UK Prove It! poll – still taking votes

From WUWT Tips and Notes comments by Robert E. Phelan:

Ric Werme has been tracking the Science Museum “Prove It!” poll since October 29th here:

http://wermenh.com/proveit.html

Starting November 2 the “count-me-in” votes have substantially outnumbered the “count-me-out” votes, although the outs have remained ahead in the over-all tally. Since November 24th the daily count has begun to favor the “outs” again. It looks like Climategate is starting to have an effect.

For those who may not yet know the story behind the poll and the ups and downs, WUWT has a nice thread here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/

The poll can be found here:

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

If anyone has not yet voted in that poll, this would be a good time to send a message. Do not be intimidated by the “we will forward your comment to the government” message. It appears for both the “in” and “out” voters; it may have been intended to be intimidating, but now is the time for everyine to send a message: “We will NOT be intimidated!”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tim c

For all of us Americans don’t think twice it’s the British Gov.

Yertizz

Anthony…are you aware of the moves by China, India, Brazil and South Africa who are readdy to walk out collectively if they feel they are being muscled at Copenhagen?
This is the link:
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/170-copenhagen-india-china-threaten-joint-exit.html

mbabbitt

Fight against the Stalinist wannabees. Vote.

Adam Gallon

I’ve both contacted my MP & written to the Trustees of the Science Museum to complain about the numerous errors (eg increased number of hurricanes) and ephemeral nature of the online (& one assumes the physical) exhibition.

Pops

What are the odds that Miliband will have them quietly pull the plug sometime over the next eight days?
Or perhaps someone will be hired to give the IN poll-numbers some value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) improvements.

North Bound

A lot of humour!

tim c (10:47:10) :
> For all of us Americans don’t think twice it’s the British Gov.
So? The Museum is open to all nationalities, and I yes, I would like to tell the British government not to negotiate a deal at Copenhagen.
I really doesn’t matter much – a real treaty won’t get signed, and the British gov’t will ignore the poll anyway, especially if they look at its rocky start. The trends in Dave’s graph of my data capture are more interesting than anything else about the poll.
BTW, I have a web counter on that page that access my home computer (Comcast didn’t offer a useful counter). It’s impressive what a link in main post does!
Also, this is one event we’ll be able to tag. Here are the recent in/out counts:
Nov 29 18:00 UTC: 5426 7954
Nov 29 18:30 UTC: 5430 7954
Nov 29 19:00 UTC: 5433 7987
The first hit on my page was at 1841 UTC.

Chris

It does make me smile though, the comment in the link about being expected to know the Science Museum is in London. As if the Museum of Natural History is just sooooo obviously American from the name!

P Gosselin

There are 3 write-ups on climategate in the UK Times.
Here’s one: (scroll down to related links for the other 2)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
In the German papers – ZILCH!

Heather

Counted myself out, too

Pingo

Only a Brit could call it Count **it Out 😀

Jeremy

Nov 12th looks very suspicious – 3000 votes removed from Count me Out which were added to Count me In. Then about a half hour later they added back the votes to Count me Out and add a few more as well.
Perhaps somebody did not like the numbers?
I guess they decided that voters were mistakenly clicking the wrong button and needed some help.
Zimbabwe does the same when the numbers don’t make sense to the ruling elite – they help the voter get it right, a technique no doubt learned from their old colonial master.

Alvin

As usual, the database remembers I already counted out the last time, but it does not have my vote counted as there are only 3000 +/- votes counted out.

I’ve counted myself out several times 😀
If you want to point out to them that they have a box to say – I don’t know and a whole website devoted to YES!!! propaganda – yet nowhere to say ‘this is cobblers’ – feel free to write to them here.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/let_us_know.aspx
REPLY: Multiple voting is not cool. – Anthony

Bullseye

Done it.

Please, folks, we’ve already been through this. One vote per person. If you choose to send a comment to the museum, don’t be abusive. A factual comment will carry more weight.

SandyInDerby

When this poll started I complained that there was some dubious things happening, particularly on the “IN” count.
This was the reply I got:
Between Friday 23 and Wednesday 28 October the poll associated with Prove It! was manipulated through repeat voting. This was undertaken by those who wanted to be “counted in” and those who wanted to be “counted out” from the statement: “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.” To the best of our knowledge, we have removed the duplicate votes cast during this period. Internet polls face this risk and the Science Museum has implemented additional security measures to reduce this risk.
Kind regards

Vg

Looking at reports this morning ie Sydney Morning herald and others ie Climategate” it could be the dam breaks in the next 2-3 days. Is is possible that Copenhagen will be called off?

