Are Web Polls All the Harris Gang Has Left?

Wed, 2008-04-16 21:25Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Are Web Polls All the Harris Gang Has Left?

Climate change spin-doctor Tom Harris has a web poll up on his super-duper denialfest website today, asking people to vote on “How likely is it that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing a climate crisis?”

Any guesses what kind of response you get to such a question posted on a website devoted to denying the realities of human-caused global warming?

The problem though with web polls is that they are very, very easy to game. The easiest technique is to simply urge like-minded members on other sites like Free Dominion to come over to your website for a second and cast a vote to show just how wrong those socialist-scheming scientists and Al Gore really are.

Just like I could urge readers of DeSmogBlog to go over to Harris's site and vote up a response that he doesn't agree with - but please don't, it's a serious waste of time.

And if a person is truly motivated to ensure a desired outcome to a web poll they can simply sit at their computer, cast a vote then clear the cookies on their browser, hit refresh on the poll and then vote again. I did this on Harris's poll a couple of times, just to prove my point. The truly sophisticated version of this technique is to use a task automator program to vote, clear cookies, refresh, vote, clear cookies, refresh… over and over (the fastest I ever saw was 1,000 votes in 2 minutes).

The point is that web polls rarely tell you anything other than which side of a given disagreement is desperate enough to waste hours upon hours gaming the outcome of a poll to somehow prove that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Which in the case of Harris and company may be all they really have left to do.

Comments

“… the “realities” of human-caused global warming.”

And what might those be? Climate models perhaps? Dubious data collected by people of doubtful reliability? Regional weather phenomena?

The following definitions of IDIOT SAVANT have been showing up on the web. I don’t know their origin. They express, more succinctly than I, an inconvenient reality that I’ve been expressing for 15 years.

First Definition: An idiot savant in climate science is a scholar who receives the Nobel Prize for developing models as elegant and useful in practice as their underlying assumptions are preposterous.

Second Definition: An idiot savant is a scholar whose ability to mathematize half-baked half-truths is as impressive as his inability to demonstrate the consistency and establish the veracity of the axioms underlying the theory upon which his “models” are based.

1) No Climate modeler has won a nobel prize for anything yet, and I don’t suspect one will at this point.

2) Speaking of half baked, thinking greenhouse gases
dont act like greenhouse gas starts to fall in that realm

Try

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm for an extensive scientific summary, or log into netdoc and do your own journal searching for raw scientific literature

but anyway if you dont have access to scientific publications we can do this easy enough no modeling needed to come to these conclusions

a) Are greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases, answer though experimentation, heck even a little IRGA demonstrates the heat trapping potential of CO2

b) What is the heat trapping potential of these greenhouse gases and how do they work? answer though experimentation

c) What is the source of these greenhouse gases? Well, no experiments needed for CFCs those just are not natural, thankfully experiments using radioactive isotopes and proportions of carbon 14/13 ratio’s tell us that indeed burning fossil fuels is leading to the majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

So, human activity adding more greenhouse gases, that act like greenhouse gases, with known heat trapping potential, is based on dubious experiments?….Just curious if adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere doesn’t increase the greenhouse effect what do they do exactly?

Sounds to me that the underlying facts make quite a bit of sense to support the greater climate theory

“…experiments using radioactive isotopes and proportions of carbon 14/13 ratio’s tell us that indeed burning fossil fuels is leading to the majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2.”

Actually, it’s the ratio of carbon 12:13, but I know it’s an easy enough mistake to make, having made it myself. Carbon 14 comparison can not be used because atmospheric nuclear testing spiked the ratio, but fortunately that same 14C spike can then be used to study the diffusion of CO2 in the ocean water column and deep currents.

Thanks for the correction. I was going from memory and just assumed it was the carbon 14, mostly because my area of specialization if biological. Thanks for pointing that out.

The idiot, but certainly no savant, known as zog weighs in with yet another meaningless comment.

