<< ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMOOSHED ~ MAIN ~ HOTTER THAN HURLEY >>
MESS WITH THEIR HEADS
Keep voting.
The blasted thing must be looking at IP addresses - I just tried to stuff the virtual ballot box with another vote, but the number of votes counted didn’t change. I’m going to test this theory now, as I’m a pathetic dial-up Luddite and thus can change my IP address easily.
Posted by Blue State Sil on 2007 07 08 at 02:09 PM • permalinkRe my own #3 - as I expected, it did take my vote when I changed addresses. As I’m having trouble with my connection lately, and spend much of my time being kicked off and having to log back in (thanks, Earthstink!), I’ll just have to keep swinging by and voting “no” for the cause.
Posted by Blue State Sil on 2007 07 08 at 02:14 PM • permalink#4 Ash
Aha - come to think of it, my browser may or may not be set to whack temporary files at the end of each session.
Posted by Blue State Sil on 2007 07 08 at 02:18 PM • permalinkThose with shared IPs are getting disenfranchised !
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 07 08 at 02:27 PM • permalinkYeah, you have to at least change IP addresses to vote multiple times. That’s cool, I can vote at least 4 times today.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 07 08 at 02:59 PM • permalink2093 votes so far, 72% Denialist, 28% Non-Denialist.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 07 08 at 05:48 PM • permalinkTheir question assumes the globe is warming. Since when? The last Ice Age? 1998?
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 07 08 at 06:43 PM • permalink#12 Denialists and non-denialists?
There must be somethibng better. One names one’s enemy, therefore we are denialists. What are they?
Hmm… let me cogitate…hmm…let me copulate ....hmmm….hmmm..hmm..:-)
OK, gottit,....The Carbonistas.
The Denialists V. the Carbonistas.
I personally don’t have to watch the whole game as I know who wins - the people with a reality thread in their head.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 07 08 at 06:46 PM • permalinkTo add to #17.
Naming is important.
When we raise an objection to their objectionable reasoning, we are called denialists; and the name-calling is taken as a self-evident proof of our errors.
Now we have named our enemy, we cna likewise throw back carbonista nyah, nyah.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 07 08 at 07:05 PM • permalinkWell, it’s not like this sort of thing is unprecedented. (And there have been several e-polls at Canada’s Globe and Mail paper that have gone askew from the p.c. view and then, oddly enough, “disappear”.)
Posted by andycanuck on 2007 07 08 at 07:09 PM • permalinkI’ve voted more often than a dead southern registered Democrat- I managed to mess with my own head on Friday night, got so blotto at a Dinosaur Jr gig and later at assorted pubs I keeled over and cracked my scone open like an over-ripe melon. the back of my head looks like its been gnawed on by zombies- a perfect end to a perfect evening.
#23 anthony
“So you DO believe in climate change!”
A non sequitor I would say. Sure it could be regarded as a loaded question but what then is meant by climate change. Anyway the question is more specific and asks about global warming being caused by human activity - it has not yet morphed to climate change the last time I looked. And sure, AGW followers would have us believe that global warming is a result of human activity adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But the climate and the temperature of the earth has always varied (hey it does it every day) as have the concentrations of CO2… So I read that a No answer simply means no link with human activity and nothing more.
But I do take your point and observe that although the ‘consensus’ seems to be that the earth has warmed 0.5 or 0.6 degrees C over the last century (I think I have got that right), I have doubts on how we can be this accurate with the information available. I suspect that noise and uncertainty surrounding all the variables (i.e., the data from which this claim is derived) would possibly mean that if the alleged rise in temperature was stated to be X +/- Y that the end result could well be no change at all. Then I don’t have the data or the time (at present) to look more closely into the figures.
But I reckon, so what! A half degree here or there.. big deal. I’ll read a book, what about you?
If you’ve got two browsers installed, why not try voting with each?
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 07 08 at 08:25 PM • permalinkDo you think global warming is primarily caused by human activity?
yes 24%
no 76%
2788 votes counted
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/vote/total.htmPosted by stackja1945 on 2007 07 08 at 08:29 PM • permalinkWe can sing it to them!
