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.
It’s actually been fun watching MSNBC try to balance and test the response.
Having done my bit of market research, they are attempting to validate the response by shifting the comments con to pro. They have currently elevated a majority of pro response to the top of the initial response page.
I think they are actually taking the response seriously for a change. Good to see a few pros left at MSNBC who take the science seriously.
Just a small side point but research at one time showed that people are less likely to vote “no” than “yes” on any issue, thus the poll is immediately biased to a yes vote. Fear of negativism. This was research I saw about twenty years ago but suspect that it is even more true today with the bedwetters’ philosophy having been taught in our schools for many years now. Agree vs disagree is a more sound, less biased methodology, depending, of course, upon the phrasing of the statement to which one is being asked to agree or disagree.
If anyone is moved to write to Sir Muir Russell, here is his office address:
Sir Muir Russell
Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland
38-39 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh
EH3 7SW
Scotland
It’s now 22:18 BST, and the poll stands at 57.4% in the blue!!
I did add my tuppence worth.
You have to register to make a comment. Maybe they are attempting to make a ‘list’.
Edward Bancroft says: “…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 (al)ways been that they selected only the data which supported their AGW case, and suppressed the rest. Not the same as fabrication.”
I consider grafting temperature records onto dendro plots to be fabrication.
!! “British” !!
‘Not the AMERICAN ‘Hockey Stick graph’ !!!!
Last time checked Michael Mann was in a lot of the emails…
So probably skewed by the ‘Obama’ ‘British’ Petroleum effect..
Even though it has been called BP for ten years and employs 2 americans for evey one ‘british’ person……………
How about another poll?
Enquiries which allow the university under investigation to compile the list of publications that will be scrutinised are a waste of public money and and insult to the public’s intelligence:
Agree
Disagree
At 23:11 BST it’s at 57.7% in the blue.
This is another one of those polls that will quietly “disappear” when the results aren’t what they wanted.
I wonder about the broader implications of this vote. If this was a court of law with twelve voting jurors, one vote is enough to establish “reasonable doubt.” I would have thought therefore that even if the “yes” case gets only a minor number of votes, then there is in fact “reasonable doubt” (as far as the law is concerned) that jiggery-pokery ever occurred. But on the other hand if the “yes” case cant get an absolutely overwhemling margin, then “reasonable doubt” of the whole climategate/AGW issue would have been established. A 50-50 result could surely be of no comfort to the “yes” camp. I dont think you establish a “consensus” by beating your oponent by one vote – surely “consensus” implies “overwhelming consensus”.
Just for the record, it was Trenbreth’s email (!2/10/2009) turned me from AGWer to sceptic. “The fact is we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and its a travesty that we cant.” Confirms no warming, confirms cant explain why, confirms the confidence levels on AGW they assert are a sham.
Pascvaks at 10:18 am
No I don’t think it is loaded on the “yes”. They record whether you have voted based on a cookie (I won’t tell which one to avoid the temptation of cheating).
Joseph Murphy says:
July 8, 2010 at 10:25 am
Will I be put on a “Black List” for voting?
Might be. If you have a static IP or vote from your University, work, etc. They will know who you are and the records will be kept.
AC of Adelaide says:
Just for the record, it was Trenbreth’s email (!2/10/2009) turned me from AGWer to sceptic. “The fact is we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and its a travesty that we cant.” Confirms no warming, confirms cant explain why, confirms the confidence levels on AGW they assert are a sham.
It could be interesting to know how each of us rejected the AGW hypothesis. Me, it was by reading realclimate.org. Especially because at the same time I was reading Feynman, and then by sheer contrast I realized that there was something that didn’t work there. After that, once you start looking for it the evidence is overwhelming.
(sorry for the OT)
This is another one of those polls that will quietly “disappear” when the results aren’t what they wanted.
Not really. One purpose of these polls is for news outlets to test what the readers want to see. In polarising issues they don’t want to lose readers by backing the “wrong” side for too long.
What this shows them is that a decent investigation into climate result “fabrication” would have quite a lot of traction.
That is totally contrary to the well-shouted view that only a trivial proportion of the world are “deniers” but accords rather better with the world as it actually is.
re: Bancroft
I too had to pause at the word ‘fabricated.’ But I have to agree with Smith that the process of homogenization as practiced pushes us over the line. Consider the scarcity of arctic surface stations and the extent of interpolation to fill in the blanks. Sure sounds like fabrication to me.
Marge says: “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).”
Or not.
@ur momisugly Doubting Thomas July 8, 2010 at 10:09 am:
And why not Denying Thomas?
@ur momisugly Pops July 8, 2010 at 10:51 am:
I counted earlier when I voted. I saw only FOUR “yes” voters who quick commented who actually made comments suggesting they had either read the panel’s decision or read some of the emails. The vast majority of “yes” votes were people saying generic global warming stuff or making as hominem attacks on skeptics.
How many “no” voters who quick commented made comments that sounded like they’d read the emails or panel report? I counted 28. That was all around 2 pm.
