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.
Yes Evan,
One should never instigate any inquiry / poll unless the result is already known 🙂
Well, that, by analogy, is what they tell lawyers.
(They were probably relying on their model.)
What made me a skeptic?
I started out as one from the getgo, based entirely on prejudice: The same damn crowd that had been 180-degrees wrong on every environmental and demographic issue was at it again. With the same proposed remedy — again.
Sort of like a little kid who has twenty-eleven different problems, all of which will be magically solved if only he is allowed to stay up until 11:30.
Therefore, inductive logic (i.e., prejudice) predominated. Paint me jaundiced.
I confirmed my prejudice only by bits and pieces until I happened upon WUWT and Dr. Pielke’s blog. WUWT is what did the job, though.
In the lair of the ecohippy, MSfreakinNBC, the most biased network going,
the “No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming” votes have eclipsed the 61%.
This can’t just be due to WUWT readers.
MAN. We have the stop Al Gore’s eco-guilt cult dead in it’s tracks, proposition 23 coming up in November.
Boreal Ridge is still open for skiing in July, and the PDO has shifted to La Nina for the coming season.
Would it be presumtive of me to predict a cold Autumn for California Democrats?
I went to msnbc, voted no. Now at 61.1% no. Now I have to figure out how to wash off the electronic stink of that site…
Apparently skepticism of those enquiries is growing.
Now @ur momisugly 07:40 GMT
Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.
7,884 votes = 38.9%
=========
No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.
12,379 votes = 61.1%
OK, here is my “why I became a skeptic” essay:
As a retired particle physicist I was vaguely aware from the media that the consensus was that we were in danger of excessive heating due to burning fossil fuels. Usually one does not doubt scientific statements from other disciplines that come out en mass, trusting in the integrity of the scientists and the peer review system. Equally I would not expect to be questioned on “consensus” statements from particle physics: scientists do the best they can with what means they have. New data may change “consensus” but it is a slow and careful process. Thus, though not a “believer” in AGW I was nodding to the chorus.
Then came those 6 meters of sea rise by Gore, which surprised me. I have a holiday cottage 50 meters from the sea and I started counting height! I also started reading on the subject, i.e. the physics chapter of AR4.
Then came the disappearance of the medieval warm period, right on the heels of the discovery of the frozen alpine hunter , due to AGW of course. An obvious oxymoron: how could the present be the highest temperature when the passes were open when he passed and was frozen? The temperatures should have been at least equal and probably much warmer for the hunter not to be aware of the danger of dying in a freeze.
While reading chapter 8 of AR4 I became horrified at the sloppy way data was handled/presented , particularly the spaghetti graphs that tried to fool the eye on how badly the models fit the data.
Then came the internet blogs, CA, and Lucia and Whatsup.
And that was how I started in my small way giving lectures trying to open people’s eyes on the great exaggerations of the CAGW train, let alone the bad science.
Kate said on July 8, 2010 at 11:19 am:
This is news these days in the UK? Is there a UK shortage of two-headed calves to report on?
Oh well, at least it wasn’t another report about a three-eyed fish found near Springfield.
😉
Current results:
No – 62%, 20,467 votes
Keith Oberman is a pompous twit who hates mankind because he and his ilk are relegated to a newschannel watched by 2% of the population – 100%
Ralph says: “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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo ”
Brilliant. But, like Dilbert, it’s too true to be comedic.
Total of 20,658 votes
Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.
38.6% 7,969 votes
No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.
61.4% 12,689 votes
20,673 votes, stats unchanged — 61.4% Nay to 38.6% Aye.