Free Markets, Free People

Poll–69% say AGW scientists may have falsified data

For the alarmists, such has Henry Waxman, the news isn’t getting any better:

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 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. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

So … it appears that those who believe that there’s a consensus of people who are convinced man-made global warming is occurring, well the poll says not only “no” but “hell, no”.  In fact the poll says for the most part they just don’t believe the so-called consensus of scientists because they are of the opinion that enough evidence has been presented that the findings may have been falsified.

Imagine that.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

18 Responses to Poll–69% say AGW scientists may have falsified data

  • Wonder how much of our federal spend all is wrapped up in AGW – EPA, classic example.
    Boy, talk about a place to cut spending.

  • … after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made

    … to which one of the author has replied …

    Their objections verge on the bizarre, and so I have to wonder whether any of them actually read our paper. I eagerly await their published papers which show any errors in our analysis. Apparently, all they need to know is that our paper makes the U.N. IPCC climate models look bad. And we sure can’t have that!

    … it’s interesting that the “peer-reviewed” argument falls on the floor with this paper, so instead we get the “interpreted” or should that be misinterpreted meme.

    • Yeah, I thought the use of the phrase “interpreted by skeptics” was interesting.  For the gorebots, “skeptic” is a pretty nasty perjorative; this tells quite a bit about their actual dedication to science, which is BUILT on skepticism.

      As for interpretation… Well, that’s what scientists DO with data.  Indeed, it’s the entire point of collecting it in the first place.  But, again, the author makes it sound like a bad thing: “Oh, THOSE people are just (snort) INTERPRETING the study instead of understanding that it does nothing to undermine the consensus that all right-thinking scientists – indeed, right-thinking people generally – have reached about the reality of global warming climate change climate disruption global warming*.


      (*) It’s safe to call it “global warming” right now because it’s summertime in the northern hemisphere.  If / when we get a lot of cold, miserable, snowy weather later this year, it’ll be “climate disruption” again.

      • Yeah, I thought the use of the phrase “interpreted by skeptics” was interesting.

        Particularly since, in science, anyone reviewing an assertion is SUPPOSED to do it as an INVESTIGATOR…or a SKEPTIC…not a proponent.

  • 69% say AGW scientists may have falsified data

    Some people would say that 69% is a … wait for it … “consensus”

  • This is very troubling. Just as our current financial problems were due to dense righties voting in Reagan and had absolutely nothing to do with Democrats creating our vast but necessary welfare state, our environment problems are being ignored because 69% of the population are sterile, inbred, Goebbels-like political idiots.

    It’s sad. 69% of the people want to hurt my gender-neutral children. 69% of the people deny the consensus of wise pragmatic moderate leftists. Oh, woe is us.

    Well, at least this post didn’t contain any charts or graphs. You know how much I hate those.

    • This just means that the combine of Madison Ave. and Big CO2 have successfully duped the American people…again.
      Owl Gore has called for an Arab Spring right here to counter-act that sadly successful propaganda campaign.  Hopefully, young, socially networked, idealistic people from all over the nation will fly into Washington, and stay for days in hotels on their parent’s credit cards in a show of unified support for Ghia.  The anachronism of “progress” has seen its match.

  • Unfortunately, the poll doesn’t reveal who people felt was falsifying their data (alarmists, realists or both). The article said 51% of Democrats thought data was probably faked, so there’s still a good change that less than half the population has been paying any real attention.

  • People have certainly claimed there’s a consensus among scientists (actual scientists, not meteorologists); I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim that there’s a consensus of people, and I don’t see why it would matter in any event.

    • There is a consensus among scientists who receive federal funding/grants …

      Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money

  • Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.
    Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

    • The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

      So 96% comes from “natural sources” like farting and belching wild animals !! .. and the EPA wants to spend billions if not trillions of dollars to control the other 4% ?!?
      OMG !!
      Perhaps our money would be better spent if we had EPA employees run around on city freeways trying to slow down traffic .. sure we might lose a few to traffic accidents, but we should slow down 96% of them, the larger portion.

  • I only wish AGW was true, I want a warmer planet. Doesn’t everyone? Do people really want a cold planet? Do people actually think we can control the planets climate like flipping a thermostat switch? More rain/less rain, more clouds/less clouds, temp-high/temp-low ahaaaa there it is.. just right, now leave it there!
    But alas, it’s all about, what it’s always about: taxation and (societal) control.
    Now you sheeple just do what the Gorical says: chew your cud and hand over your wallet.

    • I prefer cold weather. You can move to the equator if you want to be slimy and hot all the time.