Poll: 69 Percent Say It's Likely That Some Climate Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

|

What a majority of the public thinks.

A Rasmussen Poll asked 1,000 Americans at the end of July: In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?

Rasmussen reports

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 .)

The number of adults who say it's 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% aren't 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.

For what's worth, I think it's highly unlikely that many climate scientists have falsified research data, although they, like everybody else, are subject to confirmation bias.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Myth of the Middle Class Mortgage Deduction

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As the economy craters further AGW will fade further from the daily concerns of the Everyman.

    1. It already has.

      AGW is running on the fumes of the money they received back when democrats ran the house.

      The hysteria was entirely feed by government funding.

      Now that that funding is mostly gone expect this to go away pretty quickly from the minds of the public.

      1. “Now that that funding is mostly gone expect this to go away pretty quickly from the minds of the public.”

        Will that be before or after the shrieking from the green movement fades away?

  2. Wow. 31% aren’t ashamed to display their ignorance.

  3. What is the point of this poll? It was already obvious that people were skeptical of the chicken little claims of the AGW fanatics; that just tends to happen automatically when you have people running around screaming that the sky is going to fall and it doesn’t. But otherwise, who cares what this poll says? Will it give the AGW cultists pause? No. Will it stop money being shoveled into the AGW hole? No.

    So what is the point?

    1. It means you are not alone.

      1. You mean the Michael Jackson song?

        1. I quit listening to his music after he pulled down his Billie Jeans, whipped out his Thriller and Beat It.

          1. Ever play one of his Moon Walker games? They were pretty badass, even by today’s standards, especially the arcade version! My friends and I loved to play them BUT we used to joke that the villains hadn’t really kidnapped Wacko Jacko’s playmates but that they were actually social workers trying to protect the kiddies from Michael!

    2. It allows one side to say “we don’t believe you, and neither do the people, so produce everything you’ve ever learned on the subject and explain yourself in two-second sound bites while I yell over you,” and it allows the other side to cheaply psychoanalyze the study’s participants, necessarily drawing the conclusion that they’re uneducated, terroristic rubes while their lackeys howl the howls of righteous indignation one expects of the accused. Either way, it fills time on the newsies.

      1. “they’re uneducated, terroristic rubes”

        You don’t need such a complex theory. All you need is that they don’t like the implications of AGW for political reasons, I can’t think of one denier in our commentator that isn’t quite up front about this. It does all the work you need.

        1. You don’t need such a complex theory. All you need is that they like the implications of AGW for political reasons, I can’t think of one warmist in our commentator that isn’t quite up front about this. It does all the work you need.

          1. See, you fail yet again. I’ve said over and over I’m totally against many of the implications of AGW. I favor traditional unions that would be devastated by many proposals to combat AGW. And I like to burn carbon.

            But I don’t pretend I know more than people with shit loads more training and experience in various scientific subjects just because I don’t like what they say.

            1. I don’t believe you.

              1. You don’t believe I’ve said this over and over here? Would you care for links, or would you think that a Government Grant Funding scheme just produced a GroupThink Process influenced by SecretSocialist Scientists to produce those links?

            2. Yes you do. All the time. But only when you disagree with them.

              1. Such as? Examples?

                1. You’ve become boring. You didn’t use to be. That’s a shame.

                  “Why does your finger smell like his ass?”

                  1. I don’t know what to tell you, I don’t think it’s cultish for people to think that the majority of professional scientific associations who have opined on this subject in favor of AGW are more likely to be correct than the smaller group of experts in the relevant fields who deny AGW.

                    Most people don’t believe in complicated scientific ideas because they understand the ins and outs, they tend to think the scientific community that promotes them is not a secret cabal of government controlled socialists. I imagine on scientific issues where you don’t have any feelings on the political implications you feel the same…

                    1. BTW-this of course doesn’t mean that one has to accept any of the political programs put out to address AGW. As I’ve long said, there are no scientific experts in that area. I’ve yet to see a proposal to deal with AGW that I think wouldn’t do more harm than good.

                      But again, that doesn’t mean that I think all those scientists who conclude AGW is for real are some secret cabal of socialists or hopelessly mired in an iron cage of socialist government incentives…

                    2. … except, of course, for the majority of the scientists at the University of East Anglia who actually WERE a secret cabal of socialists.

