69% Say Itís Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research


petros
#1
The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American

Adults shows that 69% say itís 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%) donít think itís likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say itís Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

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

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% arenít sure.

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.

The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 29-30, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC .
 
Bar Sinister
+2 / -2
#2
69% of Americans you say? Looks like the spin doctors working for big oil and big coal have done their work well. But, of course we are talking about a people who hold a variety of unfounded beliefs including Elvis being alive; aliens in Roswell, and their president being a Muslim who was born in Kenya.
 
Colpy
+6
#3  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

69% of Americans you say? Looks like the spin doctors working for big oil and big coal have done their work well. But, of course we are talking about a people who hold a variety of unfounded beliefs including Elvis being alive; aliens in Roswell, and their president being a Muslim who was born in Kenya.

Uh huh....

More likely things like this had something to do with it.....

Rex Murphy: Climate scientists make a mockery of the peer-review process | Full Comment | National Post
 
relic
#4
I bet lots of americans line up to read the wisdom of Rex,although it's likely a bit deep for your friends to the south.
 
#juan
#5
I had no idea that ignorance persisted at this scale. It doesn't take a scientist to see that polar bears are drowning
because they can't get to the sea ice. There are huge areas of bare ground in the Arctic where bare ground hadn't been seen in centuries. There is certainly much evidence of climate change. We (people) dump 8 trillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere
every year. Do we think we can do this with no consequences?
 
CDNBear
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

I had no idea that ignorance persisted at this scale. It doesn't take a scientist to see that polar bears are drowning
because they can't get to the sea ice.

Absolutely correct. It doesn't take a scientist. It takes a moron.

That myth has been overwhelmingly disproven, ad nauseum.

Quote:

There is certainly much evidence of climate change.

No one in this thread has said anything to the contrary.
 
Tonington
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Uh huh....

More likely things like this had something to do with it.....

Rex Murphy: Climate scientists make a mockery of the peer-review process | Full Comment | National Post

Being critical of poorly written papers is not evidence of falsified data. The irony is that if you know what papers they were actually talking about in that quote, they were very poor, and in the end they were published, but they haven't withstood the test of time.

This poll is along the lines of "Majority of Muslims believe Arab terrorists were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks".
 
CDNBear
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Being critical of poorly written papers is not evidence of falsified data.

That may very well be true. But in a court of law, they would be tossed, because of the level of taint upon them.
 
Tonington
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

That may very well be true. But in a court of law, they would be tossed, because of the level of taint upon them.

Tossed for what?
 
CDNBear
+3
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Tossed for what?

Because of the taint applied to them.

Anything that came from these individuals would be suspect at best now, and likely, inadmissible.

When you need to apply deceit to the process, you completely undermine the validity of the work and data.

As a scientist yourself, you should be appalled at what these people have done to the image of legitimate research.
 
taxslave
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

69% of Americans you say? Looks like the spin doctors working for big oil and big coal have done their work well. But, of course we are talking about a people who hold a variety of unfounded beliefs including Elvis being alive; aliens in Roswell, and their president being a Muslim who was born in Kenya.

That would be the spin doctors that claim we are running out of oil and that burning coal is worse than nuclear power? And cows farting is raising the temperature?
 
DaSleeper
+2
#12
 
Cliffy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

That would be the spin doctors that claim we are running out of oil and that burning coal is worse than nuclear power? And cows farting is raising the temperature?

There are more cows on the planet than people and if you have ever been on a farm, you know cows fart a lot. People who eat cows fart a lot more than those who don't. Methane is far more volatile a green house gas than CO2 and probably causes more global warming. The scientists are not that far off the mark.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+5
#14
I move that we eat the people who ate the cows.
 
Cliffy
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

I move that we eat the people who ate the cows.

That would probably double the fart output.
 
DaSleeper
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

I move that we eat the people who ate the cows.

Naahh!! let's all go vegetarian....but but...I forget broccoli, mushrooms, beans etc...also make you fart a lot
 
SLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

I move that we eat the people who ate the cows.

Canabalism. It's what for dinner.
 
Tonington
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Because of the taint applied to them.

Anything that came from these individuals would be suspect at best now, and likely, inadmissible.

That is debatable. In a court of law, these quotes would be placed in their proper context.

Quote:

When you need to apply deceit to the process, you completely undermine the validity of the work and data.

Now see this is what I'm talking about, with respect to context. It's not deceit for experts to quibble over which studies get into a literature review. That has no bearing at all on the validity of their own studies. This happens all the time. It would have been deceit if they actually did remove those studies from the chapter reviews, but they didn't.

Quote:

As a scientist yourself, you should be appalled at what these people have do to the image of legitimate research.

