/10/2009 the scores read as follows: 5119 IN and 5376 OUT.
Is there a script running somewhere??
I’m not sure if anyone is interested in this data but for now I’ll gather it.
Good. You should send the results to sciencemuseum with a full explanation and tell them to fix their poll and re-run it.
Lihard:
That’s good. Might be useful. Now, keeping in mind that actualing entering a remote computer not specifically designated as a public access server is a criminal offense, is there any way to query the routing server as to where the bot packets are coming from?
I’d like to inform everyone that I have kicked up a quick hack to check the site every second and collect the http packets which include the vote count.
Neat. FYI, I posted a message on the Facebook page of the Alliance of Climate Protection around about 19:00 GMT drawing their attention to the poll. Now that group has 3.3m members so it might be interesting to see what effect (if any) that had..
As far as I know there isn’t any way to get the data without accessing the server which runs the website or the internet provider’s servers which the bot packets go through.
One way would be spoofing the website so that everything goes through your own computer first and then goes to the actual server hosting the website but I haven’t got any experience on spoofing website and that isn’t possibly legal either.
-Lihard