Remember this post before the heady days of Climategate?
And then what happens? Another online poll that might go horribly wrong
And this one?
Data adjustments in the UK Science Museum “Prove It!” poll on climate
The raw data is available graphically, thank you David, at http://proveit.isgreat.org/
It appears that the London Science Museum got the message loud and clear, today we have this piece in the Times Online:
Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition
…
Professor Rapley declined to give his own views on climate change, saying that they were not relevant. However, in 2007 he said: “The more greenhouse gases we add, the warmer we’ll be. It’s not rocket science.”
======================
Oh but it is. Note the continued existence of NASA GISS, which would be but a footnote if they didn’t apply “rocket science” and some stagecraft to it back in 1988.
And it is a big abut face compared to when we last heard from Professor Rapley via this WUWT post:
Science Museum Prove It! poll now closed – surprising results
Today (1 December 2009) Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at UCL said:
“More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”
======================
Read the complete story here at the Times: Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
““The more greenhouse gases we add, the warmer we’ll be. It’s not rocket science.””
Great, lets fill our attics with CO2 and tell the Russians where to stick their natural gas.
The Government’s response
The Government believes that all these allegations should be investigated transparently.
An independent review is currently examining the scientific conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and is due to report its findings later in the spring. More information on the review can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/. The University of East Anglia also recently announced that there will be a separate review to examine the CRU’s key scientific publications. The findings of both these reviews will be made public.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is also investigating the matter. On 1 March the Select Committee heard evidence from a wide range of contributors, including Professor Jones, who has temporarily stepped down from his post as Director of CRU.
CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.
Our confidence that the Earth is warming is taken from multiple sources of evidence and not only the HadCRUT temperature record, which CRU scientists contribute to. The same warming trend is seen in two independent analyses carried out in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These analyses draw on the same pool of temperature data as HadCRUT, but use different methodologies to produce analyses of temperature change through time. Further evidence of this warming is found in data from instruments on satellites, and in trends of declining arctic sea ice and rising sea levels.
Science is giving us an increasingly clear picture of the risks we face from climate change. With more research, we can better understand those risks, and how to manage them. That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.
They could have kept the Climate Change title of their exhibit. Earth climate has changed and will continue changing untile the earth disappear.
The questions being : can humanity adapt ? How ?
Lizzy (03:08:37) :
A bit of a Freudian slip there, I think:
“That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.”
Surely the funding is supposed to be provided for climate change research? Having just finished Andrew Montford’s excellent ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’, I can well understand why the government might now wish to fund research into the so-called climate change science!
Great Job everyone !!!!!
Another small step !!
I visited the Prove It! website and looked through all their “evidence” for human induced global warming.
There wasn’t any.
With the British tradition for balanced and unpolitical science in tatters – thanks to the Met Office, The Royal Society and the Science Museum – it actually made me feel quite ashamed. This climbdown is a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go to restore credibility to science in Britain.
“Professor Rapley declined to give his own views on climate change, saying that they were not relevant. However, in 2007 he said: “The more greenhouse gases we add, the warmer we’ll be. It’s not rocket science.”
I wonder if they have also removed the working model of a perpetual motion machine from the exhibition?
I know in another forum that Michael Zimmerman has commented that there has been a real failure of investigative journalism, I guess, to keep the science honest.
I wonder, I’m really curious about this, whether anyone will ever tell the story of how and why climate change became what it did as a movement?
“Michael has also warned of the dangers posed by the anti-modernist attitudes that characterize some versions of environmentalism.”
PS. Apologies to the moderators, I had no idea that topic was inappropriate. Will respect, naturally.
I sure would like someone would add some more greenhouse gases so we could warm our butts up in Florida. The damage from the cold, the dead fish, the dead manatees has been off the charts extreme.
More please, quick.
They depended on the government grant money to carry the day, accept this bribe and produce the results we want, when it is a fact now that people with no skin in the game, no grants to be bribed with, have exposed the hoax and it’s lies. Great job people, you deserve the world’s thanks.
I went through the Prove it! web pages quite carefully. Despite the name, they didn’t present a single piece of evidence to prove that the warming was caused by carbon dioxide. Quite extraordinary.
Still, this latest news is very encouraging. If they really have responded positively to recent events then they deserve some credit.