                    3. I don’t think it’s cultish for people to think that the majority of professional scientific associations who have opined on this subject in favor of AGW are more likely to be correct than the smaller group of experts in the relevant fields who deny AGW.

                      That you give weight to consensus while discussing ‘scientific fact’ without allowing for the process of obtaining grants – specifically in areas such as AGW that are almost entirely dependent on such a system – removes any doubt that it is you who is projecting your political beliefs onto the veracity of the claims.

            3. You don’t need scientific training to realize AGW is a fraud. You need basic common sense.

    3. What is the point of this poll?

      To show a change of public perception about AGW.

      Will it stop money being shoveled into the AGW hole? No.

      Actually this is not true.

    1. that’s a decent pecentage

    2. poetry: Grrr. Fixed. Thanks.

  4. and so recent!

    1. bummer they fixed it 🙁 🙁 🙁

    1. was this an oral survey?

  5. Man I never even thought about it like that before. Wow., Thats like totally cool.

    http://www.anon-web.us.tc

    1. what is this? who is this? what is happening?

  6. I’m suprised it isn’t higher. Of course “some” researchers that propose AGW have likely falsified research (especially if you use a broad or overly idealistic definition of falsify).

    But that is not much. It’s absolutely true that proponents of Darwinian evolution have falsified data in the past. Hell, they’ve even used tactics to influence peer review publishing that would make East Anglia look mild in comparison. But those who would like to suggest that because these things have occurred we can dismiss Darwinian evolution are welcome to do so.

    And I hope you can do the analogy here…

    1. No! More explanation! Definition! Articulation!

      Invite us into the labyrinth that is your meticulously tuned and maintained brainal cavity!

      1. haha brainal cavity

  7. If anybody knows about confirmation bias, it should be you libertoid assholes.

    1. ahem, that’s “christfag libertoid assholes” to you

      1. My Lord! You’re Humungus!!

    2. this is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going “lalalalalalala”

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

    Action, here, meaning government action.

    There is the view that gov’t action has been the main actor causing any climate problems all along.

    1. Unless “immediate action” doesn’t apply to just other people.

      1. Good point. And probably what half of the Dems were thinking.

        But then, it’s even more likely that is was just half of what all the Dems were thinking. Which kind of goes back to my main point.

        Anyway, why am I talking about a survey?

  9. Can anyone separate the reality that the Earth is warming, and the likely fact that the warming results from fossil fuel consumption, from the implication that we need our glorious government saviors to help us? The actual effects of such a warming are very poorly defined; the existence of AGW does not necessarily imply a policy action. I see no utility in denying science for the sake of a political position; why not just oppose the political position of environmental bureaucrat tyranny?

    1. +69

      (which is the best amount)

      1. Funny how carbonated beverages go flat when they are warm. It’s almost as if temperature affects how much CO2 is dissolved into the liquid.
        So when liquids warm they release dissolved CO2.
        Wow. That would imply that as the oceans warm they would be less able to hold dissolved CO2, which would then be released into the atmosphere.
        Obviously this line of reasoning was funded by Big Oil and cannot be trusted.

        1. Look, you can pretend all you want that you understand the science here more than the experts that opine on the subject contrary to your views. That’s fine. But why in the world would any other person buy that?

          1. Because the scientists doing the studies that contradict AGW aren’t really experts, because their work doesn’t support AGW, and if their work doesn’t support AGW it can’t be correct, so therefore they can’t be experts. Epi’s right – you really are becoming boring.

            1. They are not experts? How do you make this argument? They all have educational and experiential backgrounds in these areas far above yours, right?

              Their work doesn’t support AGW? Then why do so many of them say it does? Again, do you know better than they do on this subject? Why should anyone believe you, who to our knowledge have comparitevely little background and accomplishment in these fields, is correct and they are wrong in this?

              “if their work doesn’t support AGW it can’t be correct, so therefore they can’t be experts”

              Who makes this argument? I certianly have never done so. Certainly there are bona fide experts that deny AGW. The reason I don’t think they are right in this is they are so outnumbered by bona fide experts who say otherwise. As someone, like you, who doesn’t know as much as they, I make the smart bet. Probability is on my side, what, other than your abhorrence of the implications of AGW, is on yours?

            2. But, but, they have TITLES!!

              And GOVERNMENT GRANTS!!