John R. Walker

Yup – one vote per person please. We want to, and we can, beat them fair and square because the ‘evidence’ content is a blatant piece of campaigning with public money… No surprises there then!
The votes have been ‘cleaned up’ once already but the figures quoted below look quite suspicious…
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/press_and_media/press_releases/2009/10/Prove%20It%20Results.aspx
Between Friday 23 and Wednesday 28 October the poll associated with Prove It! was manipulated through repeat voting. This was undertaken by those who wanted to be “counted in” and those who wanted to be “counted out” from the statement: “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.” As a result, to the best of our knowledge, the duplicate votes cast during this period were removed. Internet polls face this risk and the Science Museum has implemented additional security measures to reduce this risk.
5984 individual votes were cast: 764 to counted in and 5220 to counted out. (Correct as at 16.20 Wednesday 28 October)
If you vote you are offered this link ( http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/let_us_know.aspx ) to say why you do not accept their propaganda evidence. Or you can use it without voting – it’s up to you…

Jeremy (11:43:20) :

Nov 12th looks very suspicious – 3000 votes removed from Count me Out which were added to Count me In. Then about a half hour later they added back the votes to Count me Out and add a few more as well.
Perhaps somebody did not like the numbers?

Check out Mike Post’s FOI request I link to ( http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_about_the_prove_it_pol ) – he asks in part:
Why on 12 November 2009, between 10.00 and 12.00 UTC, approximately 1500 votes were deducted from the ‘out’ score?
Why on 12 November 2009 between 14.00 and 16.00 UTC, approximately 1500 votes were added to the ‘in’ vote and approximately 2000 votes were added to the ‘out’ vote?

My raw data from that timeframe:
Nov 12 10:30 UTC: 2961 6703
Nov 12 11:00 UTC: 2968 6703
Nov 12 11:30 UTC: 2972 5217
Nov 12 12:00 UTC: 2974 5218
Nov 12 12:30 UTC: 2979 5220
Nov 12 13:00 UTC: 2981 5220
Nov 12 13:30 UTC: 2983 5221
Nov 12 14:00 UTC: 2983 5221
Nov 12 14:30 UTC: 2986 5223
Nov 12 15:00 UTC: 2987 5223
Nov 12 15:30 UTC: 2989 5224
Nov 12 16:00 UTC: 4439 7233
Nov 12 16:30 UTC: 4442 7234

timbrom

OT, other than it involves UK. However, with increasing evidence that the Brits aren’t swallowing the AGW pill with the ease they once did, maybe HMG are going to approach it more obliquely.
Anthony, you may want to throw this one at the community and see what they make of it. Smart meter details to be confirmed
The obvious “conspiracy theory” conclusion would be that with these meters telling a central agency what your energy consumption is, it would be but a small step to applying “positive feedback” in the form of some sort of rationing. Millipede (Climate Change minister) has already mooted individual carbon allowances, and this would seem to be a fine way of enforcing them.
Having said that, with the UK government’s track record on large IT projects, it will probably never come to pass. However …

Peter Plail

I’ve e-mailed the Science Museum asking them what they intend to do with the results of the poll. They have suggested that the concensus rules, I suggested that the public concensus according to their poll is “Not Proved” and therefore they have a duty to reflect the concensus.
Unsurprisngly I have not had a response.
Can I suggest that others might ask a similar question, then they might just get the message.

Annei

The system states that it doesn’t allow multiple votes; rightly.

Pops

“Unsurprisingly I have not had a response.”
Hang-in there, Peter Plail. It takes them at least a week to reply. Of course, what you’ll get back is bog-standard thought-speak; but it’s the thought that counts, not the vote.

Pops

Take your pick as to which version reads best:
“Unsurprisingly I have not had a response.”
Hang-in there, Peter Plail. It takes them at least a week to reply. Of course, what you’ll get back is bog-standard thought-speak; and it’s the thought that counts, not the vote.

anna v

Interesting that the nay votes have picked up momentum as seen in
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/proveit.html
The plot shows the manipulation of november 12 or so.

marchesarosa

On 11th November George Monbiot gave a direct link to the Prove It website in his Guardian blog. That is when the Count Me In votes surged, unsurprisingly.

