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
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