Nice simplistic try…. but!
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm for an extensive scientific summary, or log into netdoc and do your own journal searching for raw scientific literature
Reply: IPCC data is Years out of date….
Are greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases, answer though experimentation, heck even a little IRGA demonstrates the heat trapping potential of CO2
Reply: Agreed
What is the heat trapping potential of these greenhouse gases and how do they work?
Reply: Heat trapping potential is inversely proportional to concentration and has contributed just about all it is going to. And that contribution was very small.
What is the source of these greenhouse gases? Well, no experiments needed for CFCs those just are not natural, thankfully experiments using radioactive isotopes and proportions of carbon 14/13 ratio’s tell us that indeed burning fossil fuels is leading to the majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2.
Reply: Very debatable. But irrelevant anyway since they are not causing harm.
Just curious if adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere doesn’t increase the greenhouse effect what do they do exactly?
Reply: Very little.
Summary: All anyone needs to do is review some history and the whole AGW theory falls flat.
Review temperature trend curves for the 20th century and ask why the first 40 years were nearly identical to the last 30 given the “Unprecedented human CO2 contribution”. ( and why no warming for the last 10 years)
Review the trend curves for the last 2000 years (unless you use MM’s fraudulent attempt to “disappear” the MWP and LIA). Ask why did those “Unprecedented” warm periods happen? Papal SUV perhaps?
Review the trends for the last 8000 years and ask why the overall trend of our climate is consistently DOWN. And what in the world caused it to get soooooo hot back then.
Review the CO2 record for the last million years and ask why the temperatures just seem to do whatever they want even though the CO@ levels go MUCH higher than today’s.
Then take a look around at all the good science that is being produced RECENTLY that shows:
More influence from the Sun that previously thought.
More influence for Ocean oscillations that anyone knew about.
More effects from UHI that was believed possible.
Then ask, how can any honest scientist claim “Unprecedented” warming when the margin of error for the measurements are 3 times the claimed increase.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of why AGW is a farce.

Read People…. read.

Learn to format your comments and separate out the quotations properly and maybe someone will read your nonsense; right now it’s just a mess and not worth the effort.

but certainly no savant, known as troll weighs in with yet another meaningless comment full of unsubstantiated assertion and outright falsehoods.

Nothing new to see here.

What exactly was false?
Every thing I sited is well known fact.

Here is another interesting and Ironic tidbit.

Global warming caused by cleaning up polution.
LOL…. You just can’t make this stuff up. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,547308,00.html

And learn to spell, too.

I have said many times, I take the time to spell check posts that are intended for people I respect.

Thus demonstrating that you are not worth paying attention to.

Darned if I can find them.

You did not cite a single one of your assertions. You rarely do.
Your so-called ‘facts’ are well-known only in the alternate reality in which deniers live.
Oh, and to those who bother to try to follow the ‘arguments’ of climate change deniers.

Thanks for the Der Speigel link, though. This would be the aerosol-induced global dimming that people have been talking about for quite a while now. I’m not surprised that it comes as news to you.

20 years or so of research that has investigated the effects of aerosols and “global dimming”. Though it seems pretty clear that the effect was discussed earily its just the phrase global dimming has been around for about 20.

Clearly its cutting edge just released stuff.

That does not surprise me at all.

Made them all up, did you?

to even get a joke based on your own misspelling.

But then no one here should be surprised by that

Just read a new analysis of MMs proxies by Climate audit.
That pesky little Medieval warm period just won’t go away. http://climateaudit.org/

The warmists will provide a “solution”. Not long ago, one of them (sorry, I don’t remember his name) came up with the idea of seeding the upper atmosphere with carbon particles and/or SO2 to block sunlight. Hell, if more pollution is the solution, the Chinese will do the job for us with their annual construction of 50 new coal-fired power plants.

Your brilliance and erudition are overwhelming. How can I ever regain my self-confidence in the face of such sophistication?

you’ve been in the gutter far too long.

[x]
Heartland Unabomber Billboard

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

The Heartland Institute’s recent International Climate Change Conference in Las Vegas illustrates climate change deniers’ desperate confusion. As Bloomberg News noted, “Heartland’s strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck.” A who’s who of fossil fuel industry supporters and anti-science shills...

read more