          2. As a homebrewer I know first hand how temperature affects carbonation.
            http://www.kegerators.com/arti…..-chart.php
            Considering that 2/3 of the planet is covered in water, and that that water while not carbonated does have CO2 dissolved into it (even the experts agree with that), then as that water increases in temperature some of that CO2 will be released. It will. It’s basic science.

            1. It’s basic science.

              I’m pretty sure you can’t understand science. And neither can I, I guess, since MNG said so.

              1. I’m just a homebrewer. I haven’t had a formal education in brew science.

                Therefor I can’t know anything about brewing.

                1. Maybe you can get a brew science permit from the authorities. Instant expert.

            2. Oh my dear lord, you’re bet that you are right and all these scientists are wrong rests on your experience as a home brewer?

              holy shit, seek help dude.

              1. You fools don’t understand! Science is done by consensus, not proofs and predictive value! Philistines and ignoramuses, all of you!

              2. I understand now MNG. You have given no critical thought on the matter other than judging credentials. That’s it. You judge strictly by the source and apply no common sense evaluation to what they are saying. Zero, zip, nada. You admit that you are too stupid to understand, or even attempt to understand, so you judge the person.

                That is why this country is in so much trouble. Politicians do the same thing.

          3. Which expert, in your view, has the model which has produced the best predictions over the last, say, 30 years?

            1. I doubt I or you know enough about the fields to even know if this is the correct question to ask.

              If you look at the IPP report for example it has many chapters each with dozens of authors from various fields. Their joint conclusion from many studies in a variety of different areas is that AGW is largely supported by all this. I’ve never seen one say “hey, I’ve got this one model and it alone proves this, so everyone get on board!”

              1. In other words, there is no model based on AGW that has demonstrated predictive value. As would be required to provide some proof for their theories. But…consensus!

              2. You can think we aren’t qualified to ask for an accurate model with sufficient predictive power before we sign on, but why in the world would any other person buy that?

        2. That is an odd little post. This line of reasoning is one of the “feedback” mechanisms that supports the more catastrophic versions of the impact of AGW. Similar concerns with methane in the tundra, etc.

          1. Which came first? The warming or the CO2?

            Some studies (funded by Big Oil obviously) suggest that in the past CO2 levels have followed rising temperatures, suggesting that the rise in CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of global warming.

            1. The is no doubt about the fact that the current rise in CO2 is driven by human output. This is not in conflict with the concept of C02 increases following natural warming. Certainly no natural event has released C02 at the rate we are currently. Even the Siberian traps (which increased the global c02 level to well above our current levels) took a long time to do it.

              1. Does that mean that rising CO2 is causing the warming?
                Correlation is not causation. If rising CO2 followed warming in the past, something else caused the warming.
                If in the past CO2 was not the driver of warming, but rather an effect, why is it now a cause?

                1. Actually I understand why rising CO2 is the cause. It is the cause because we’re pumping all these gasses into the atmosphere and it must be having an effect. It just must. You can’t burn all these fossil fuels without having an effect on the planet. You just can’t. Oh, look! The climate is changing. It’s always changed, but now we have such wonderful measuring equipment that we can measure the tiniest little change. Look, it keeps changing. The climate is changing, and human activity must have an effect on the planet…. that’s it! Climate change is caused by human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, because human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, must have an effect on the planet. It must!

                  Textbook begging the question.

                  1. Give up, it’s like arguing with a Creationist or clubbing a baby seal… no sport, sure as fuck no fun.

                2. Does that mean that rising CO2 is causing the warming?

                  No.

                  Correlation is not causation. If rising CO2 followed warming in the past, something else caused the warming.

                  True enough for the “initial” cause of the warming in many case, but beside the point. Once c02 rises, however, it contributes to the warming.

                  If in the past CO2 was not the driver of warming, but rather an effect, why is it now a cause?

                  Just because there are cases in the past where this greenhouse gas was not the primary driver of the warming, there is no logical reason to assume it is not in this case. There are multiple lines of evidence for AGW hypothesis, you would need to look at those in detail to build a case against them. The line of attack you are using here is not getting you far.

                  1. So there being no evidence that greenhouse gases caused warming in the past is no reason to assume that greenhouse gas is not causing current climate change.

                    Just because when warming occurred in the past something other than greenhouse gasses cause it is no reason to assume that current warming is also caused by something else.

                    Got it.

                    1. sarcasmic|8.5.11 @ 1:41PM|#

                      So there being no evidence that greenhouse gases caused warming in the past is no reason to assume that greenhouse gas is not causing current climate change.