Granted my count was subjective (most were clear, but not all were). But it suggested that those who support the AGW claims were not as well informed. Thaat has ALWAYS been my experience off line; not one AGW supporter in my real life has ever read ANYTHING other than MSM accounts and headlines. None of them can defend their position. And when they get backed into a corner, their defense of last resort is, “Well what if it is true?” – using the Precautionary Principle as their only real argument – to hell with whether the science is actually there or not! Let’s all just put gazillions of people (all over the world) out of jobs by closing down their plants.
@ur momisugly LarryOldtimer July 8, 2010 at 10:56 am:
Larry, that is the single most astute statement I have read in over 10 years of reading on this subject. You are not the only one who has thought of it (I did, too), but I’ve never seen anyone say it: Averaging or rounding or using rules of thumb at the individual data point level is NOT science!
SCIENCE IS THOROUGH. The only reason to not look at each one individually is laziness and lack of thoroughness.
Each station and proxy has its own peculiarities. If that makes too much work for the CRU crew, then HEY! Get the hell out of the kitchen, people! Leave it for real scientists!
@ur momisugly Caleb July 8, 2010 at 11:03 am:
I’ve made this point before (and so have others), here and elsewhere:
When you adjust and that adjustment averages different types of datasets with differing time scales and different time precisions to their data points, it is inevitable that you get a flattened curve. And then when you take the averaged and blended data and make a 13-month rolling average curve out of it, you flatten it all even more. And then you extrapolate proxy values from ice cores out over the entire globe and over several decades and centuries, based on some assumptions someone made before about how Antarctic temps relate to the rest of the world.
So what you end up with is something that has no extremes in it. And then any current values a little bit on the outside of the Standard Deviation “wow” in the real data looks like something way out of whack. (Personally, I want to SEE parallel traces on both sides of any curve showing the SD on the “+” side and the “-” side.)
So, they blur the blurring and then blur that some more, and smooth that out, and end up with a nearly flat curve over many months and years, when the ups and downs all over the place were – well, all over the place. That is why the anomaly graphs all have such small deviations in them (in ranges like +0.5C and – 0.3C). Everyone here has to have asked very early on, “HOW in hell does a +0.7C cause an MWP, or a -0.3C create an LIA? We can’t even SENSE that small of a temperature change from hour to hour, and THAT is supposed to bring on catastrophe????”
It is all because they DO blur and blur and then blur some more. ANd then flatten it with 13-month rolling averages.
The Thames didn’t freeze solid because of a 0.3C dip in the temps.
Greenland did not become arable because of a 0.7C increase in temps.
We should all be asking – even in the non-Hockey-Stick curves – “Where in the hell are the ups and downs? What happened to them? THEY DID HAPPEN.”
Patagon says:
It could be interesting to know how each of us rejected the AGW hypothesis.
—-
Me: I studied physics at the University of Copenhagen around 1995-2000. Already at that time governments were trying to push through the AGW hypothesis into the mind of people. At least 3 different professors whispered to us during classes saying basically that the science of CO2 had been hijacked, and that we can’t trust what IPCC is telling us.
As time passed I anyway started to believe what I was told in the media. Especially when I was told that thousands of scientists agreed etc. Through reader comments on a mainstream Danish newspaper blog I was pointed to CA and WUWT mid-2009 before Climategate. To begin with I was skeptical about WUWT/CA (there is so much junk on the Internet). Then came Climategate, I started digging and realized that AGW was indeed a gigantic hoax, remembering what teachers had told me more that 10 years ago. To this day I am still in shock.
Of course MSNBC does not even understand what serious allegations were. There were two important ones (1) Withholding data and (2) Deletion of emails *after* the FOIA request. That is illegal and for this we have clearcut evidence from the emails. This is from Phil Jones himself:
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”
“About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. “
Re: comments from George E. Smith, John from CA, Caleb, juanslayton.
If there was fabrication, it was after ignoring the Medieval Warming Period, de-selecting inconvenient tree ring data, and selecting-in AGW corroborating temperature data, that they produced the Hockey Stick. The HS was the crystalising point of fabrication, an artefact wholly without substance, but used by the AGW supporters as truth.
In science, we all use extrapolations, and may reject unsound data with good reasons, or base results on statistical probabilities. However, there is a difference between a recorded/reproducable methodology used by the diligent, and the casual methods of the CRU which lost the raw data, refused reasonable requests for explanation of their approach to data validation, and promoted only the more extreme GW conclusions.
Just wait until Olbermann and Maddox get through foaming at the mouth over the “no nothing” conservative fascists who voted no.
Whatever gobbledy goop MSNBC sticks on the end of it, NO. Capital NO is the correct answer.
I’ve seen a couple of you begging off because the wording of the question didn’t fit your personal opinion exactly.
Here’s a little clue for you.
The next time MSNBC reports on “Climategate” will be the first time it reports on Climategate.
Google search of the MSNBC domain for articles with “climategate” in the title.
So get over yourself. Quit whining, lift your skirts Nancy. VOTE NO. VOTE NOW.
Push MSNBC into making a decision