Chris
johnnythelowery (20:48:54) :
We are about to be snowed under when the whitehouse gets it’s rear end in gear to deal with ‘the climate’. Even the crew at WUWT won’t be able to shovel fast enough from all the BS. 2010 is going to the battle of the planet
Maybe, maybe not. The economy has to be first with trillions in debt and getting deeper, where’s the companies and industries to create jobs?
In any case. Science as a whole has not done it’s job properly and over half the science we know is incorrect. Religion for survival suppressed science. Politics only wants what’s good for the economic engine and couldn’t care if science is correct or not. So the garbage science has been reviewed and accepted as the law of the land and lord help anyone who does not fit with their mindset.
If you were to get rid of ALL science and started over with just the simple basics and started from there, the whole outcome would be different.
And why is that? Your mind would not be clouded with societies acceptance and see many things missing or head scratchers, until you came up with the perameters that fit perfectly.
The thing is because our planet is very complex, the task is huge as everything is interconnected to work as a whole.
Separating gases from mass as two working classes with different perameters of actions when heat and compression are involved.
Mass changes with movement. Mass can compress and hold energy.
Gases compressed and rotated can have a gravitational and magnetic field Sun, our core).
An example; Baseball player hitting with a bat.
The muscle torque he extends into his swing, changes the mass in the bat to build up energy extending towards the tip of the bat. The faster the swing and more torque exerted, the more compressed energy is achieved. If he misses the ball and the bat goes flying, it travels the distance till the energy is used and gravity pulls.
If he hits the ball, there is energy transfer that changes the balls density to one side taking some torque and energy from the bat.
So, johnnythelowery, we just have to be MUCH smarter than them at having the correct science!
Prof. Rapley: “The more greenhouse gases we add, the warmer we’ll be. It’s not rocket science.”
======================
Anthony Watts: “Oh but it is.”
======================
Quote of the year!
Well done Anthony, although as some wit remarked “even rocket science isn’t rocket science any more”
Well done the Science Museum too, (a great place to take your offspring when in town).
Phillip Bratby (00:10:08) :
“Of course the response from Rapley included lnks to the IPCC reports and the standard argument from ignorance “these records show that the temperature change recorded can only be explained when human greenhouse gas emissions are taken into account”. ”
I keep getting (naively?) baffled at how the alarmist case boils down to the above – which, if pushed, they end up conceding – and not even realizing it’s a concession. Isn’t it basic scientific thinking that argument from ignorance isn’t really an argument for anything except, indeed, one’s own ignorance?
Car mechanic: “that noise can only be a hole in the exhaust because I can’t explain it in any other way”.
Doctor: “your cough must be throat cancer because that’s the only way I can explain it”.
Etc.
Robert E. Phelan (21:08:27) : (And Mike Post)
> Ric Werme deserves a lot of credit for his monitoring of this poll.
Thanks. I regret not letting myself get sucked in earlier before some
of the early shenanigans.
I also monitored the recently reported number10 poll, but I don’t think I ever looked at the data. At least that polling system doesn’t seem as controversial. They’ve had more time to work out the various polling hacks.
Random answer: How quickly does a post at WUWT get attention? From my web page hit report (in CDT time, UTC-0500):
proveit 24/Mar/2010
05:54:10 proveitraw host86-171-9-29.range86-171.btcentralplus.com:
Unknown
09:04:43 proveitraw ACaen-152-1-88-142.w83-115.abo.wanadoo.fr: science museum prove it results
http://www.google.com.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=science+museum+prove+it+results&start=0&sa=N
start: 0
20:24:32 proveitraw modemcable026.97-201-24.mc.videotron.ca:
Unknown
20:25:10 proveitraw pool-72-66-104-80.washdc.fios.verizon.net:
Unknown
20:25:56 proveitraw pool-72-66-104-80.washdc.fios.verizon.net:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/data-adjustments-in-the-uk-science-museum-prove-it-poll/
20:25:58 proveitraw 99-65-178-246.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net:
Unknown
20:27:24 proveitraw pool-71-166-48-45.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net:
Unknown
20:28:36 proveitraw 16.238.97-84.rev.gaoland.net:
Unknown
20:29:38 proveitraw pool-71-117-255-59.ptldor.fios.verizon.net:
Unknown
20:29:57 proveitraw 66.183.78.44:
Unknown
Answer – instantly!
