69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided

The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... g_research

And I love what these numbers tell us......

Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support their global warming theories, but 51% of Democrats also agree.

Men are more likely than women to believe some scientists have put out false information on the issue.

Democrats are more likely to support immediate action on global warming compared to those from other party affiliations.


So based upon the last three sentences those who are most easliy fooled into believing totally that the scientists are dead on and fall for this con and who want to take immediate action on unproven science in which they are by far in the minority, are Democratic Women.

Rasmussen? Seriously?

I don't think they falsified it, but their predictions have fallen short of actual numbers.

The graph isn't rising as fast as the alarmists predicted.

I do not think scientists have falsified the data.

That said, most researchers - whether they admit it or not - have an a-priori notion about how the data will end up.

Most of us tend to examine data within the context of our a-priori notion of "reality."

A simple example - People who are afraid of Muslims - will pounce on a single piece of information (eg. an attack) - rather than examine all of the evidence, which would quickly show that virtually all Muslims are peaceful people.

Global warming researchers tend to pounce on a single model or set of observations (eg. temperature readings - even though many north latitude observation stations in Russia were shut down when the Russian economy collapsed).

The basic laboratory models do suggest there's a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature (fair enough). Laboratory models also show that when you burn fossil fuels, you increase the level of CO2 (fair enough). The laboratory models start falling apart when you introduce real world systems - which tend to be dynamic, and self-adjusting.

I don't really blame the scientists. I would question the activists, though. The activist is different than a scientist. The activist will suppress information, rather than inadvertently overlook it.

ahhhhhh.... So now public opinion evaluates scientific work after the media plays its role in it. This is really hilarious and testament to the extent of ignorance. Everyone knows we are coming out of an ice age 10,000 years ago. Sea level records over that period of time show a progressive rise in sea level as recorded by mangrove peat. So the whole nonsense about global warming not happening is utter BS. It is the one thing geologists and climatologists do agree upon. The cause is another matter as is the rate. Short term rates as measured by climatologists today are not a viable tool for predicting the future rate of sea level rise. Long-term trends are far better suited at this, unless you are desperate to make a case for AGW. This is where we geologist and climatologists part company. To bolster man-made global warming (AGW) one needs to accelerate the rise in sea level above what it is documented to have done over the past 10k years and that is where the science gets a bit tricky. No one knows the nature of short-term fluctuations in the rate of eustacy (sea level rise). So anything that suggest it is proceeding at a rate greater than the projected long term trend becomes a focal point and the rise of climatologists interpretations. As I've stated in a number of places before, the fundament cause or causes of global warming are not known, but speculated about. It is absolutely stupid to think that man caused global warming simply by CO2 emissions since the process has been on going since the last ice age. I do suspect no it's already charted over the past hundred years that there are short short term fluctuations in global temperature and I would expect the same holds true for the rate of sea level rise. It will be interesting what happens to the CO2 concept when there is another significant decrease in global temperature and the rate of sea level rise fails to measure up to AGW expectations.

bailey bud wrote: I do not think scientists have falsified the data.

That said, most researchers - whether they admit it or not - have an a-priori notion about how the data will end up.

Most of us tend to examine data within the context of our a-priori notion of "reality."

A simple example - People who are afraid of Muslims - will pounce on a single piece of information (eg. an attack) - rather than examine all of the evidence, which would quickly show that virtually all Muslims are peaceful people.

Global warming researchers tend to pounce on a single model or set of observations (eg. temperature readings - even though many north latitude observation stations in Russia were shut down when the Russian economy collapsed).

The basic laboratory models do suggest there's a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature (fair enough). Laboratory models also show that when you burn fossil fuels, you increase the level of CO2 (fair enough). The laboratory models start falling apart when you introduce real world systems - which tend to be dynamic, and self-adjusting.

I don't really blame the scientists. I would question the activists, though. The activist is different than a scientist. The activist will suppress information, rather than inadvertently overlook it.

I think the pouncing is done when a hypothesis germinates. After that a scientist MUST evaluate and account for all the data. You can't just cherry pick (though I know of some who have done just that) the data that fits your model and ignore the rest. It is an obvious indicator that the working hypothesis is not solid (wrong or partially wrong) when some data fails to fit into it comfortably. It is a sure sign that a revision of thought is needed.

Good points BB

The laboratory models start falling apart when you introduce real world systems - which tend to be dynamic, and self-adjusting.

Hit the nail on the head- I've been saying this for 25 years, the earth is self adjusting because of the physical properties of water.

And that's a fact that the global warming theorists conveniently ignore.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

The laboratory models start falling apart when you introduce real world systems - which tend to be dynamic, and self-adjusting.

Hit the nail on the head- I've been saying this for 25 years, the earth is self adjusting because of the physical properties of water.

And that's a fact that the global warming theorists conveniently ignore.

(and cue Global Warming Chic...........)

Yep, Poorly understood, unknown dynamic variables, and way too much faith in computer models.

On a related note, what's the latest with Monnett - the polar bear guy?

I think it just goes to show how damaging it can be when those who are supposed to be delivering news act as accomplices in advancing a political agenda instead.

Generally data is not falsified, it is selected.