                      You are missing important pieces of the story in this statement. Primary and secondary climate drivers, blah, blah, blah. There is plenty of evidence that C02 contributed to the warming once it increased in the past. You are using an argument about past primary causes to try and argue against the potential for c02 to be the primary driver in the current situation.

                      Just because when warming occurred in the past something other than greenhouse gasses cause it is no reason to assume that current warming is also caused by something else.

                      This is true. One thing can cause an effect in one instance. Something else can cause it in the next. There is no inherent contradiction.

                      Got it.

                      I am not convinced that you do.

                    2. One thing can cause an effect in one instance. Something else can cause it in the next.

                      What is that “one thing” in those other instances before this one?
                      You don’t know?

                      Why cannot that “one thing” that was the cause of past warming not be the cause this time?

                      Is it because it cannot be identified (and controlled by government)?

                      This is indeed like arguing with a Creationist.
                      The Creationist says “God must have created the universe because there is no other explanation that adequately explains it”
                      I say “maybe it cannot be explained”
                      The Creationist says “but there must be an explanation. There must!”

                    3. Is it because it cannot be identified (and controlled by government)?

                      No.

                      This is indeed like arguing with a Creationist.
                      The Creationist says “God must have created the universe because there is no other explanation that adequately explains it”
                      I say “maybe it cannot be explained”
                      The Creationist says “but there must be an explanation. There must!”

                      You aren’t saying “it cannot be explained,” – at least not in this discussion. So far all you have done is said “explanation X is not adequate for reason Y.” But your reason Y is a specious argument.

                      I detect a severe lack of self-awareness, but maybe you are just being sarcastic in your assertions.

                    4. You are using an argument about past primary causes to try and argue against the potential for c02 to be the primary driver in the current situation.

                      What were the primary causes in the past?
                      If greenhouse gasses were not primary before, what was and why should it be now?

                      You’re switching the burden of proof here by saying “greenhouse gasses must be the cause, prove me wrong by finding the other cause if it exists”.

                      Your performing fellatio on a fallacy.

                    5. sarcasmic|8.5.11 @ 2:09PM|#

                      You are using an argument about past primary causes to try and argue against the potential for c02 to be the primary driver in the current situation.

                      What were the primary causes in the past?
                      If greenhouse gasses were not primary before, what was and why should it (not) be now?

                      As suspected, you don’t get it.

                      You’re switching the burden of proof here by saying “greenhouse gasses must be the cause, prove me wrong by finding the other cause if it exists”.

                      Your performing fellatio on a fallacy.

                      Nope. I made no assertions about AGW. I just pointed out the flaws in your criticism of it.

                    6. I just pointed out the flaws in your criticism of it.

                      Your flaw was as follows

                      Just because there are cases in the past where this greenhouse gas was not the primary driver of the warming, there is no logical reason to assume it is not in this case.

                      Er, yeah there is. The fact that warming has always required a primary cause other than greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gas has never been sufficient on it’s own, kinda indicates that while greenhouse gas can affect the climate, by itself it is insignificant.

                      The argument of “well we don’t know what the primary cause was in the past, but we do have evidence that greenhouse gas played a small part, and that human activity is producing greenhouse gases, therefor greenhouse gas must be the primary cause right now” just isn’t very convincing.

                      An honest answer would be “we don’t know”, but that will not satisfy the politicians who want something to control.

                    7. sarcasmic|8.5.11 @ 2:42PM|#

                      I just pointed out the flaws in your criticism of it.

                      Your flaw was as follows

                      Just because there are cases in the past where this greenhouse gas was not the primary driver of the warming, there is no logical reason to assume it is not in this case.

                      Er, yeah there is. The fact that warming has always required a primary cause other than greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gas has never been sufficient on it’s own, kinda indicates that while greenhouse gas can affect the climate, by itself it is insignificant.

                      Doesn’t follow -(even ignoring that the current rate of c02 increase is unprecedented)- your statement is not an argument against the possibility that c02 is the primary cause this time around.

                      The argument of “well we don’t know what the primary cause was in the past, but we do have evidence that greenhouse gas played a small part, and that human activity is producing greenhouse gases, therefor greenhouse gas must be the primary cause right now” just isn’t very convincing.

                      Men of straw usually aren’t, but this is not an argument being made for AGW.