On yonder hill there stands a creature,
Who she is I do not know
I will court her for her beauty,
She must answer yes or no
Oh no John, No John, No John, No!My father was a Spanish Captain,
Went to sea a month ago
First he kissed me, then he left me,
Bid me always answer no
Oh no John, No John, No John, No!Oh madam in your face is beauty,
On your lips red roses grow
Will you take me for your lover,
Madam answer yes or no
Oh no John, No John, No John, No!Oh madam I will give you jewels,
I will make you rich and free
I will give you silken dresses,
Madam will you marry me?
Oh no John, No John, No John, No!Oh madam since you are so cruel,
And that you do scorn me so
If I may not be your lover,
Madam will you let me go?
Oh no John, No John, No John, No!Then I will stay with you forever,
If you will not be unkind
Madam I have vowed to love you,
Would you have me change my mind?
Oh no John, No John, No John, No!Oh hark, I hear the churchbells ringing,
Will you come and be my wife?
Or dear madam, have you settled,
To live single all your life?
Oh no John, No John, No John, No!A poll that is more relevant is “Can you regard any poll that is run by the ABC as being worth more than a pile of doggy doo given that it is possible to vote more than once “.
What a mob of amateurs.
Maybe I’m being too harsh . Perhaps it was designed by the Bananas in Pyjamas or the Rat in the Hat?Y’know, we’ve all voted here and we still haven’t been able to lift the “No” vote beyond 76%, even though the total vote is now beyond 3000.
There can only be one explanation for this. The bastards are cheating. Yep. The We Fucked The World Gang are trying to rig the vote by multi-voting “Yes”! The lying bastards!
Of course you know there can be only one response to this sort of thing. Have you voted yet? Are you sure?
Naming is important.
That’s what I’m holding out for “carbon death cult”...
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 07 08 at 09:55 PM • permalinkThis scientific poll proves that Tim Blair blog readers outnumber ABC TV watchers by three to one!
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2007 07 08 at 10:36 PM • permalink#39
yes 24%
no 76%
3262 votes counted
Over 200 more votes, but the same percentages. Strange.Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2007 07 08 at 10:37 PM • permalinkO/T But i had a chat with a mate of mine in the WA police yesterday. He was offered a trip to Broome here in WA for a special operation, without a lot of details being given out.
However it was mentioned that what it involved would, to quote him, “Make the Northern Territory abuse stuff look tame”. Might be worth any aspiring journo asking around, esp if they know anyone in Broome. He declined the job for family reasons, so wont hear much till its over.
It would be nice to see the Carpenter govt here get egg on its face after refusing the Feds requests, re the child abuse in Aboriginal communities.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 07 08 at 10:40 PM • permalinkThe carbon death cult surged to 25%, but we fought them back down. Keep it up!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 07 08 at 10:54 PM • permalinkI lifted this below because it suggests that the ABC Mod. reckons it is not possible to vote more than once.(not yelling -for emphasis)
(I have my doubts…)The author felt he was voting more than once and the Mod put him/her straight. I dunno. I voted a few times at 5:15 am today and it appeared instant…
************************************
Author bdlt
Date/Time 09 Jul 2007 10:53:38am
Subject bad pollSince your poll allow multiple votes from the same computer in quick succession, you might as well take it down. It’s meaningless, except to show which side of the “debate” feel most like sitting down and repeatedly clicking their computer mouses.
Alert moderator
************************************
Mod’s response:Author ABC (Moderator)
Date/Time 09 Jul 2007 11:46:39am
Subject Re: bad pollAs with any online poll, the results are not to be taken as a certain or serious indication of audience opinion. There are ways around the basic methods these polls use to protect against multiple voting. These basic methods do however protect against the scenario you describe where multiple votes are submitted in quick succession by repeatedly clicking the mouse. Multiple votes will not ordinarily be registered after the first vote. If you can see the vote count increase each time you click, it’s because other people are voting at the same time, rather than your repeat votes bumping it up each time.
