Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

British Science Museum Climate Change Poll

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

British Science Museum Climate Change Poll

Old 24th Oct 2009, 17:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 144
British Science Museum Climate Change Poll

The British Science Museum is holding a poll about climate change called "Prove It". They are asking people to be counted in or counted out to the proposition:


"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."
The poll has been going for about two days and there is a running total on the website of the result. I don't think it is going as intended since the current score at 17.10 BST on 24 October is 423 counted in against 2545 counted out. The poll has been fairly steady all day at between 5:1 and 6:1 counted out to counted in. This cannot be the desired result! The website does ask viewers to spread the word so here is the website address: Science Museum - Home - PROVE IT!



What on earth the Science Museum is doing involving itself in this tawdry PR stunt, goodness only knows. How they try and dig themselves out of their hole when they achieve the unintended result is going to be delicious to see.

Last edited by Stoic; 24th Oct 2009 at 17:32.
Stoic is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 17:34
  #2 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 709
The sea levels are falling at one's holiday gaff as the earth's crust springs back from the weight of the last ice age. The high tide mark has moved out over 100 meters in the last 50 years. If a naff tourist island in the Maldives will become a coral reef in 200 years time then surely that must be a good thing.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 17:39
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southeast U K
Posts: 291
The climate can change all it wants to as far as I'm concerned.
The Solar cycle does have an effect on our climate and I believe
that fairs used to be held on the frozen river Thames a couple of
hundred years ago. Mini-ice ages occur regularly, and people either
survive them or not. Modern technology has just got better at knowing
that such changes DO occur. But not how to cope with them.
Ref the old Hitchikers' Guide. Just don't panic. There's no point.
Storminnorm is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 17:43
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 144
Stormin

Hope you took the trouble to vote. The UK govt. will be hoping to use the poll result to agree silly things in Copenhagen. The higher the count me out vote the better!

Regards
Stoic is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 19:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
What will be interesting will be the click-count on the Evidence pages before people voted against the science.

I suspect that most of the anti-science voters will not have bothered to look at the evidence pages first.

Notice that the Poll question starts "I've seen the evidence." I wonder how many of the currently 2730 anti-science voters will have bothered to look at the evidence before voting against it.
Low Flier is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 19:23
  #6 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
What evidence? it was just trotting out the usual well worn clichés, for example:
The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.
That is NOT evidence, Until it is explained exactly why, with no probability's or possibility's, but can be proven absolutely, it's a theory or an opinion.

Just remember there are also well respected scientists that say the warming is caused by the sun.
green granite is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 19:36
  #7 (permalink)  

Eight Gun Fighter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,127
Don't care, where else on this earth can you see Harrison's clocks?
Rollingthunder is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 19:42
  #8 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Errrrrrr The National Maritime Museum Greenwich?
green granite is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 19:49
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southeast U K
Posts: 291
What IS all this freekin "Evidence" anyhow?
It's getting warmer? So what?
Set up a few million Chiller units to combat it.
(Atomic Powered ones would be best.)
I'll start a pineapple farm in a while.
As long as the sea level doesn't rise >280 ft.
Storminnorm is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 20:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
The Met Office website has a good explainer for those who are interested in the science.

For more detailed science the IPCC site lists a great deal of the technical papers which has been produced by the world experts in the field.
Low Flier is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 20:44
  #11 (permalink)  

Official PPRuNe Chaplain
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 76
Posts: 3,502
I've read an awful lot of conflicting "expert opinion". What I've not seen is expert predictions from 20+ years ago that bear any correlation to what's being measured now.

We know weather gets hotter and colder. I was around, playing happily in the snow, in the winter of 1947. Look it up! Compared with that, 1948 was Global Warming.

Let's see some proper analysis, not shouting heads. I'm not for or agin, I just don't know and want to see valid evidence (either way). Expert projections of trendlines into the future carry no weight for me.
Keef is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 21:41
  #12 (permalink)  
Just another erk
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 280
I voted Count me out, The ones who vote count me in, how can they tell climate change with their heads stuck up their R's


Its natural people, get used to it, it will start to get colder soon,
Mind you we did get over the new ice age that the same scientists forcast in the 70's
ArthurR is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 23:05
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 144
Er Low Flier

With the greatest respect there is a hell of a lot of scientific evidence out there. This site was set up as a PR stunt. If I may quote Professor Chris Rapley (who runs the Science Museum) from The Times
“Chris Rapley, the director of the Science Museum, said that a last minute decision had been made to create the exhibition in August after a briefing at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
‘We realised that public interest had flattened out and yet here we were approaching the most historic negotiations in human history,’ he said. The museum had not been planning to run a climate change exhibition until 2011”.
This is a, presently backfiring, political PR stunt. The Science Museum should be ashamed of letting themselves get caught up in such blatant political manipulation. For example the Museum is suggesting that visitors to the Prove It website should send out messages to alarm people such as
"Climate change has already started and we're causing it. "
This is not worthy of the Science Museum - the climate has always been changing, long before man came along. If you want to be guided to some other science on the subject, can I suggest that you might start at Anthony Watts's website:Watts Up With That?