I'm appalled at how people who don't understand the process can be so certain of fraud and falsified findings. There are plenty of things that were said in those emails that I don't agree with at all. Nobody actually gets to redefine what peer review is, that was wrong.

I'm also appalled that scientists who are doing their work get death threats based on these misrepresentations.
 
CDNBear
+4
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Canabalism. It's what for dinner.

Two cannibals sitting around the fire eating a clown. One turns to the other and says..."Does this taste funny to you?"
 
Cliffy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Canabalism. It's what for dinner.

It is actually not a bad idea. There were societies in South East Asia that used cannibalism as a means of population control. When a person reached puberty, an adult from a neighbouring village was ritually killed and eaten by the teen so the departed soul would live on in the teen's body. Population always remained stable.
 
Tonington
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

That would be the spin doctors that claim we are running out of oil and that burning coal is worse than nuclear power? And cows farting is raising the temperature?

It's burping. Cows burp. The cow fart is the meme that get's repeated by the deniers, but it's not true. The methane comes from burps. The rumen is closer to the mouth than it is to the anus...
 
taxslave
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

I move that we eat the people who ate the cows.

Only if they are female.
 
CDNBear
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

That is debatable. In a court of law, these quotes would be placed in their proper context.

Correct, under the great big specter of doubt. Not to mention, when a source is found to be deceitful, a judge will oft trow out the evidence he/she presented.

Quote:

Now see this is what I'm talking about, with respect to context. It's not deceit for experts to quibble over which studies get into a literature review. That has no bearing at all on the validity of their own studies. This happens all the time. It would have been deceit if they actually did remove those studies from the chapter reviews, but they didn't.

I'm not talking about one specific account here Ton. I'm talking about all the underhanded crap.

Quote:

I'm appalled at how people who don't understand the process can be so certain of fraud and falsified findings.

What else are they supposed to think, when they see what appears to be underhanded Ton?

That kind of behavior is indicative of someone hiding something. Human nature dictates mistrust at that point.

Quote:

Nobody actually gets to redefine what peer review is, that was wrong.

That hasn't stopped these clowns from talking about it.

Quote:

I'm also appalled that scientists who are doing their work get death threats based on these misrepresentations.

Aren't we all?
 
Tonington
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

What else are they supposed to think, when they see what appears to be underhanded Ton?

There's a reason I'm so critical of the media...the perceptions of underhandedness come from somewhere, and they aren't placed in context. I bet Rex Murphy never looked into the talking points any further. If he did, he's being deceitful by pulling the quotes from context in the manner that he has. All the media were doing it at the time, and still are.
 
SLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

It is actually not a bad idea. There were societies in South East Asia that used cannibalism as a means of population control. When a person reached puberty, an adult from a neighbouring village was ritually killed and eaten by the teen so the departed soul would live on in the teen's body. Population always remained stable.

That's good to know.

On a completely unrelated note you're on the west coast right? The opposite end of the country from where I live? Just askin'. Don't want to end up in the food chain.

 
DaSleeper
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

It's burping. Cows burp. The cow fart is the meme that get's repeated by the deniers, but it's not true. The methane comes from burps. The rumen is closer to the mouth than it is to the anus...

Horses fart......

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

It is actually not a bad idea. There were societies in South East Asia that used cannibalism as a means of population control. When a person reached puberty, an adult from a neighbouring village was ritually killed and eaten by the teen so the departed soul would live on in the teen's body. Population always remained stable.

now... That's a way to get rid of nursing homes.
 
Tonington
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Horses fart......

Sure they do. Cows do as well, but that's not where the methane is coming from. Horses have no rumen, cows do.
 
CDNBear
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

There's a reason I'm so critical of the media...the perceptions of underhandedness come from somewhere, and they aren't placed in context.

You and I have been down this road Ton. You put it all into context for me.

The bottom line is, what they did and what they talked about doing, was underhanded, unscientific, and IMHO, places any and all evidence they collected, in serious doubt.

I'm not a scientist Ton, I have to really on people who are.

How can I place my trust, in people that would contemplate 'rewriting the definition of peer review'?
 
JLM
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy;1459653[B

]It is actually not a bad idea[/B]. There were societies in South East Asia that used cannibalism as a means of population control. When a person reached puberty, an adult from a neighbouring village was ritually killed and eaten by the teen so the departed soul would live on in the teen's body. Population always remained stable.

Easy for you to say, Cliff as your tough old hide probably couldn't be broken down with a jack hammer.
 
Tonington
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

How can I place my trust, in people that would contemplate 'rewriting the definition of peer review'?

Do you understand what context that quote comes from? What was said before it go t to that point? What events lead up to that quote?

It was a mistake, no question about it. But I've had emails at work that were obviously written while someone was still hot about something. In the end they look bad for it, but it doesn't make me question the value of their work.