John Thorpe

Ahem – site appears to be down…. suffering from a fever perhaps 😉

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

The sudden surges and deletion of votes are always neat numbers like 1500 or 2000. This implies a moderator is manually adding or subtracting round figures to the votes.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. But its back up now. Current count: 5469 counted in so far 8294 counted out so far. Ins up by 76 for the day, outs up by 311.

marchesarosa (15:00:35) :

On 11th November George Monbiot gave a direct link to the Prove It website in his Guardian blog. That is when the Count Me In votes surged, unsurprisingly.

I didn’t see a “surge” I saw two instantaneous adjustments. (well, sampled
every 30 minutes.)
At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/ there is a
note saying Monbiot had the link on Nov 2nd, and there is a surge that
started then and continued for the next week or so.
Let’s see, 1904 EDT, I should have the end-of-day data. Yep.
Nov 29 17:30 UTC: 5424 7952
Nov 29 18:00 UTC: 5426 7954
Nov 29 18:30 UTC: 5430 7954
Nov 29 19:00 UTC: 5433 7987
Nov 29 19:30 UTC: 5434 8056
Nov 29 20:00 UTC: 5441 8106
Nov 29 20:30 UTC: 5448 8141
Nov 29 21:00 UTC: 5454 8172
Nov 29 21:30 UTC: 5456 8209
Nov 29 22:00 UTC: 5464 8241
Nov 29 22:30 UTC: 5467 8264
Nov 29 23:00 UTC: 5469 8284
Nov 29 23:30 UTC: 5469 8294
Nov 30 00:00 UTC: 5469 8315
Daily changes:
Nov 27: 37 / 57
Nov 28: 37 / 57
Nov 29: 76 / 432
That should annoy folks at the Museum!

Terry

Something disturbing is happening with the Science Museum ProveIt poll. I made my ‘out’ choice and was promised an emailed confirmation link. That was five hours ago. I still haven’t received my confirmation email link, so my ‘out’ vote doesn’t count. I checked my email address twice to ensure it was correct.
Maybe they’re trying the Mann trick – and ignoring all ‘out’ votes since this article was posted on Watts Up.

Terry (16:11:26) :
That’s an old issue as well…. the out-vote is indeed going up fairly steadily, so chances are your vote was counted.

Dave

OK Antony, in spite of my misgivings (I really don’t want to be stuck on any more high, dry rocks of principle – I did my bit when I was younger and now I’d really rather just do my research and let others do the dirty work). I counted myself out and followed up with my reasons (apologies for any faulty logic, but I hope there are no incorrect statements):
In order to accept a scientific hypothesis a number of criteria need to be met. First and foremost, the facts cannot contradict the predictions of the hypothesis. The models that predict that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will force runaway warming have been falsified by the last decade’s weather. Additionally, there is no obvious correlation between CO2 levels and estimates of global temperature – or local temperatures – over the last century. Moreover, estimates of long-term patterns in temperature and CO2 level that pre-exist the current AGW hypothesis have never been in agreement with this hypothesis: temperatures appear to rise before CO2 (typically with a 800-1000 year lag) and temperatures start to decline even as CO2 continues to rise.
A second requirement is replication – or more specifically access to methods and data to allow replication by others. As everyone should know by now, CRU and others have long refused to release data – even when journals in which they publish require such release – and apparently have lost or deliberately deleted critical data. Apparently, the models don’t even run on real data, but only on data manipulated to achieve predetermined trends and specifically dependent on reducing estimates of early temperatures and inflating estimates of recent temperatures to give the appearance of sudden and drastic warming (which as I note above, is not correlated with CO2).
A third requirement is rigorous review and debate. I think that any one who spends a few minutes reading the recently released CRU emails would have to come to the conclusion that the normal scientific review procedures have been deliberated perverted and debate has been stifled.
A fourth requirement is that no simpler hypotheses explain the data better. Weather stations were designed to provide temperature records to people living in particular areas – not to estimate global temperatures. Land-use changes and urban heat islands explain the rise in land temperature exactly – and are pretty much independent of any global rise or fall in average temperatures. Variation in the Earth’s receipt of solar radiation is the most likely explanation for long-term temperature trends and – however complicated the effects of clouds, cosmic rays and the like – a far simpler explanation than AGW ever was.
There are other points that I could make, but what I really want to know is why a place called the ‘Science Museum’ seems determined to convince people of an unscientific and apparently fraudulent ‘hypothesis’?