Long time reader, first tinme poster #32, you don’e need to believe in Climate change. It is not like religion. From my perspective, I believe Climate Change exists, I am not sure of the course. Scientifically it could be CO2, some would say probably is. But it could also be Sun induced. My concern is people who refuse to listen to any Scientist that disagrees with the CO2 model. To use an example if I went to ten doctors with a headache, and nine said it was caused by stress and needed to be treated lest it kill me, and the other said it was a tumour and needs to be operated on lest it kill me. I would investigate both causes. One so i don’t waste money treating the wrong cause, but also to give me the peace of mind to be able to say with some assurance that the one lone doctor was wrong. The consequence is death, and a whole lot of wasted money. I disagree with anyone that says case closed and is not open to discussion, or at least open to letting Scientists independently draw their own conclusions.
P.S. I have voted too many times to even bother considering trying to remember.
Posted by aguycalledbrad on 2007 07 09 at 01:44 AM • permalink#51 Welcome Theman.
It’s the shutting down of debate that most of us here have trouble with. The science is not completely definite that global warming (which is different to climate change) is caused by humans, although it seems many of the believers think it is certain without considering what the science is actually showing.
There are plenty of scientists who believe that the case on climate change, but the greenies and the left are doing their best to shut down debate on the topic. For example, Swindle is showing on the ABC on Thursday night, but if I’m not mistaken, they’re stopping it halfway through for the panel of scientists to discuss it, then resuming it after panel discussion. If you look at the names on the panels, you’ll find that most, if not all, are from the left. The panel will also get to discuss Swindle after it has concluded. If that doesn’t show a desire to lessen debate after Swindle screens, I don’t know what could.
#51 You say that the Climate Change debate is not like a religion. If you are talking about the current alleged anthropogenic climate change hysteria, you are dead wrong there mate. It has too many of the less desirable tenets of the Faith -an infallible leader (guess who), relic worship, persecution and maybe later execution of heretics, and the purchase of indulgences to expiate sin. CARBON, the vilest substance known to exist, has become Beelzebub, Satan, whoever. suzuki (not the bike) and flannery are the archangels. The apostles, spreading the gospel are the NY imes, ABC, SBS, the victorian teacher’s union, the age, etc etc
Enough I think
Cheers
RodC(off topic somewhat)
Geeze:
Not the member for Kingsford Spliff!!!!Pete’s sang about his “Short Memory” - now we get an idea why !
When it reaches 90% no, the ABC will pull the vote and claim it was biased and unbalanced. Yep, 90 to 10 sure is unbalanced!
Posted by Fast Eddie on 2007 07 09 at 05:06 AM • permalink#56 I think i may have been misunderstood. What i meant to say is that, even though the current Global Warming/Climate Change thing has all the hallmarks of religion, it should not be treated as such. Facts are facts whether people believe them or not. “This is the way it has to be, the wise man wisely said. And so we believed. But some did not. And though we never knew, the wise man, wisely had them shot” That is my big problem with Carbonistas, they religiously “believe” in Global warming, and try to tell us the way it has to be. And when you try to investigate alternatives you get verbally shot. To me it’s akin to Galileo being castigated for discovering the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around which conventional thinking would have had you believe.
Posted by aguycalledbrad on 2007 07 09 at 09:39 PM • permalinkPeople,
It’s back to fifty percent. Have you stopped screwing with the ABC or What. Git em.
Posted by aguycalledbrad on 2007 07 09 at 11:10 PM • permalinkwell well well.. you are all apparently vote bots and not real people.
Author ABC (Moderator)
Date/Time 10 Jul 2007 5:10:42pm
Subject Online Poll
The first poll has now finished. The results of “do you think global warming is primarily caused by humans?” were something like:25% Yes
75% NoThis result was before it was tampered with by an automated process. After the tampering the results were close to reverse.
I call bullshit on the ABC.
The results didn’t fit their agenda, so they did what all good ratbastardcommies do and just made up the end score.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2007 07 10 at 07:59 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I voted “no,” but it’s holding steady at 69% against. I’ll bet you they’ve turned off the script.