                      An honest answer would be “we don’t know”, but that will not satisfy the politicians who want something to control.

                      Ok.

                    8. Er, yeah there is. The fact that warming has always required a primary cause other than greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gas has never been sufficient on it’s own, kinda indicates that while greenhouse gas can affect the climate, by itself it is insignificant.

                      Bold indicates assumptions that are not supported by the empirical data as far as I know (I could be convinced otherwise if you’ve got the data to back up the claims).

                    9. Bold indicates assumptions that are not supported by the empirical data as far as I know

                      If greenhouse gas levels followed previous rises in temperatures, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that something else was the root cause.

                      The fact that human activity has resulted in unprecedented levels of greenhouse gasses is not proof that warming is caused by those gasses, unless you assume that the gasses must have an effect therefor they are the cause which is begging the question.

                      Now fuck off will you?

                    10. If greenhouse gas levels followed previous rises in temperatures, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that something else was the root cause.

                      Your statement included ALWAYS.

                      The fact that human activity has resulted in unprecedented levels of greenhouse gasses is not proof that warming is caused by those gasses, unless you assume that the gasses must have an effect therefor they are the cause which is begging the question.

                      I didn’t make that claim.

                      Now fuck off will you?

                      \n|m(~_^)m|n/
                      Touchy.

                    11. your statement is not an argument against the possibility that c02 is the primary cause this time around

                      You are correct. I am not making an argument, I am stating why I am not convinced.

                      even ignoring that the current rate of c02 increase is unprecedented

                      Unprecedented CO2 levels are the cause because they are unprecedented and must be causing something? That’s textbook begging the question.

                      And again, yes I’m not making an argument. Is the Nue Jeopardy where all statements must be phrased as an argument?

                      You know what? Go fuck yourself and have a nice weekend.
                      See you next Tuesday if you know what I mean.

                    12. your statement is not an argument against the possibility that c02 is the primary cause this time around

                      You are correct. I am not making an argument, I am stating why I am not convinced.

                      And I pointed out that your reason for skepticism is specious.

                      Unprecedented CO2 levels are the cause because they are unprecedented and must be causing something? That’s textbook begging the question.

                      No, that’s a text book example of a strawman. You are attacking an argument no one is making.

                    13. your statement is not an argument against the possibility that c02 is the primary cause this time around
                      Question begging and switching the burden of proof.
                      Is this Fallacy Day?
                      Now please will you fuck off?!?

                    14. Question begging and switching the burden of proof.

                      Again, I can’t be begging the question as all I did was point out the flaw in your reasoning. I did not make an assertion.

                      Is this Fallacy Day?

                      Based on your posts, it seems possible.

                      Now please will you fuck off?!?

                      Touchy.

                    15. And I didn’t ask you to prove anything.

                      You do whine like a little bitch don’t ya?

                    16. You have clearly implied things and then made the claim that since you didn’t say them explicitly that it never happened.
                      That’s the mark of someone who is a liar, a moron, a wannabe lawyer, or perhaps all three in the form of a politician.
                      I won’t give you credit for being a politician. Politicians have to be somewhat likable.

                      (there is an example of implying something without saying it explicitly. can you guess what I implied?)

                      I withdraw my well wishes that you have a nice weekend.

                      Just fuck off.

                      Please.

                      Fuck off.

                    17. sarcasmic|8.5.11 @ 6:50PM|#

                      You have clearly implied things and then made the claim that since you didn’t say them explicitly that it never happened.

                      You inferred things and then expected me to take credit for your inference. Sorry, I am not willing to do that.

                      That’s the mark of someone who is a liar, a moron, a wannabe lawyer, or perhaps all three in the form of a politician.

                      Such course language. You’re gonna give me the vapors.

                      I won’t give you credit for being a politician. Politicians have to be somewhat likable.

                      (there is an example of implying something without saying it explicitly. can you guess what I implied?)

                      Here I thought we were getting to be such good friends.

                      I withdraw my well wishes that you have a nice weekend.

                      Just fuck off.

                      Please.

                      Fuck off.

                      I don’t think your little tantrum will have an effect on the quality of my weekend.

    2. “Can anyone separate the reality that the Earth is warming, and the likely fact that the warming results from fossil fuel consumption, from the implication that we need our glorious government saviors to help us?”

      +1

      Here’s a sane, rational libertarian.

