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!”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
Ahem – site appears to be down…. suffering from a fever perhaps 😉
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) :
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!
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.
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’?
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!
@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?
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.
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!
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
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?
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…
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
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.
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”.
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
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.