The “I Can Change Your Mind about Climate” website of the ABC TV in Australia reminds me of the famous phrase “your gonna get your mind right, Luke” from the 1967 classic movie “Cool Hand Luke” with Paul Newman:
The round1 voting, which I talked about here, is over, and the skeptics, listed as “dismissive”, well outnumbered the alarmists, looking to be 2 to 1, as seen in this Google cache image from Apr 26, 2012 11:50:33 GMT, ending with 19,900 votes counted:
Now, they profess to have changed people’s minds with their video and website, and Round 2 voting is open here…the alarmists have a lead.
So for those of you in Australia, no matter which side of the debate you are on, you can vote again.
For expats living abroad, you’ll need to remember your old Australian postcode to vote.
==============================================================
UPDATE:
Jennifer Marohasy reports that according to Jo Nova, the video interview with the skeptic side mainly ended up on the cutting floor:
“We did 4 hours of footage at our house, and they showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Rose’s questions. I repeated my favourite lines about 28 million weather balloons, 3000 ocean buoys off by heart at least 4 times [which show no global warming and therefore a mismatch between reality and theory]. Obviously everything I said was too ‘dangerous’. But we have the full tape of the whole event, so sooner or later the world will see the parts that the ABC deemed to be not ‘interesting’ to the Australian public. So all in all, pretty much as we expected. They trimmed it down to the point where it’s tame, they gave the alarmists the last word (they always do)…”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The alarmists believe that what we have here is, a failure to communicate.
It has all the feel of brainwashing. The poor sod on the other side was worn down until finally he confessed that it wasn’t a good idea to rely on fossil fuels. What a joke.
I was dismissive, again 🙂
Keep an eye on total votes, not just percentages.
It would be ironic if Round 2 had half the votes of Round 1. That would truly be “dismissive.”
I thought maybe they might have changed the nature of the ‘scoring’ to lean towards the ‘alarmism’. But proably not – I took the ‘quiz’ again, putting the same answers down as before, and came up ‘dismissive’. – as occurred the first time.
I suspect they have a LARGE number of ‘plants’ to take the survey, answering the questions in a way ‘stack the deck’ to the alarmed. But what else would we expect – they must have the poll go ‘their way’ . . .
. . .What a joke . . .
“What we got here is… failure to communicate.”
If you don’t like the results of a survey, re-do it until you get the results you like.
Hey, we can save millions, billions, in scientific research! Who needs labs and all that expensive manpower and equipment? Just set up a poll!
-What is the value of the cosmological constant? less than one / one / greater than one
-What causes leukemia? Genetics / environmental toxins / radiation exposure
-Does the Higgs Boson exist? yes / no / not sure
Wow. The next great leap in science.
Yeah – the total number of votes cast tell the story here.
This was a mindless programme with the “skeptic” ex parliamentarian displaying his ignorance, This was nothing more than the ABC pushing the warmist wheelbarrow.
@Stephen Fisher
Expect a HUGE surge in alarmist (numbers as well as percentages), the ‘lady’ in the debate has ~57k green-shirts in her corner, then there’s the ‘Getup’ crowd that will also be mobilised.
The silent majority are ignoring the whole thing and waiting on the General Election.
I am expecting the MSN to trumpet the poll ‘results’ to indicate most of us actually support the ‘Carbon’ tax.
The real vote will be when Julia runs out of tricks to keep a HOR majority (currently 1) – if she does then if will be Nov 2013 before we get chance to destroy Federal Labor and Green as they just did in QLD, we are hoping the independants realise they backed the wrong Hack – er – horse and allow Abbott to win a ‘no-confidence’ vote in the HoR. That should force a General election. if it doesn’t then the Governor General should dissolve the HoR.
BUT – her son in law is a minister in the Labor ‘government, if she wont act then it’s up to HRH herself to act
Interesting times indeed :\
Aidan (avid reader of this blog, science dunce but old enough to recognise yet another scam when I see one) – Perth WA
PS: Thanks to this blog and links and comments in it I have been able to have one mate become doubtful (from pro-AGW) and got another friedn in the UK looking at it instead of trumpeting the CAGW ‘doctrine’ – both a much more ‘scientific’ than myself – so thanks all your really smart people here 🙂
Excellent, excellent movie that. Saw it when I was 16 and hatin’ on the establishment (43 years ago).
Re-took the poll and came up ‘Dismissive’ again.
Cheers,
Henry.
I can change my mind. When the facts change. The ABC didn’t present any facts.
And Anna has made up her mind. Nothing will change her mind. She’s on a mission. A mission from Gaia.
As for the polls; the ABC-nominated expert on the Q&A panel stated that the results were meaningless. OOPS.
What a stupid survey, the last time i was classed as “dismissive” and now “Doubtful”.
They ask what political affiliation you are, well i vote depending on the issues of the day
and have voted for all the major parties at some time.
The tide is turning and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is still flogging a dead horse
along with most other main stream media.It was a great organization but for the last
decade in my opinion they have been very one sided in many issues including AGW.
I used to be a great fan as well as working for them but now i get 90% of my information
from non main stream internet sources. The old style media is on the way out and are
making the demise faster with their attitudes. As more inquiring people turn to other forms
of information the ABC is only perching to the converted and the audience will shrink.
David Stuart
I came out as “dismissive”, which makes a change from “denier”. I was never too happy about being referred to as a gauge of fibre density.
You can say the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 392 ppm and then really scare someone with armageddon stories because it sounds a rather large number, or you can express it as a decimal fraction in which case it is 0.000392 and then when you try to scare them they would think you’re a lunatic. Same data, different agenda.
So all this ‘let me change your mind’ crap proves is how good of a spin doctor they are when trying to convince the sheeple. No better or worse then Joseph G., the father of all spin doctors.
Anthony.
Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans took the initiative and had a camera guy film the ABC crew which was filming them for this documentary and has the full story on tape. What the ABC edited out is a disgrace!
Good stuff. It’s worthy of knowing.
(:
I will say to the alarmist, who wants to take my money and my rights for a bogus cause, “Stop feedin’ off me!”
I think it will take a vote without a postal code.
Poll results will be about as truthful as if William Connolley had conducted it.
“1519 votes counted”, alarmism showing ahead of us ‘dismissives’ by a small margin.
I think the system is rigged; the fix is already in … dismissive counts are probably routed to the logical ‘null’ device (as found in the DEC OS I/O assignments).
Scored a ‘dismissive’ here as well BTW.
.
Ha! I shifted from ‘Doubtful’ to ‘Dismissive’. Not sure what answers changed…
Rather than bothering to total the actual votes, I’ve heard that they are just going to publish a computer projection of what the vote SHOULD have been.
you want to know my sources? YOU CAN’T SEE MY SOURCES!!!
(Michael Mann told me to say that)
Anna Rose is co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. AYCC.
Anna Rose was asked in the ABC documentary if her participation in this show was a mistake? It’s on the record. Obviously it was, ( My Opinion ) but we can hope she wakes up and smells the roses. I’ve got not no qualms in suggesting she in herself will see her name figure on this website simply because of her commitment to the cause and her beliefs. Anna will come across it eventually.
When she does, maybe she will do some personal research outside of her mainstream media commitments and perhaps wake up?
Let’s wait and see.
Actually I thought the film favored the skeptic position. The girl was obviously not very intelligent and did not have data from even pro agw sites such as CT etc…