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.
Hey—I thought that the Muir investigated only procedures, not science. Funny how MSNBC can conclude that the “Science is sound”. Maybe they mean, “Sounds like science, sorta.”
I became a confirmed doubter when real climate wouldn’t answer my questions, or anyone else that dared to ask tough questions. When I found out that they didn’t have answers, or were obfuscating, I knew that they were skating on thin ice. Sort of like holding onto sub-prime mortgage and hoping that the value of it doesn’t drop before selling it to some poor slob.
Sorry, I thought I would take part in the poll. How do you answer when the questions are biased, and their poll results are even worse?
I went back and voted “no,” but the questions are as strongly biased as the data and the theory.
Since WUWT pointed its readers at the poll:
Now 58.9 percent NO (including mine, of course);
17,374 total votes. . . . .
Demonstrating once again the power of WUWT readers of the #1 rated science blog.
David Davidovics says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:34 am
Thats probably the fastest vote I’ve ever made.
I love you man.
I didn’t leave any hanging chad.
Heading south for the AGW side.
I doubt they’d have had this poll had they known the results beforehand.
Yes Evan,
One should never instigate any inquiry / poll unless the result is already known 🙂
I just voted. Let’s drive the warmers and MSNBC nuts by voting “No.”
What made me a skeptic?
(1) An Inconvenient Truth. Normally, someone who wants to mislead gets fairly far into their argument before slipping in some shoddy logic. Here, the first logical fallacy was out on the marquee: begging the question by asserting that what we were going to see was truth. I recognized the movie as propaganda even before I bought my popcorn and saw Al Gore’s puss;
(2) RealClimate: The endless ad hominem attacks presented in lieu of argument, the snark, the spittle-spewing rants, the sycophantic posts, the hubris, the elitist attitude all convinced me that CAGW must be bogus. People who have the truth don’t have to do these things.
(3) SolarCycle24: Many good posts there regarding the science. Also, SC24 comments had the links that led me to WUWT and CA;
(4) My college courses in radiation into gases, astrophysics, and logic;
(5) My experience in constructing computer models of complex systems. Models, no matter how clever, never really replicate the mathematics of an actual system. Any claim that the models validate AGW theory was obviously false.
The question to ask is not whether they fabricated data, but whether their interpretation of the raw data was using flawed methodologies.
Also, whether conclusions drawn are incompatible with the data analysis concluded.
Neither of those two lead to scientific ostracism, unlike data fabrication.
Both lead to inappropriate public education, political action and unbalanced media reporting.
I consider those to be completely reprehensible.
But the debate doesn’t reach that position. Presumably because interests do not wish it to do so.
About time they did……
At 8 AM EST, it’s 59.6% voting No, and 40.4% voting yes. Go blue!
I became a sceptic researching density for power generation and came across salinity changes and wanted to know why, when there was no MASSIVE evaporation to concentrate the salt. Every excuse for everything later was a single gas CO2.
The research I was doing showed absolutely NO mechanics was incorporated into understanding how this planet actually works only math and figure graphs on gases and temperature and pressure.
Evaporation and gravity also planetary slowdown are very sketchy in the science department.
“No” is almost up to 60% as I voted.
A quick decision followed by a ‘no’ vote. Hopefully, when the pollsters realise the strength of the ‘no’ vote, at least some rational material may appear on MSN.
I become a sceptic after asking an innocent question about standards for official climate thermometer siting and equipment on the Grauniad’s CIF and getting pretty much vilified as a ‘Denier Troll’ for my very mildly-phrased question. At that stage of my pursuit of climatic information, I understood ‘Denier’ to be a term used for the diameter of threads of man-made fibres. After that, my sceptical senses alerted, I trawled through various web sites, was apalled by the nastiness of some to innocents abroad such as me and soon stumbled upon this site, which has become a daily neccesity. I have read a significant number of the Climategate emails and have been drawn to examine ‘the science’ to the best of my admittedly limited ability. I now regard M and M and other committed forensic analysts as heroes and admire Anthony, the team and their work at WUWT tremendously.
The results are now 59.9% to 40.1%. Let’s see Olby discuss that.
It’s 11:15 Ontario time and the poll has hit 60% for no. The consensus is they are lying sacks… Have a great weekend all!
Jeff
I have known that the CAGW idea was a sack of crap for many years, I have been looking at what really drives the weather, solar wind variations from the interactions of the Earth with the other planets, and the Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere that drives the Rossby waves, and moves the jet stream positions, generating the global circulation patterns, that drive the weather, that results in the climate.
The common periods of oscillations in the ocean basins are a result of the compounding of these planetary and Lunar declinational interaction periods, creating the QBO, PDO, PDV, ENSO, ANO, and other patterns that are the trees mainstream cannot see through to see the forest. Co2 is just a fog generated by the greedy to subvert the funding that is in too short a supply for real science already.
Despite the loaded question I had no difficulty voting no – ‘hiding the decline’ pretty much equates to concocting the data in my book . Now 39.9% to 60.1%.
Don’t be too picky about the polling choice. As is often the case, you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
60.2%
The Nixon White House has investigated and absolved itself
I always thought the ‘Yes Minister’ poll was the best.
.
Vote 1:
a. Do you want your children to experience the great outdoors, with plenty of excercise and discipline, and to learn valuable trades that will assist them with their careers?
b. Are you in favour of national service?
A. Yes, of course – you bet.
.
.
Vote 2:
a. Do you want your children to live in a dirt trench, eat processed dried food, and learn how to kill and maim people?
b. Are you in favour of national service?
A. Of course not – terrible thing.
.
.
The art of political polling……
.
And here is the original ‘balanced polster’ from ‘Yes Minister’. Still brings a smile and a laugh – they don’t make comedy like this any more:
.
This poll has turned into a Roman Triumph. The voting had been tracking at 3 to 1 against up until the noon whistle hit the West Coast, then it was Katy bar the door. I wonder if the cold temperature “Fonzie” we’re having in Los Angeles and San Diego had anything to do with it?
At 1:35 PM Pacific time it’s 39.3% for, 60.7 % against.