Home > AGW, Climate Change, CO2 Emissions, Data, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Policy, Science, Skepticism > UK Science Museum Fails To ‘PROVE IT!’

UK Science Museum Fails To ‘PROVE IT!’

Abysmal news for AGW believers the world over from the UK Science Museum’s “PROVEIT!” site. Despite an entire day of effort, the result is still just a draw.

PROVE IT! rather grandiosely proclaims

I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.

One can thereafter click on “Count Me In” or “Count Me Out“. The day started with around 700 IN, and 4,000 OUT.

At 10:33GMT, 3,916 IN and 4,836 OUT. Twelve hours later, it’s 10:36PM GMT, and 5,352 IN, 5,426 OUT. Even if there is nothing scientific in these onlines polls, considering also how lopsided the count was at the beginning of the day, one thing that is certain is that there are simply not enough AGW web users to counterbalance skepticism on their own

(I would not be surprised if in the long run the numbers will be higher on the AGW side…persuasion is the weapon of the AGW campaigner…)

=====

PROVE IT! claims to provide “the evidence to decide where you stand”. Does it? One has to dig a lot in the site but it appears the evidence that the climate is changing rests solely on the increase in temperature “by 0.75 °C“. And the effects that should prove the climate is changing are dubious to say the least:

Rainfall patterns are changing. After three centuries of stability, sea level is now rising. Ice in the Arctic is melting further back year on year. Extreme weather, such as droughts and hurricanes, is becoming more common or more intense. The changing weather patterns are causing plants to flower earlier in the year and species to migrate as the climate in their habitats changes

If I happen to pass by the PROVE IT! exhibition, I will think of the best ways to rectify the Science of the science Museum on the topic…

Advertisements
  1. papertiger
    2009/10/31 at 09:29

    Omni

    Yourself and Pau,l between the two of you, have inadvertently recorded the entire story arch of the fiddling with the result of the “Prove It!” museum site.

    As I remember this is the first time the warmers have been caught straight out doing what we have all suspected them of since the beginning, gaming the vote of their blessed consensus.

    It’s well worth commemoration. Perhaps a special featured tag on the sidebar, allowing the easy one step retreval for that occasion when a graphic display of the lack of character on the warminist side is called for?

    Here is the beginning post showing the commanding lead of climate realists,
    http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/10/vote-count-me-out-of-unsound-unachievable-climate-policy/ .

    Your own post shows the alarmists closing the gap.

    Then back over to Paul to see the museum busting the warmists dishonestly stuffing the ballot box.
    http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/10/greens-caught-fiddling-science-museum-count-me-in-vote/

    Excellent work.

    • geoff chambers
      2009/10/31 at 20:14

      To be fair, the first ballot stuffer was a sceptic who confessed at Wattsupwiththat and was more or less ordered to apologise by fellow bloggers. Robert Phelan at WUWT makes the valid point that the sceptic lead seems unnaturally high (though the fact that it has remained constant since early in the count, and the fact that the Museum has left the poll up, suggests that it is genuine).
      I have wondered aloud at WUWT and at Harmless Sky why the green alarmists, who must outnumber us ardent sceptic bloggers by a magnitude or two, have not organised a fightback via their extensive network. I suggest they don’t visit sites which have “science” in the title, but that hardly seems a satisfactory explanation…
      Any ideas?

      • papertiger
        2009/11/02 at 09:31

        My thought – the alarmists don’t have as many ardent followers as they like to pretend.
        Perhaps if Andy Revkin posted a link, then we’d have a contest, with the bulk of progressive New York in on the thing as a matter of pride.

  2. Luke Warmer
    2009/10/29 at 11:19

    It’s looking like an interesting story following the various links etc. Clearly both sides had ‘hacks’ but after the adjustment the proAGW side lost many more votes. Should be interesting to see how it gets resolved, although I agree with you that eventually it would be expected that there would be more pros.