Now, as long as this doesn’t overflow the small bandwidth at my ISP I’ll be all set. These hits may be just people looking at the results WUWT page, and not the current story. Fortunately they weren’t limiting usage back then….
BTW, the better (I think) (and smaller) page is the summary at http://wermenh.com/proveit.html . I guess I should update the timeline on both. It’s pretty remarkable to me that the Museum made such a turnaround. I wonder if it reflects a change in thinking on Chris Rapley’s part in addition to the public pressure.
I am another who got an email from Downing Street yesterday about the UK poll on not using CRU data (it was the typical brush-off as shown in earlier comments).
However, one mildly encouraging thing happened in my Dartmoor village yesterday. A local society had put on a talk by Dartmoor National Park about responding to climate change, i.e. coping with all the predicted warming – and the speaker started by noting that a year ago when he asked for an informal poll on belief in global warming almost everyone believed, but now there were often doubters. In our case I was delighted to see that the believers were fairly heavily outnumbered by the doubters.
There is also a (relatively polite) climate change argument going on in our local parish magazine. Next month I am expecting to see my brief article on how you can’t believe computer models on issues where many of the basic systems are not well undersood (I feel very strongly about this because I was a computer scientist for many years!) and how none of the predicted catastrophes ever happen.
All very small stuff, but `every little helps’ as they say.
First the “Science Museum”, next please the Greenwich National Maritime Museum. When last year I visited the Hockey Stick graph was pride of place before thousands of school children and “Climate Change ” was referenced in numerous exibits ( along with tendentious stuff about slavery, and Ocean Liners with toffs on board)
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/about/partnerships-and-initiatives/cliwoc/more-about-the-project
“For climatologists this (1750–1850 period) is an important period. It marks the closing decades of the so-called ‘Little Ice Age’; a time when European weather was cooler, wetter and stormier than it is today. It marks also a period when climatic change cannot be seen as a possible consequence of world-wide industrialization and the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere……………… All of these observations help scientists to reconstruct the nature of day-to-day weather, and longer term climate and climatic change at sea at those periods.”
How everyone sucking on the teat of the public purse toes the line AGW to ensure funding.
“We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”
Frankly, this bothers me even more. If we’re wrong, but numerous, don’t kiss our fat fannies, show us how we’re wrong.
The man has no scientific principles. He blows with the winds of public opinion.
It’s like he’s just hiding his head while he tries to find a better way to lie to us. It’s gross.
Don’t show my view respect, show me science. Reality doesn’t change with opinion.
Sheeze.
Professor Rapley said that the gallery, which is to open in November before the climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, would refrain from scaring visitors with apocalyptic predictions of rising sea levels and would be honest about the conflicting views on the scale of possible changes to the climate.
NOVEMBER ! They are rushing to be fair minded.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece
Rocket Science and Junket Science are related as they both involve travel?
Anthony, I’m holding a thick wad of recycled Hungarian carbon credits….may I put them in the tip jar? They must be worth about a pence each, maybe….
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2259761/recycled-carbon-credit-scandal
Mismanagement of scientific information, consensus action and brute force PR techniques are the things to which we are skeptical. Legitimate doubter is less offensive than skeptic.
Let us hereby dub ourselves crichtonists, after the last M. Crichton. We wish for the distribution of quality information throught the proper scientific control of the method. If you don’t understand the reference, please go read his essays, then come back.
Crichtonists unite.
”””’Stacey (09:05:08) : Rocket Science and Junket Science are related as they both involve travel?””””
Stacey,
Thanks for the smile you put on my face even before I had my breakfast coffee!
10 smile points to you.
John
The Science Museum behaves like a science museum – and not another tentacle of the global warming cabal.
PaperTiger:
You haven’t a prayer of stopping the greenie-weenie movement in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia (PRoK). After searching for a high-tech job in SoCal for six-months, I gave-up and moved my family to Virginia. Allow me to suggest that you get out while you still can. Consider the following: after the PRoK econazi’s re-elect Very Scary Gerry Brown, you’ll be saddled with new and higher taxes that will make escape all but impossible.