Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Widening participation in a free vote is democracy in action. This is indeed it. Vote away, good people of PH.

Is your last comment based perchance on knowledge of some automated repeat-voring mechanism as per the one that greens used to derail a London Science Museum vote not too long ago? Just checking

Oh is that what you/Watts are doing - 'widening participation'?

That's a good one

I don't care who does it - it's all organised distortion of a public opinion poll rendering it meaningless.

[turbobloke]

Not so, there is a difference. Bringing a vote to the attention of people entitled to vote is democracy in action.

True Believer tactics using automated IT-based multiple vote systems i.e. vote rigging is the unacceptable face of a failed religion desperately trying to convince others that their daft dream didn't die years ago, which it did. It never had data or sound science behind it, a lingering death was inevitable and the death throes are well underway.

It was easy to spot the Science Museum vote rigging and it will be just as easy wherever and whenever it happens next time. As the True Believer position is one of desperation it will very likely arise from that source - but I'll condemn it every time whoever is responsible.

[kerplunk]

multiple voting tricks have been promoted on WUWT as well, this time and the science museum time - a wuwt poster confessed to adding thousands on the Science Museum poll and was rebuked for it by AW, as he has this time as well, missing the basic fact that exorting your large partisan readership to vote in the first place is a distortion.

I've seen Joe Romm lower himself in the same way and I didn't approve of that either.

Of course these are just dumb flawed internet polls that nobody should take seriously from the off, but you knock yourself out if you need a lift

[turbobloke]

Like I said, there's no such thing as acceptable vote rigging.

How's it going on the nonsensical supposition that Sandy was caused by a non-existent manmade rise in global mean temperature?

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Like I said, there's no such thing as acceptable vote rigging.

How's it going on the nonsensical supposition that Sandy was caused by a non-existent manmade rise in global mean temperature?

It's could be rising-temperature-related - the northern hemisphere is very warm these last few months. Not sure how it fits in with 'expected responses' to a warming world yet - hurricane frequency is supposed to go down but intensity up. Sandy is low intensity but huge in size so erm dunno.

[mybrainhurts]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Like I said, there's no such thing as acceptable vote rigging.

How's it going on the nonsensical supposition that Sandy was caused by a non-existent manmade rise in global mean temperature?

It's could be rising-temperature-related - the northern hemisphere is very warm these last few months. Not sure how it fits in with 'expected responses' to a warming world yet - hurricane frequency is supposed to go down but intensity up. Sandy is low intensity but huge in size so erm dunno.

Do you think it might be related to the volume of Mars bar sales..?

[turbobloke]

Pirates.

Or was it pilates...

[The Don of Croy]

kerplunk said:

...the basic fact that exorting your large partisan readership to vote in the first place is a distortion.

Would that thought preclude political parties exhorting their members to vote? If the 'followers' are not eligible to vote, that is fraud. If, however, you're publicising the existence of a poll then why not?

[turbobloke]

The Don of Croy said:

kerplunk said:

...the basic fact that exorting your large partisan readership to vote in the first place is a distortion.

Would that thought preclude political parties exhorting their members to vote? If the 'followers' are not eligible to vote, that is fraud. If, however, you're publicising the existence of a poll then why not?

Indeed why not.

Distortion...what about the EU paying Fiends of the Earth or Greenpeas seven figures over time to lobby the EU on matters that the EU wants to do and will be doing anyway.

[kerplunk]

The Don of Croy said:

Would that thought preclude political parties exhorting their members to vote?

Political parties exhorting their members to vote wouldn't necessarily be an indication of public opinion would it. It's about the label on the tin!

[The Don of Croy]

kerplunk said:

Political parties exhorting their members to vote wouldn't necessarily be an indication of public opinion would it. It's about the label on the tin!

So only dispassionate non-interested parties should vote? Public opinion is exactly that - some of the public may have some interest in the question.

[LongQ]

Whilst I have not too much time for on-line voting options (or indeed surveys of any kind) there is a theory that would suggest that if all parties are promoting their 'cause' the ultimate result is possibly still representative of the the plebian view.

Statistically one might assume that given a large enough number of sample votes (street surveys seem to randomise at about 1100 to 1200 participants) the accuracy of the resulting statistical analysis will be significantly accurate to a usable degree.

Whether they really are or not is another matter. Maybe. Although of course none of it may matter.

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

the plebian view

[Apache]

This is a strange view KP, consensus seems to be the approval of the majority ie, the majority of scientists agree, peer review etc yet you think it unfair to promote your view to a captive audience of like minded souls and voice that approval. What's the difference?

Vote rigging using software is clearly a different kettle of asparagus

[kerplunk]

The Don of Croy said:

So only dispassionate non-interested parties should vote? Public opinion is exactly that - some of the public may have some interest in the question.

Obviously so therefore your first sentence is a crass deduction.

[turbobloke]

Apache said:

What's the difference?

Vote rigging using software is clearly a different kettle of asparagus

The consensus might just turn out to be not what the warmist belief system would want, as per the science non-consensus? Cool. Then again, what's a consensus worth apart from £millions in grant funding...

[Blib]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Like I said, there's no such thing as acceptable vote rigging.

How's it going on the nonsensical supposition that Sandy was caused by a non-existent manmade rise in global mean temperature?

It's could be rising-temperature-related - the northern hemisphere is very warm these last few months. Not sure how it fits in with 'expected responses' to a warming world yet - hurricane frequency is supposed to go down but intensity up. Sandy is low intensity but huge in size so erm dunno.

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Landsea's resignation letter said:

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

[kerplunk]

LongQ said:

Whilst I have not too much time for on-line voting options (or indeed surveys of any kind) there is a theory that would suggest that if all parties are promoting their 'cause' the ultimate result is possibly still representative of the the plebian view.

If all parties are promoting the poll you mean (and even then I'm not sure it would be very representative given sceptics are a better organised internet force)

LongQ said:

Statistically one might assume that given a large enough number of sample votes (street surveys seem to randomise at about 1100 to 1200 participants) the accuracy of the resulting statistical analysis will be significantly accurate to a usable degree.

Whether they really are or not is another matter. Maybe. Although of course none of it may matter.

Not sure what you're saying here. With sample sizes like that you need confidence in the randomness and when organsised partisan voting is present there is none.

[fido]

Apologies if this has already been discussed ..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tri...

.. but another 'scandal' involving the BBC

[kerplunk]

Apache said:

This is a strange view KP, consensus seems to be the approval of the majority ie, the majority of scientists agree, peer review etc yet you think it unfair to promote your view to a captive audience of like minded souls and voice that approval. What's the difference?

the label on the tin