Catherine Jameson

Hey, it’s 11.44am in Australia on Monday morning. I just added my “Count Me Out” vote to the Museum’s website, and my return email came through within a minute. I clicked the link, took me back and said I’d been counted out. So I dunno, maybe a temporary glitch, but it worked for me 🙂 I’m out!

boxman

@Terry
I voted out just after this article was posted earlier today and definitely got the confirmation mail.

Catherine Jameson (16:46:00) :
G’day. I’ve been watching the SMH and The Australian sites but they seem to have precious little to report other than that the Liberals are imploding and Hockey is going to challenge Abbot. Will the ETS vote go up today?

marchesarosa

Ric, yes, sorry, the Monbiot link in the Guardian to the “Prove It” website WAS on 2 Nov, as I stated on the previous “Prove It” thread.
I was aware of blocks of votes coming and going on both sides but was under the impression that the In votes surged after the Monbiot link.
The Out votes are now increasing apace and the gap seems to be widening, I’m glad to see.

Raymond

My message to the Science Museum is thus:
Prove it yourself!
Prove that
1. Global Warming (do not rename it to Climate Change) is harmful,
2. prove that it is caused by human activity,
3.1 show me the raw data (put it online)
3.2 show me your methods and software (put it online)
I am capable of checking it myself and so is a significant portion of the worldwide population.
We have had enoug of make believe long before and after Galileo Galilei and we are in no need of churches, religion, snake oil.
Cut the lies!

a jones

Can’t Vote. It keeps saying my email address is invalid. Funny that, I have had it for ten years and it still works just for me.
Kindest Regards

King of Cool

I was staggered by the Science Museum’s evidence:
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.

What! How come global warming cannot be explained by natural causes yet they do not know whether natural causes are cooling or warming the earth at present? These are two contradictory statements.
And this:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a collaboration between thousands of scientists and governments from 130 countries. They are considered the most trustworthy group of experts on climate change in the world.
How do they determine who is “trustworthy” I wonder?

Claude Harvey

After counting yourself “out” and verifying your vote, those polling folks want to know “why”. Any quarrels with what I told them?
“Over the past several years I have studied a wide range of published scientific papers on manmade global warming. I’ve concluded that a 1/4th inch man-made CO2 tail is not wagging a 100-yard-long atmospheric dog. The positive feedback mechanisms required to multiply the modest greenhouse gas effect of man-made CO2 into anything of serious consequence do not exist. Contrary to the climate model assumptions, feedbacks to CO2 induced greenhouse heating are in fact negative. Otherwise, global climate temperature would have “run away” in one direction or the other eons ago. Instead, average global temperature has cycled between very distinct high and low limits; five times in the past 450,000 years.”
CH

Looks like we may have poked someone…. 100 votes added to the “in” column in the last half hour.

Very impressive. In the space of two hours 350 “in” votes have been added. Didn’t think there were that many alarmists left…

King of Cool

Catherine Jameson (16:46:00) :
G’day. I’ve been watching the SMH and The Australian sites but they seem to have precious little to report other than that the Liberals are imploding and Hockey is going to challenge Abbot. Will the ETS vote go up today?
At this moment they are still debating in the Senate. The Libs are trying to extend the debate until at least tomorrow when a spill looks likely and Hockey will take over and/or it is referred to a Senate Committee.
Then it is in the lap of the Gods as to what happens to the ETS. My view is that Hockey’s compromise position will be to delay any ETS until after Copenhagen and that will take effect. The government has no real answer as to why it should be introduced before and public opinion is probably against it. The MSM today has been going gangbusters promoting the ETS as if it was the lead up to an election.
Meanwhile Steve Fielding has called for a Royal Commission into Climate Change involving Ross Garnaut and Ian Plimer. Little chance of that I am afraid, the tidal wave of AGW is too big:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26420736-29277,00.html

