5 thoughts on “Vote on “climate change is caused by humans””

  1. The count was about 6 in and 62 out when I submitted the comment below. It was 5400 in and 6298 out last night. Anyway, below are my submitted comments:

    Here is an explanation of the cause of recent climate changes:

    1. Between 1983 and 2001, there was an increase of solar radiation at the surface of the order of 0.16 watts/sq m per year (Pinker et al, 2005).

    2. The trend over oceans was greater at 0.24 watts/sq m per year with the overall trend for land based observations showing no significant trend (Pinker et al., 2005).

    3. The data is consistent with ISCCP satellite data showing a global decrease in cloudiness (Pinker et al., 2005).

    4. The data is also consistent with lunar brightness observations (Palle et al., 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009).

    5. The data is also consistent with an observed warming of the oceans at this time. This ocean warming explains the atmospheric warming over land, without any greenhouse effect (Compo and Sandeshmukh, 2008). Using a climate model as a diagnostic tool, they show that the heat flows from the oceans to the atmosphere.

    6. The magnitude of the observed solar radiation trend over 19 years is 4.5 watts/sq m compared to a computed trend in thermal IR due to greenhouse gases of 0.8 watts/ sq m.

    7. The implied climate sensitivity from the above observations is 0.56 C for a CO2 doubling (Taylor, 2009).

    8. Using an entirely different set of observations, Lindzen and Choi (2009) deduce the climate sensitivity is 0.6 C for a CO2 doubling.

    9. Since about 2000, the cloud cover trend has shown a reversal with slightly increasing clouds, leading to a mild cooling of the oceans (Willis, 2008) and a downward trend in atmospheric temperatures over the last 8 years using either satellite or surface observations.

    10. The overall conclusion from these observations is that any warming due to mankind’s influence is less than 1 C and will continue to be small in the coming years. The cloud cover variations could be unforced oscillations in a chaotic climate system or they could be forced by cosmic ray flux changes (Svensmark, 2007). The cause of the cloud cover changes is not relevant to the arguments presented here.

  2. There seems to be a bit of confusion over the In/Out count. At one point the vote appeared to be around 6 to 1 in favour of ‘Out’. In his post above, Douglas Hoyt (and others) has provided figures which show the vote to be much closer. But I’ve just had a look and, unless I’m looking in the wrong place, it still seems to be nearer to the 6:1 ratio(i.e. Out 5765 ; In 845).

  3. I have been recording the numbers for a few days now and early morning of the 29th (Canberra) there was a sudden change/reset of both tallies. I email the museum and got this reply.
    Thank you for getting in touch. I have included a link to our explanation which went live on the Science Museum website yesterday.
    Starting on the 27th I have been keeping the tallies at odd times, as it looks to me as though this poll might be “withdrawn” at some point if the IN vote does not perk up.
    Time is AustEastSummer
    IN OUT Time Date
    5400 6300
    5419 6387
    5432 6606
    5438 6721
    5443 6804 1900 28-Oct
    5445 6862 2120 28-Oct
    5470 7097 245 29-Oct
    765 5227 330 29-Oct
    771 5246 430 29-Oct
    778 5317 730 29-Oct
    781 5352 940 29-Oct
    784 5394 1325 29-Oct
    794 5462 2235 29-Oct
    803 5562 500 30-Oct
    823 5627 950 30-Oct
    826 5667 1700 30-Oct
    869 5816 610 31-Oct

  4. I voted, but only once.

    The Science Museum website’s explanation for their sudden massive adjustment on 29 October is that they discovered and removed repeat voting:

    “Between Friday 23 and Wednesday 28 October the poll associated with Prove It! was manipulated through repeat voting. This was undertaken by those who wanted to be “counted in” [warmers] and those who wanted to be “counted out” [sceptics]”

    Good on them for checking. Warwick’s tracking data then give us some material to answer a nice little statistical question: Are warmers more likely to cheat in an internet poll than sceptics? [For a rough calculation we can ignore the no doubt negligible number of votes received between 2.45 and 3.30 on 29 October.]

    Here are the numbers. With cheating: Warmers 5470, Sceptics 7097. After cheating removed: Warmers 765, Sceptics 5227. Average no. of votes cast by each warmer 5470/765 = 7.2. Average number of votes cast by each sceptic 7097/5227 = 1.36. So on average, each warmer cast 6.2 fake votes, and each sceptic 0.36 fake votes. So the warmers were 17 times more likely to cheat!

    OK, it may only have been a handful of cheats on each side, and in that case maybe the warmers should get the palm for being better at it…

    But the real story is that a poll organised by an organisation that says straight out “We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action” still attracts a massive No vote. Hey, Science Museum, 85% of people who bother to come to your site are not convinced. Time for a bit more objectivity in your presentations, instead of the one-sided and tendentious “evidence” currently on your site!

  5. After years of studying climate science and lately delving into highly technical blogs that debate back and forth each paper on global warming that comes out (who I call the “Bicker Brigade”), I have finally come to a conclusion and have created a “worth a thousand words” picture to fully express it. I present The Central England Don’t Panic Yet Chart!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *