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)…”
Is the poll supposed to be for Aussies only? I don’t think so. I used my U.S. postal code and they accepted it both times. I think if they were going to only count Aussie answers they would be good enough to say that up front, before people take the time to fill in the poll. I just double-checked and they state no such limitation.
One word to describe the likes of the ABC and “Anna”, scary! If this is representitive of Australia, as Bender would say, we’re boned!
Jerold says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:05 am
Yeah, now tell them there is about 80% nitrogen in the atmosphere… a gas pretty much useless than only keeps the planet from burning up…
Jerold says:
you can express it as a decimal fraction in which case it is 0.000392
If your going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. It’s 0.0392.
No MartinGAtkins if you are going to say 0.0392 you need to put the % sign behind that. If you are using it without percentage then CO2 would be 0.000392. Hope that helps.
MartinGAtkins says:
April 26, 2012 at 10:21 am
you can express it as a decimal fraction in which case it is 0.000392
If your going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. It’s 0.0392.
____________________________
You spell “strait” this way: straight
PPM stands for one part per million. [ One million (1000000) or one thousand thousand ] so that is a one divided by 1,000,000 = .000001 therefore 392 ppm is 392 times .000001 = .000392
Dismissive is now at 31%, alarmed at 33%, so the gap is closing rapidly.
Also, if you express 392ppm as a decimal, it is 0.000392. If you express it as a percentage it’s 0.0392%.
Just did my vote (my view hasn’t changed). Numbers have changed from 1361 to 1594, but the dismissives are rapidly catching up with the alarmed. It looks like all the 200 odd votes are all dismissives.
It makes you wonder what round 42 will bring?
Just watched the vid and done my round 2. Apparently I’m now dismissive and have done my homework , rather than being doubtful and not having researched the issues (in direct contradiction of the information I supplied in round 1).
It seems their film must have changed my mind about some key questions…
Typical bit of media really – so much footage of them travelling from hither to yon that the modest percentage of actual climate talk was almost incidental and wouldn’t convince anyone either way anyhow. Had a look at their quiz, but balked at question 1 (“Do you think that global warming is happening?”) because my answer to that is “On what timescale?”, and they didn’t say.
Hey ho. There goes another hour. 😐
Well, I sat through the whole video and retook the test. I went from being Dismissive before to being Dismissive after. I still don’t get the C in CAGW. If it’s sea level rise it may be true sometime in the next hundred years or so some people will have some tough decisions to make. You know, do I stay here and drown or move? The amount of land opening up based on warmists’ theories will more than replace future lost coast land. The truth is at some point in the earth’s future the sea level would most likely rise higher and fall lower than now anyway. It’s happened before. Using natural gas to help lift people from poverty should not be put on hold based on alarmist CAGW Model outcome. Besides, warm good …cold bad.
Taphonomic says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:17 am
“If you don’t like the results of a survey, re-do it until you get the results you like.”
Much like the EU did when convincing the Irish to accept greater integration…
Hello All, I did my part, filled out the ridiculously baised and leading question survey and came up as dismissive again. I hope they count my votes since I live in Wyoming, USA. BTW Dismissives were at 32%.
Anna Rose is walking proof that the real long term problem with this Global Warming Scam is that there is a whole generation of young Australians which have been taught to believe that not only is man-made global warming/climate change real, but also that it’s up to them to “convert” everyone else to their cause. It’s almost a cult-like mentality.
AGW will eventually be filed under “what were they thinking?” when the predicted catastrophic effects fail to materialise, but that wont stop this brainwashed generation believing that the catastrophe is still on its way. The predictions of catastophic events date to the year 2100, so it’s possible that this cult could survive the rest of the century.
And if I can’t change your mind I’ll wash it for you! Just let me put on some dark sunglasses and you just watch the light.
Keep voting until you get the result you want. What a crock. Hey Jo (I’ve always wanted to say that here for some reason) if you have a copy of their edits post it on youtube and send the link our way! It’ll get enough hits to keep your site funded for years.
take the ABC survey here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/
dave ward says:
April 26, 2012 at 11:11 am
Taphonomic says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:17 am
“If you don’t like the results of a survey, re-do it until you get the results you like.”
Much like the EU did when convincing the Irish to accept greater integration…
Dave Ward got in before me.
And since we’re on this bent, if I may, in the above, please, it’s ” you’re ” (a contraction of YOU ARE) instead ‘your’ (* which means ‘some thing the other guy/gal which you-are-addressing owns’) like “your hat is on crooked” (and not “you are hat on crooked” as a difference) …
Let’s try substitution with the two and see how they turn out:
If SOME THING THING YOU OWN going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. [sic] It’s 0.0392.
vs
If YOU ARE going to tell anyone anything you need to get your facts strait. [sic] It’s 0.0392.
Thank you for your attention. From now on, you’re on your own.
.
.
* your [yoor, yawr, yohr] adj.
1. (a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective): Your jacket is in that closet. I like your idea.
2. one’s (used to indicate that one belonging to oneself or to any person): The consulate is your best source of information. As you go down the hill, the library is on your left.
3. (used informally to indicate all members of a group, occupation, etc., or things of a particular type): Take your factory worker, for instance. Your power brakes don’t need that much servicing..
Dismissive has moved into the lead; 1670 votes (my browser is not showing percentages either).
I figured I should watch the video before taking the poll and I came out dismissive.
I found the girl to be very annoying in her ad hominem arguments and flat out refusing to talk to some people. And what the hell was Muller doing in this thing?
Direct page w/numerical results (percentages, vote total):
http://www.abc.net.au//tv/changeyourmind/inc/vote_central_results.htm
HTML Page With Results
PostShow
Dismissive 34%
Alarmed 32%
Concerned 19%
Doubtful 8%
Cautious 6%
Disengaged 1%
1681 votes counted
A pathetic excuse for a documentary. I learned almost nothing.
The clip with Lindzen was telling. Rose threw up an irrelevant distraction that was quite inappropriate. (Minchin’s outrage was right on the mark.) Rather than omit the distraction so it could include some information that viewers might gleen from Lindzen, the ABC production focused entirely on the controversial but irrelevant distraction.
Someone in authority needs to take a long hard look at the ABC, right after we get a new government!
Apparently Anna Rose is married to Simon Sheikh, director of the activist organisation GetUp which specialises in mobilising leftist/green votes. Google Anna Rose Simon Sheikh to see details. Details on GetUp at their website http://www.getup.org.au, Also Google GetUp.
Those of you from outside Australia wanting to participate in the survey using an Australian postcode can find information on Australian postcodes here: http://www.postcodes-australia.com/