      1. Here’s a sane, rational libertarian.

        NTTAWWT

      2. Only the insane would say the world has not warmed a little bit since the late 70s.

        Only the insane would say CO2 has no effect on global temperatures.

        On the flip side only the insane thinks the warming so far is particularly high and only the insane thinks all of it has to be man made. And only the insane would think at current rates of 1.3 degrees per century is something that requires much worry.

        1. England was a savannah 400,000 years ago (think lions and antelopes) when averege temperatures were 3 degrees higher than now. 3 degrees IS a big deal.

          MNF and Metazoan are right on on this. The fact that GW is happening, and that human carbon production has played a role in it, DOES NOT mean at all we need to submit to governemnt/envornmental overlords. It does mean, that we should examine policy implications of various courses of action ranging from doing nothing to technological investment to *gasp* regulations, depending on a thorough examination of costs/benefits, market externalities and possible unintended consequences.

          1. Just saw Bailey’s linked article below arguing against gov policy to address climate change. THAT is the kind of thinking we need- not denialism and smearing of those who may take a different position.

            BTW- we all know that Rasmussen polls are VERY slanted in how they sample and are conducted so they vastly overstate conservative (not libertarian) views. Further, many folks respond to polls like these not with real answers but with “identity marking” answers- that tendency accounted for the 33% of repubs who said in polls they believed Obama was born in Kenya. they really didn’t believe that (only an imbecile would) but it was a way to thumb their nose at the President.

          2. It should be pointed out that from 1900 to 2000 there has been around a 1 degree increase in temperature and humanity adopted to it without any notice to the change.

            Climatologists often claim that the Medieval warming period was only regional (they are wrong about this) but even if they are right the MWP covered Europe and the temperature swing in Europe was much larger then the current change…yet Europe did not have much of a problem adjusting to it and they did it using the technology of the friggin Dark Ages.

            The idea that we cannot adjust to a smaller temperature change today is moronic.

            1. It should be pointed out that from 1900 to 2000 there has been around a 1 degree increase in temperature and humanity adopted adapted to it without any notice to the change.

              This seems unsupported.

              The idea that we cannot adjust to a smaller temperature change today is moronic.

              It matters that it wasn’t global in terms of the impact and the difficulty adjusting to it. Currently, many of the largest concentrations of humans live in areas that are vulnerable to the impacts of a warmer globe. Will humans adapt? Sure, no problem. But it’s “insane” to think that disruptions in glacial fresh water supplies, or long standing weather patterns (rain/drought cycles) will not be painful.

              Debating WHAT to do does not require us to deny that there will be challenges.

    3. Here’s the problem with the science. We know for a fact that at one time the Earth was much warmer than now. We know at one time the Earth was much cooler than now. These periods lasted in some cases greater than 100,000 years. With those 2 facts, how can we decide that a currently warming planet is bad, or that we are right now at the correct temperature, and a few degrees warmer would be bad for the environment. We don’t, and enacting a hugely expensive policy with these unknowns is insane.

      1. You’re obviously not profiting from this.

  10. Does leaving out the stuff which doesn’t support your prefabricated conclusion count as “falsification”?

    1. Yes, as does deliberately deleting and destroying data in order to avoid turning it over to interested outside observers.

      1. C’mon, man, surely all the interested outside observers want the value-added data, not the icky original raw data.

    2. Sadly preventing science that conflict with your bias from getting published does not fit into the falsification category…nor does letting shoddy work get published without rigorous peer review because it does support your beliefs.

      1. I would counter that a lie of omission is the worst kind of lie.

        1. Still in the confines of the question in the poll it does not meet the falsification of data definition.

          But yeah the thuggary and fraud that some climatologists have done in order to prevent critical work from getting published is far worse then simple falsification of data.

      2. joshua corning|8.5.11 @ 12:34PM|#

        Sadly preventing science that conflict with your bias from getting published does not fit into the falsification category…nor does letting shoddy work get published without rigorous peer review because it does support your beliefs.

        Do you propose that these sins only occur in one direction in this debate?

    1. +34.5

      (please note: this is accolades for your comment, not the linked column.)

      1. (Also, to be perfectly clear, 34.5 is half of 69. Some sex websites call the same thing ’68,’ which is weird because, mathematically speaking, this would be like, he gets full fellatio, but she just gets a couple of lick lick licks ever two minutes or so)

        1. 68 is where she gives you a BJ, and you owe her one.