    It would be a fascinating case study illustrating the hubris of the warmers, the over-simplistic politicisation of science and many other vices. Even the telegraph article talks about us ‘hijacking’ the vote – a strange view of democracy.

    I do have the sinking feeling that it won’t be long before a warmer points out that a “prove it” type site for evolution would also get lots of negative votes from creationists. This apparent parallel is very frustrating as I’m sure you’d agree that the secular (or culture-free) scientific viewpoint is our own. I wanted to raise this before they did but let’s just see what happens. At the very least they’ll have to get over 10,000 pro-votes to beat the Pew-poll level of American popular skeptics.

  3. Douglas Hoyt
    2009/10/28 at 23:26

    At 10-27, 7PM EST (11PM GMT), it was 782 counted in and 5356 counted out. Looks like they decided to discard the results made before around 5PM GMT on Tuesday.

  4. 2009/10/28 at 20:47

    It’s now about 8.45 PM on Wednesday and the counter appears to have been reset (again) – 778 in and 5322 out. This really isn’t going very well for them so far, is it.

  5. 2009/10/28 at 17:35

    Was briefly outside the Science Museum today and couldn’t help noticing the total absence of anything indicating an exhibition on climate change is going on…

  6. curvedwater
    2009/10/27 at 22:15

    10-27: 5436 counted in so far 6675 counted out so far

  7. 2009/10/27 at 18:07

    A letter of complaint? By the sound of it, a thank you note, because shambles can only support shambles

    • geoff chambers
      2009/10/28 at 05:39

      I don’t mind a shambles. It’s a government-ordained shambles that bothers me. Or should our museums be renamed Government Policy Showrooms?

  8. geoff chambers
    2009/10/27 at 17:53

    There’s been a lot of discussion of this at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/
    and at
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=53#comments
    On WUWT one Lihard confessed to having stuffed the ballot with a thousand No votes, and apologised. Then at midnight yesterday someone started stuffing the Yes box.
    The voting farce has obscured other more serious facets of this story. From an article in the Times at
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
    we learn that Chris Rapley, the director of the Science Museum, made “a last minute decision to create the exhibition in August after a briefing at the Department of Energy and Climate Change” and that “the museum had not been planning to run a climate change exhibition until 2011”.
    and from this link
    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=209274
    we learn that he is an “eye-poppingly vehement” believer in global warming, who apparently agrees with Monbiot that climate sceptics should be subject to Nuremberg-type trials.
    A commenter on the WUWT thread provided a list of the ragbag of design consultants and PR outfits who cobbled this exhibition together in two months. A letter of complaint to the museum trustees seems to me a good idea. They are listed at
    http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/boardoftrustees.asp
    Any suggestions on how to word the complaint? The two major issues seem to me to be the bad science on the site, (which I hope someone more qualified than me will tackle), and the idea of a Museum arranging an exhibition at short notice to please a government department.

  9. 2009/10/27 at 17:20

    For a ‘Science’ Museum, there is remarkably little balance or scientific method.

    The site seems to amount to: we have decided, so please fall in line. If you disagree, and want to be Counted Out, are you really sure? You can’t have seen the evidence we’ve seen. Look here to make sure you choose the right option. Want to Make Your Own Message? Here, have one of ours – no skepticism allowed…

  10. 2009/10/27 at 11:51

    This is where networking sites like Twitter could come in very handy. It seems to me that until very recently, those of us sceptical of AGW catastrophism just haven’t been all that organised, while on the other hand our alarmist counterparts regularly punch beyond their weight, it seems.

    On another note, it surprises me that the Science Museum can make a statement like “After three centuries of stability, sea level is now rising,” implying a sort of hockey stick-like pattern. Centuries of nothing happening, and then all of a sudden, sea levels start to go up. I think dubious is too polite a term for this.

  11. 2009/10/27 at 10:47

    Just try ‘spreading the word’ if you disagree with ‘The Science Museum’… The poll is stacked on only one side…

  1. 2009/11/24 at 23:15
  2. 2009/10/27 at 10:07

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: