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.
Ray said @ur momisugly April 26, 2012 at 10:16 am
You don’t know much about biology and nitrogen fixation, do you?
Hmmm… 5 digits in the first pic, “results so far”, only 4 in today’s.
Somebody’s been trimming data. And not noting the fact.
REPLY: No, two rounds of voting, starting over in round 2 – Anthony
The fight was rigged and the whole affair was designed to make sceptics look foolish.
But the ABC Q and A program is notorious for being fixed by ignoring real experts that can represent the Right side of politics and then outnumbering them by those of the Left who receive rapturous applause from the audience.
In this case Clive Palmer, the successful coal mining magnate, but not so well read, was selected because they knew he would make some outlandish statements and be shot down by the opposing scientist planted in the audience from the University of NSW. I did not hear one scientific sceptic comment from the panel or from the audience whereas on the panel we had the head of the CSIRO and in the audience the scientific expert from the NSW University who was given lots of opportunity to expound on his interpretation of data.
Bob Carter alone would have won both the undecided TV and live audiences over with one arm tied behind his back.
Unfortunately for the naive ABC, they believe the people cannot see through their ploys. But look at it this way – two or three years ago we would not even have had a debate.
‘Dismissive’ pulling away as of 19:54 UTC (3:54 PM EDT)
http://www.abc.net.au//tv/changeyourmind/inc/vote_central_results.htm
HTML Page With Results
PostShow
Dismissive 35%
Alarmed 31%
Concerned 19%
Doubtful 8%
Cautious 6%
Disengaged 1%
1722 votes counted
I used my French postcode. It does not seem to mind. There is no statement excluding non Aussies from the poll. Dismissive of polls.
I’ve just done the survey and would you believe it – I was a “Dismissive”…….I’m shocked!
The warmist media bloc around the Western hemisphere is really stunning. The Warmists have achieved one thing: I will never trust public media again on anything, and I would vote for the defunding of them if ever given the chance. Here in Germany we have ARD and ZDF and Deutsche Welle. They are not only useless but harmful – by trying their best to maintain and amplify the trillion $ fra*d, they help to bring down an otherwise potentially sane society.
I was dismissive before and after.
Then it occurred to me that some people might deliberately answer the questions to be Dismissive before and Alarmed after.
4:43 EDT
HTML Page With Results
PostShow
Dismissive 36%
Alarmed 30%
Concerned 19%
Doubtful 8%
Cautious 6%
Disengaged 1%
1765 votes counted
I’m Dismissive and apparently Australian too!
As a Dismissive I apparently do not see the issue as personally important and will not change my mind – yet on both of these questions I answered it was personally important (why else would I participate in a blog like this and I’m already forced to pay a carbon indulgence?) and would be perfectly willing to change my mind (not asked but with the caveat if the data showed I should).
Oh well – boilerplate text can’t always be perfect.
If you refresh the page while watching the voting bars, you are able to view percentages.
Record the page (Screen Movie Recorder, Mac) and play it back and you will be able to freeze the image at the proper moment.
1795 votes counted, 36% Dismissive, Alarmed 30%, Concerned 19%, Doubtful 8%, Cautious 6%
can’t see Disengaged.
ok voted and was classed dismissive
ok voted and was classified as dismissive
Why bring Happisburgh into the video?
That erosion has been going on for time immemorial!
Are we to blame for the tides too?
DaveE.
Voted. Dismissive. Now running at 37% and climbing with a bullet.
When the polar ice caps on Mars were observed as reducing in size by NASA during the warm period here on Earth one has to wonder what fuel the Marsians use. We are in trouble but it’s planetary cycles folks, Carbon has absolutely nothing to do with it
An extremely good call, and a lesson to anyone ever being interviewed for such a program.
1906 votes and dismissives have hit the lead.
GO DISMISSIVES
“If I wanted America/ Australia/Europe to fail”
http://youtu.be/CZ-4gnNz0vc
Wow!
Or, alternatively, one can simply click:
. . . . . http://www.abc.net.au//tv/changeyourmind/inc/vote_central_results.htm
And get:
HTML Page With Results
PostShow
Dismissive 38%
Alarmed 29%
Concerned 18%
Doubtful 8%
Cautious 6%
Disengaged 1%
1912 votes counted
The ABC program was devoid of facts, observations or science. Political points of view were in evidence everywhere. Anna (the young Greenie) used many of the well-known counters (Concensus science, appeal to authority, tobacco/oil funding, ad homs, etc). Nick (the retired right-wing politician) was more aware of sceptic viewpoints, but the only one of his counter-punches that was included in the final program was his response to Anna’s attack on Dick Lindzen.
The Panel was stacked: all the “good guys” were girls (pro-CAGW) and the “baddies” were boys (sceptics). In the media, girls being assertive = good; boys being assertive = bullies.
No anti-CAGW scientist on the Panel or in the studiio audience.
But I would wager that the program’s producers believe that they have made a “balanced” program.
Dismissive and proud of it.
Nick Minchin has a column on the show in the SMH this morning. It is a very rare sceptical article in that usually extremely CAGW flavoured newspaper.
not one iota of that terrible pre Q & A programme would have convinced me to be a CAGW supporter……. if I had already been (which I was NOT) I may well have changed my mind after seeing that pompous young lady refuse to dialogue with people who’s precepts she disagreed with. She sure as heck showed her true clours and let everyone on the planet and those in outerspace know just how ignorant she is. I am DISMISSIVE and proud of it…….. T-SHIRTS anyone?
Clare in Tassie
LOL, thanks.