    2. Thanks- very enjoyable column. I think it would benefit libertarians to be this clear on the issue.

  11. For me it boils down to economic and personal considerations. How would a warmer world really impact the world? Is there a cheaper (and better) way to deal with AGW than top-down planning or carbon taxes?

    In terms of economic freedoms, some of the solutions I’ve seen seem worse than the “disease”.

    Of course if you live the wastelands of Michigan, anything that makes a shorter winter is generally a good thing – lol.

  12. This is like a poll asking what percentage of people think a coin toss came up heads. The side of the coin facing up is a matter of *fact*: the coin either came up heads or tails. Peoples’ opinions about it are irrelevant.

    1. Exacto. And it had already been well documented that: NASA, NOAA, and the CRU at East Anglia U have ALL manipulated data in order to arrive at their desired conclusions.

      It’s not “likely” that some have falisfied – its a FACT that they have.

  13. Is anyone else amused that the people who don’t think climate scientists would ever falsify data are probably very likely to believe that vaccine scientists WOULD?

    And vice versa, of course.

    1. What in the world makes you think that?

    2. And vice versa, of course.

      Incentives man, incentives. The vaccine scientists are driven by profit, but the climate scientists are on the public teat…

      or something.

      1. The people who put this “the government incentive structure has created this consensus” narrative out there never apply it neutrally across the board, because it leads to such absurd conclusions.

        1. it leads to such absurd conclusions.

          You mean like our current economic projections?

  14. For what’s worth, I think it’s highly unlikely that many climate scientists have falsified research data

    Yes, it’s not likely that so many disparate individuals around the world have managed to keep a conspiracy together such that there’s (still, really) no smoking gun evidence.

    However, in addition to confirmation bias, these people are also all subject to the academic job market, which is notorious for rigid enforcement of the ‘right’ conclusions. That is more than sufficient to explain the hive mind effect.

    1. Many of the professionals who posit AGW don’t work on the academic job market, they work for foundations, institutions, government agencies found across the world.

      It’s interesting that this is so important for you though, seeing as how whatever indirect pressures to conform one’s findings to a pre-established position that exist in academe are nothing compared to the explicit and formal conformity requirements of the ideological think tanks that seem to be the home to most deniers.

      1. Stacy would be correct if she changed the “academic job market” to the “government grant seeking market”.

      2. Even if one’s job is secure, scientists have to get their research funds from somewhere. If they go to Big Oil, their results are tainted. If they go to the NSF, they have to persuade a panel of their peers and trust me, even in a field with few/no political pressures such as mine (astrophysics), conformity is a powerful force.

    2. It’s not necessary for the majority of Climate Scientists to be falsifying the data. All it takes is for Climate Scientists in key locations such as NASA and UEA who provide baseline and calibration data, along with a talent for self-promotion.

      Once you poison the calibration data (or even non-calibration data if you’re already a Name in academia) you’re capable of influencing all the research downstream.

      Go research how the mass of the electron ‘evolved’ over time due to Milliken’s original calculations in his oil droplet experiment. Nobody believed the original number could be SO wrong, so otherwise (allegedly) responsible scientists kept fudging their data in order to avoid a confrontation with Millikan’s original work, and they didn’t have the kind of incentives to lie that the Climate Mountebanks do.

      1. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. I heard this kind of talk years ago and when I took the time to read the IPP report I sat there chuckling that people would be led by this kind of talk, because there are entire chapters in the report of studies which are not even in the field you’re talking about but which suggest AGW.

        1. Like the glaciers in the Himalayas disappearing in 35 years!!!!1111!!

          1. The oceans will rise 20 meters!!!

      2. NASA and UEA who provide baseline and calibration data, along with a talent for self-promotion.

        Actually most of the falsification can be found in the work of Micheal Mann (and other paleo-climatologists) and his proxy work looking at climate before people measured it.

        The GISS, CRU and NOAA climate reconstructions that use past man measured temperatures…starting in the late 1800s are not all that bad…in most cases they are fucked up but they seem to be fucked up randomly so as they tend to cancel each other out.

        They probably do have a slight warming bias globally simply because they have shit like one weather station next to a heater in Siberia that is used to cover the temperature record for 1000s of square miles…but on the whole it is slight and they do track with satellite record of the past 30 years.

