A Climategate poll that might go terribly wrong

I never thought I’d see this from MSNBC. But, here it is, your chance to weigh in. Of course the choices are rather weird, but then so is MSNBC. Make some noise, maybe Olberman will label me as the “worst person in the world”. Heh.

click to vote

So far as of this writing, with almost 10,000 votes, here are the results:

Link to poll here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David Davidovics

Thats probably the fastest vote I’ve ever made.

BarryW

Great, typical of MSNBC they don’t even understand the subject so they create a poll that doesn’t reflect the true issues involved.

Only takes 2 clicks, one on the MSNBC.com link, and one to vote.

Zilla

Thank you, Mr. Watts. I voted too.

Enneagram

I voted correctly: NO

Edward Bancroft

The second option, ‘No’, is odd. It assumes that the responder to the option already had an opinion on the issue, ‘I still believe…’. Whereas in the ‘Yes’ option you can include those who are fresh to the subject.
The use of the term ‘fabricated data´is misleading, as the ‘Climategate scientists’ have never been accused of making up the data. Rather, the issue has laways been that they selected only the data which supported their AGW case, and suppressed the rest. Not the same as fabrication.

movielib

The results have changed from 65.6% “No” to 55.8% “No” in just a couple of hours. I suppose it’s been pushed by alarmists sites. This push here should get it back on track where it should be.

John Whitman

One click for man and another click for . . . . reversing The Muir Russell Report (mankind)

Thomas

I think MSNBC understands the issue. I think they’ve intentionally constructed a set of questions that skirts the issue. The panel didn’t confirm anything about the science itself. They concluded that nobody hid data but the U.K. government says they violated freedom of info laws by not sharing the data.
Anyway, we didn’t need the panel to confirm that the science sucked because Mann already admitted, on the eve of the panel’s decision, that his hockey stick graph was crap.
“”I [Mann] always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it [the hockey stick graph] a central icon of the climate change debate,” (Telegraph.co.uk, June 28th).
Someone should right a book about the snow-job cover-up. It’s more telling than the original crime (yes, I mean crime in the sense of criminal activity).

Bernie

Thanks for the heads up. What are the odds that these poll results will see the light of day on MSNBC? Do you remember the British Science Museum poll?

Xi Chin

Question fo MSBNC: Dumb down much?

Roy UK

Thank you for telling us, I will be forwarding the link to interested friends.
I am not sure how long the poll will stay up if the voting continues to go this way.

Doubting Thomas

I’ve decided to change my name from Thomas to Doubting Thomas.
“Doubting Thomas is a term that is used to describe someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; a skeptic.” (Wikipedia)
Yours truly, Doubting Thomas

Henry chance

Yesterday it was 2 to 1. Now there are folks pushed to vote yes and vote often.

PaulH

The second response is rather odd. I don’t necessarily believe “those scientists fabricated data”. They just took the existing data and tortured it until they got the answers they wanted.

Red Jeff

I voted and then started posting the address on all the sites I frequent. Vote early and vote often!

Pascvaks

Is it true one can push “Yes” as many times as you want, but “No” can only be pushed once? Hummmm….. I smells a rat!

George E. Smith

“”” Edward Bancroft says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:57 am
The second option, ‘No’, is odd. It assumes that the responder to the option already had an opinion on the issue, ‘I still believe…’. Whereas in the ‘Yes’ option you can include those who are fresh to the subject.
The use of the term ‘fabricated data´is misleading, as the ‘Climategate scientists’ have never been accused of making up the data. Rather, the issue has laways been that they selected only the data which supported their AGW case, and suppressed the rest. Not the same as fabrication. “””
Surely you jest. The whole process of homogenisation (rendering robust); is a process of making up data.
When either GISS or HadCrud or anyone else for that matter issue any version of their “Temperature anomaly” data; they are simply replacing what may have originally been actual real true measured data with a completely fictional substitute faux data; that nobody ever measured anywhere at any time.
Their running five day or 13 month or whatever “averages”, simply thow away real expensive actual data, and replace it with unreal, and unmeasured ersatz data.
So yes; they do fabricate it; and they choose their fabrication algorithms to artificially create the impression they want to convey.
If they really want to report on the true global mean surface Temperature (or lower troposphere or any other); which of course we actually have no way of measuring accurately; then that would be a single number; not a graph; like 57 deg F or 15 deg C or 288 Kelvins; or whatever Dr Trenberth thinks it currently is.

Richard

55.4% Who said no at this moment

John from CA

I agree with Edward and Thomas – what a foolish poll.
Comment I posted on MSNBC:
The problem is in the wording of the question and answer options.
“No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.”
The majority of scientists publishing papers on Climate Change do not openly support the IPCC conclusions. Only 7% support the findings. The remaining 93% either openly oppose the findings (about 6%) or are undecided.
The problem isn’t with the Scientific community, its a political issue where governments are dictating support.
If the IPCC findings had been properly Peer Reviewed with open access to the data, we would not be confronted with such an absurd MSNBC poll.

Joseph Murphy

Will I be put on a “Black List” for voting?

Marge

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could vote on whether increased GHG concentrations led to warming?It’s clear that improper conduct by scientists has no impact on climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other GHG).
Phil Jones has made many positive contributions in the research of Climate Change.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.13483!p_jones_formatted.pdf
So has Michael Mann
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
So has Gaven Schmidt
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html
In the long run, the truth will emerge, the wheat will be separated from the chaff.

Alan D McIntire

I cannot conscientiously enter a vote on the MSNBC site, because neither of the choices make sense or match my views.
Sir Muir Russell summarizes his CRU inquiry as follows:
* This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
* We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
Let’s subject these statements to a logical mathematical analysis:
* (1) The scientific work was not an issue.
* (2) The conclusions of the IPCC assessments were not undermined.
Combining (1) and (2) we conclude that what Muir Russell effectively says is: “IPCC conclusions are not based on scientific work”. Seems correct.

Pops

One of the most curious comments on the MSNBC site was this:
You don’t get a vote; it’s not a beauty contest, the science is the science. There is global consensus.

LarryOldtimer

Adjusting measured temperature data, and refusing to reveal the exact methology used in doing so at each individual temperature measuring site speaks enormously for itself. Of scientific dishonesty. There are no “rules of thunb” which could be applied.

Caleb

Reply to:
“Edward Bancroft says: July 8, 2010 at 9:57 am”
Good point. However, by selecting data that supported their view, or what is now called “cherry picking,” one gets a biased result which I think can be called a “fabrication.”
Also I have a hunch that, in certain cases, some of the “adjustments” which have been made blurr the line between “data” and “fabrication.”

mikef2

yep its been worded so that ‘honest’ peeps can’t answer. Did they FABRICATE data…well we can’t say they did. But they just cherry picked it to suit, or left out stuff that didn’t….like Briffa suggesting he could not say the MWP was any diff to now, contradiucting Manns HS.
So friends, you are left with a choice. Answer ‘No’ and in truth you will be fibbing, but you can’t answer ‘Yes’ either………gosh…anyone would think polls were worded to get a certain response. Anyway, s!d them I thought, I’ll vote ‘No’ anyway……….am sure Phil, Michael, Eric etc would not worry about the finer ettiquette.

Kate
Katy,TX

Muir Russell – All right, Jones, did you engage in any naughtiness?
Phil Jones – No.
Muir Russell – Oh, well, carry on.

OK, their security to prevent people from voting twice is cookie-based. Just marginally better in that regard than the Science Museum poll, which seemed to have no security at all. Just rmember, folks, real skeptics are honest and only vote once. The purpose of the poll is transparently PR…. nothing nuanced or even accurate. Just another stupid skirmish in the culture wars….

Die Zauberflotist

[snip we don’t advocate cheating here]

I voted “present” on this one.
I didn’t like the choices, as there is only two diametrically opposing ones. It’s a false dichotomy. There is much room in between the two statements offered.

Oh, I did vote “No”, as that is closer to my view than “Yes”.

Is this confirmation MSNBC think something is wrong with the panel conclusions ? And why would they think that? Why else would you think to do a poll?

Richard

Russell’s Judgement

Gerry

Won’t matter what you vote – the ChickenLittles at MSNBC will continue to bask in the religion of Goreism….

Up to 56.3% and going up…

John from CA

Kate says:
July 8, 2010 at 11:19 am
Kate,
It’s probably worth repeating how we all feel once again for the “scratched record”.
Everyone I’ve read here supports Stewardship.
The “Incomplete Truth” clouds the issues and turns out to be little more then a “Cheap Trick” that promotes pollution instead of logic and convenience instead of Science.
Note: mutations aren’t uncommon in Nature – see the press on Darwin Evilution.
Best,
John from CA
pS IMMO there isn’t anything that justifies the Malaise other then…

John from CA

IMMO = In My Moral Opinion (note: Morality is currently Contangoed)

Rob Potter

Probably not right to say they fabricated data – they just manipulated what they had, but no way could you say that the panel was fair so…..

One more vote!
At the moment:
43.3%: Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data:
5,705 votes
56.7%: No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming: 7,485 votes
Ecotretas

Paul Deacon

I think readers are being unduly picky about the subordinate clause in the question and the qualifications in the answers. If you strip these out, the question reduces to:
“Are you satisfied with the panel’s conclusion that their science was sound?
Yes or No?”
Christchurch, New Zealand

MattN

The “No” option is not correct, but it is closest to how I wanted to vote….

John from CA

…( and Backwardation in the next 2 elections)

Roger Clague
Van Grungy
Vincent

George E. Smith says,
“Surely you jest. The whole process of homogenisation (rendering robust); is a process of making up data.”
While I don’t disagree with you from a technical viewpoint, any poll that has “fabrication” as the only alternative is not going to garner as much support as one that is more nuanced. A lot of the public are naturally sceptical of alarmist claims, and while they would probably support the proposition that the scientists “over egged” or “sexed up” their claims, they are not yet ready to countenance deliberate fabrication.

Roger Clague

My mistake. It was 56.8%, now 57%.

rbateman

The only sound science coming out of CRU was when Phil Jones stated that there had been no statistically significant warming the last 10 years, possibly 15.
The CRU 91,94,99 data sets proved it.
Data was witheld to mislead, leaving open the question of data being manipulated to reinforce that deception.
Now, it is CRU’s reputation that is in the frying pan, and it is Phil Jones who must reinvent himself as open & honest in the public eye. By reinstating him, they are no longer in control of thier own path.
Was that wise?
Phil has been given a 2nd chance. Only he can answer that question.

jeef

Easy vote, hampered by silly phrasing.