Terry

I was right about my vote not being counted. The Science Museum site was very slow when I first tried to vote yesterday and may have been having problems with high traffic. Maybe that’s why I didn’t get a confirmation email at all.
Anyway, this morning I’ve voted again, this time successfully. The site was far faster and I got my confirmation email immediately – which proves my vote yesterday didn’t register.
Here’s the message I left the Science Museum people in the Comment box after I’d voted: –
The recent CRU expose reveals wholesale, fraudulent perversion of the scientific method and of the peer review process by an international gang of self-serving parascientists.
How dare the Science Museum use taxpayer money to propagate this blatant international fraud in the name of ‘science.’ Your actions are those of an institutional dictatorship, not an institutional democracy. In this you mirror the actions of the Hadley CRU.
The clear majority of the respondents in your ProveIt survey oppose the Copenhagen attempt to impose global dictatorship in place of democracy – and your craven support for such eco-fascism.
As a democratist and a British taxpayer, I am hereby issuing you with a formal caution that any further action by the Science Museum in support of global dictatorship, based upon wholesale anti-scientific eco-fraud, will result in direct action being initiated against you, in the courts and on the streets, by the democratic majority in Britain.

MB

Done.
Comment to the Science Museum Staff:
Global warming has been zero over the last 10 years or so, nobody denies this, despite the fact that CO2 levels have increased over that period.
None of the climate models had predicted this, they all predicted an increase in temperature. The models are too simplistic and do not contains the relevant processes to accurately simulate climate on a global scale. We already know this, it is not a secret, it is discussed in the relevant literature. E.g. the water vapour feedback.
Al-Gore’s Inconvenient Truth contains factual errors as ruled by the UK High Court and has been created to scare children (political indoctrination – despicable!). Mr Gore has business interests amounting to almost a billion dollars riding on the acceptance of AGW – he has a massive vested interest.
The “science” is definitely not settled. The recent CRU email scandal AKA ClimateGate sheds light on this. We have a small group of “scientists” who produce results which cannot be verified by other independent scientists because the data upon which the conclusions are drawn are kept privately and secretly by the CRU. The results have never been verified by sicentists working outside of a small clique of scientists who “peer review” each others work and as the emails show, block access to the peer review process to what they term (read their leaked emails) as “dissenting” scientists.
Further, other scientists trust the peer review process and will defer to the opinion of the peer reviewed literature. So many scientists will, like nodding-dogs, agree with the IPCC statements because they believe that the IPCC is carrying out a scientific process. These scientists opinion are not based on their assessment of the science but on their trust in a process. Science is not a democracy. It does not matter the number of people who nod, what matters is independently verified results. These nodding-dog scientists who form the major part of the so-called “scientific consensus” have not examined anything apart from the unverified results presented by the small, self-affirming clique referred to above.
Well, that is not science. For a result to become part of science, it must be both independently verified and independently verifiable. The AGW case satisfies neither of these criteria until all of the data and all of the methods have been made freely and publicly available. Public policy should not be set based on non-scientific results such the case for AGW.
We need to suspend Copenhagen in light of the ClimateGate affair and must hold a full, public and open inquiry. We certainly should not sign any treaties based on this so-called “science”.

Chris Wright

I’m out.
It’s not surprising that the sceptics are in the majority, as this is precisely what opinion polls show.
However, I’m quite shocked by the material provided by the Science Museum. As their campaign is named Prove it!, you would think there would be some proof that the warming was man-made. And yet they do not present a single piece of scientific proof. Not one single piece. If anyone can find any scientific proof that the climate is being driven by carbon dioxide on their website, please let me know!
This actually mirrors my thoughts when climate change first registered on my radar about three years ago. I asked myself a very basic question: what is the proof that the climate is being driven by carbon dioxide? I’m still asking that question today. I am absolutely shocked by the answer: there is none. There is no proof whatsoever. It all appears to be a huge assumption made by scientists, governments and politicians, all of whom have enormous vested interests.
Many of us who have followed CA and WUWT are only too familiar with the long litany of manipulations, half-truths, lies and probable fraud that that feed this monster. Hopefully the ongoing Climategate saga will help to restore truth and honesty to climate science.
Chris

Steve

On the Science Museum website I clicked the ‘Evidence’ link, expecting to be directed to some technical papers etc. showing strong evidence of global warming. Instead there is a page of meaningless blab about Economics, Copenhegn etc. Is this what passes for Science nowadays? The website appears to be aimed at children. It’s an embarressment to UK science.