        1. I think you’re on unsound ground claiming that ‘fucked up random data’ tends to cancel itself out. It might, it might not, depending on a whole bunch of factors which ALSO can’t be determined.

          It’s bad enough basing costly social programs on first-order crappy data, but basing it on second order crappy data takes us way out into crazy land – i.e. right where Climate Alarmists are.

          1. I think you’re on unsound ground claiming that ‘fucked up random data’ tends to cancel itself out.

            It has been shown to do exactly that.

            The temperature records all mostly agree with each other….this includes the satellite record which I think is pretty spot on.

            Also I did not say fucked up random data.

            I was referring to adjustments or lack of needed adjustments to that data. The data itself is just fine…greater care could be taken with how it is used…but again that is not the fault of the data itself.

      3. Bod (12:21) hits the nail pretty squarely with this. One has to have a very strong ego to survive in the current academic world (I speak from decades of experience in that world). It’s frequently not a conscious attempt to falsify anything, but almost a blindness to those data contrary to one’s hypothesis. The peer review system for funding and publication is supposed to be the safety mechanism, but when the community at large has bought into a given model, it becomes extremely difficult to present anything to the contrary.

        The Milliken example is one that I cite regularly when working with the students to try to get them to look with their eyes wide open and mind fresh.

        “If it seems to be too good to be true, then it probably isn’t” applies not only to business deals, but for looking at your own data too!

    3. However, in addition to confirmation bias, these people are also all subject to the academic job market, which is notorious for rigid enforcement of the ‘right’ conclusions. That is more than sufficient to explain the hive mind effect.

      What’s really crazy is that there’s so much falsification to get “right answers” in the hard sciences, where getting the “wrong” answer can give you instant tenure.

      Ron’s giving scientists as a population too much credit.

      I challenge Ron to expose himself to the soul-wrenching world of scientific fraud:

      http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

  15. I would recommend for those interested to watch the following debate from Autralia- British Lord Christopher Monkton debates Aussie Dr. Richard Dennis at the National Press Club of Australia.

    Lord Monkton basically annihilates Mr. Dennis by examining the issue from a factual and logical standpoint. I’m sure the mingeys and NM’s will call it differently, but the debate is over. The hippies lost. I am far more worried about our economy collapsing than a .01% increase in surface temperatures regardless of the theories about AGW.

    1. The link got all messed up- here’s another link to the debate.

      http://ricochet.com/member-fee…..-Australia

      1. Thanks for that. Good watch. That limey bastard really whopped some ass.

  16. I’m glad this is finally over. The Consensus clearly says that the AGW folks were lying this whole time(that’s the non-weasely way to say ‘falsify’, kids), and as we all know, in Climate Science, the Consensus’ word is Law.

    1. in Climate Science, the Consensus’ word is Law.

      nice

      +1

  17. The public doesn’t revere scientists as much as the left would believe, and the reason is not because we assume their conclusions are false.

    Most people lack the scientific background and technical skills to judge the conclusions announced by scientist, and they will not accept the conclusions blindly because of the source’s credentials.

    Only the credibility of the source is left to judge, which has recently been questioned in a few ways. First, is the frequent episodes of contradictory scientific conclusions where product X is good for you, bad for you, good for you, bad, good, bad, good, and so on. Second, is that those that scream the loudest about global warming (Gore?), then engage in conduct which contradicts their concern (private jets, large energy-consuming mansions, etc.).

    People may come around to accepting policy to deal with global warming, but they have to be presented by an objective, non-alarmist that acts in accordance with the conclusions they proclaim.

    1. “Scientists”, as commonly encountered by the public, also tend to be those who work in non-applied fields, e.g. climatology, ecology, meteorology, psychology (compare to the hard sciences that are fully measurable and rooted in math: chemistry, physics). These fluff “scientists” are also highly dependent on public funding, and go out of their way to push the position that invariably requires more statism as the cure, and insures more funding for their waste-of-time “research”. Finally, the conclusions of these [not very] “scientific” fields are so frequently proven false, that they have no credibility.

      1. You somehow think the “hard” sciences aren’t dependent on public funding and equally fraudulent?

  18. Did I miss Matt Damon Day?

  19. Can you dig up the polls on UFOs and Jesus coming back so I can have extra verification on how smart the ‘merican public is?

  20. “…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.”

    That scientists have falsified research is now irrefutable, after all we have a consensus.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.