Incidentally the voting now at 23.00 BST is 2977 counted out to 454 counted in - a ratio of over 6.5:1.

Kind regards

S

Last edited by Stoic; 24th Oct 2009 at 23:22.
Stoic is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 23:42
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by Low Flier View Post
What will be interesting will be the click-count on the Evidence pages before people voted against the science.
I suspect that most of the anti-science voters will not have bothered to look at the evidence pages first.
Notice that the Poll question starts "I've seen the evidence." I wonder how many of the currently 2730 anti-science voters will have bothered to look at the evidence before voting against it.
You noticed that too??
Classic way to bias a poll. Even so it does seem to work against them so far.
I did go through their "evidence" first... of which there is none.
One more reason to vote to be "counted out".

Sad actually... I thought the Science Museum was a great place once upon a time. I suppose that in this day and age they have to "toe the government line" to get their funding.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2009, 01:04
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Smaller Antipode
Age: 85
Posts: 14
How many SUV's did it take to melt the Glaciers ?
ExSp33db1rd is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2009, 01:49
  #16 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,043
I've put this in the USA Politics Hamster Wheel thread, which I think is it's proper home, but it may well be of interest here too, to highlight what we may, or may not, be about to do to ourselves, the planet:


parabellum is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2009, 09:45
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 72
Posts: 1,243
The evidence is there that during the Maunder Minimum (1640 to 1740) there was a 'mini Ice Age'. There were no sunspots in that period: fairs were held on the Thames, where in 1699, the ice was about 15 feet thick. During the early 1500s, oranges were grown outdoors in the south of England while in the 1200s, grapes were grown in southern Sweden.

Figures published last month showed global temperatures have dropped to 1999 levels, while the Swede acknowledged as the leading expert on ice caps and glaciers says that oif all the polar ice caps melted, the sea level rise would be about 1.5mm - yes, millimetres. One of the Antarctic ice shelves is actually growing in size....

A much bigger problem to address is overpopulation. It's no use bitching about an ageing population needing younger people to look after them - we haven't got the resources to feed a population growing at the rate it is, Much more of a problem than climate change.

But climate change is a very good scam for rasing taxes and giving money to research grants who come up with more scams needing more money.......
radeng is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2009, 10:13
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 431
Low Flier

The Met Office website has a good explainer for those who are interested in the science.

For more detailed science the IPCC site lists a great deal of the technical papers which has been produced by the world experts in the field.
Have a look at the REAL evidence and how easily it can be manipulated by those who have an agenda...such as restricting growth in the underdeveloped nations AND taxing you and me until it hurts.

A good start would be to look at "Watts Up with that" as mentioned by Stoic .
As for your references to the IPCC, they are the most easily dismissed as has been already done by Lindzen who was a member until he realised how politicised the paper had become.
Lindzen is one of the most well respected climate scientists of the day.


If you're not prepared to look at the REAL evidence and the REAL motivation behind this nonsense, then you will be destined to be a Low Flier for the rest of your life.
ZEEBEE is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2009, 10:32
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 144
Current Score

477 in vs 3193 out - ratio 6.69:1 against - as more people vote, so the ratio against increases.
Stoic is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2009, 10:54
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
It'll be interesting to see if a click-count is made of those who vote on a question which starts with the words "I've seen the evidence.".

I wonder how many of those who voted had clicked on any of the pages linked to the evidence before they clicked on the "count me out" option of the science debate.

Fortunately wiser heads have prevailed and the climate science has been recognised by the 184 nations of the world who have signed and ratified Kyoto.

It's unfortunate that one of the worst per-capita polluters hasn't joined the world community, but mebbe that'll happen, eventually.

The expectations of the rogue nation at the forthcoming Copenhagen gig are quite low, but that might be to the advantage of the good guys. Character development is never impossible.
Low Flier is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.