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.
So far as of this writing, with almost 10,000 votes, here are the results:
Link to poll here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.”
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.
Five-legged toad discovered
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7875833/Five-legged-toad-discovered.html
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….
[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?
Russell’s Judgement
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…
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…
IMMO = In My Moral Opinion (note: Morality is currently Contangoed)
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
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
The “No” option is not correct, but it is closest to how I wanted to vote….
…( and Backwardation in the next 2 elections)
MSNBC poll
58.6% not satisfied with Muir ‘climategate’ report.
http://msnbc.newsvine.com/_question/2010/07/07/4630892-are-you-satisfied-with-the-british-panels-conclusion-that-while-climategate-scientists-were-not-always-forthcoming-their-science-was-sound
Vote now.
http://www.thestar.com/article/830737–hamilton-it-s-time-to-talk-carbon-taxes
The greens are desperate
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.
My mistake. It was 56.8%, now 57%.
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.
Easy vote, hampered by silly phrasing.