Poll: Real scientists FAKING the data!!!

[skookerasbil]

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Wednesday, August 03, 2011

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 .)

69% Say It







It just keeps getting better and better. A super-majority of Americans thnk the "real scientists" fake the data in an effort to suppor their own beliefs! 69%....








not winning



pardon the typos'..........I must admit, when I see further a further crash and burn of the alarmist k00k agenda's, the level of excitment will occassionally cause me some motor fcukk ups.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[konradv]

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Wednesday, August 03, 2011

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 .)

69% Say It

It just keeps getting better and better. A super-majority of Americans thnk the "real scientists" fake the data in an effort to suppor their own beliefs! 69%....

not winning

pardon the typos'..........I must admit, when I see further a further crash and burn of the alarmist k00k agenda's, the level of excitment will occassionally cause me some motor fcukk ups.

I guess the skeptics don't have real scientists, right? Otherwise, why wouldn't it be the skeptical scientists that the public believes to be falsifying data? For example, the way the skeptics grossly misinterpreted the recent NASA study "in an effort to support their own beliefs"!!!

 

[Oddball]

I guess the skeptics don't have real scientists, right? Otherwise, why wouldn't it be the skeptical scientists that the public believes to be falsifying data? For example, the way the skeptics grossly misinterpreted the recent NASA study "in an effort to support their own beliefs"!!!

I guess the hoaxers don't have any independently verifiable data. Otherwise, all of these scandals wouldn't be coming out of the woodwork, since the Hadley e-mail and source code dump.

The wheels are coming off!

 

[Old Rocks]

So, all the scientists worldwide, from the various political systems are all faking their data. And when people go on an ship tour up the Alaska coast, the scientists go ahead of them and chop off the ends of the glaciers that have receded greatly in historical times, right? Same for the glaciers in the mountains.

Now everybody, make sure that you have your tinfoil hats on, no way would we want to allow rational thought to pollute your little brains.

 

[konradv]

I guess the skeptics don't have real scientists, right? Otherwise, why wouldn't it be the skeptical scientists that the public believes to be falsifying data? For example, the way the skeptics grossly misinterpreted the recent NASA study "in an effort to support their own beliefs"!!!

I guess the hoaxers don't have any independently verifiable data. Otherwise, all of these scandals wouldn't be coming out of the woodwork, since the Hadley e-mail and source code dump.

The wheels are coming off!

I agree. How long can they keep the Global Cooling hoax going, when all they're doing is misinterpreting the data of real scientists? What's more scandalous than stealing someone's private communications and then fabricating self-serving interpretations of what they meant? Look at what happened afterwards. The scientists were exonerated, but the Global Cooling hoaxers merrily go along, as if nothing had happened despite being complicit after the fact in what is really a crime. Just shows you how concentrated money and willing lemmings can keep a doomed cause going.

 

[wirebender]

So, all the scientists worldwide, from the various political systems are all faking their data.

Not all. Most simply work from the assumption that the fakers haven't actually faked thier data and wrongly assume it is correct. Any scientist who begins with the assumption that there is anything such as a greenhouse effect, or that the models representing earth are accurate are wrong at their foundations and any work built on those assumptions, no matter how honest the scientist is is going to be wrong.

 

[konradv]

So, all the scientists worldwide, from the various political systems are all faking their data.

Not all. Most simply work from the assumption that the fakers haven't actually faked thier data and wrongly assume it is correct. Any scientist who begins with the assumption that there is anything such as a greenhouse effect, or that the models representing earth are accurate are wrong at their foundations and any work built on those assumptions, no matter how honest the scientist is is going to be wrong.

 

[daveman]

So, all the scientists worldwide, from the various political systems are all faking their data.

Not all. Most simply work from the assumption that the fakers haven't actually faked thier data and wrongly assume it is correct. Any scientist who begins with the assumption that there is anything such as a greenhouse effect, or that the models representing earth are accurate are wrong at their foundations and any work built on those assumptions, no matter how honest the scientist is is going to be wrong.

You can laugh, but that doesn't change the fact that he's right.

How many climate researchers do their own independent work from the ground up? How many don't use data and models from others?

It's all built on a house of cards. And it's crumbling right in front of you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not all. Most simply work from the assumption that the fakers haven't actually faked thier data and wrongly assume it is correct. Any scientist who begins with the assumption that there is anything such as a greenhouse effect, or that the models representing earth are accurate are wrong at their foundations and any work built on those assumptions, no matter how honest the scientist is is going to be wrong.

You can laugh, but that doesn't change the fact that he's right.

How many climate researchers do their own independent work from the ground up? How many don't use data and models from others?

It's all built on a house of cards. And it's crumbling right in front of you.

This would be an example of how ethic violations in science are the single greatest WMD. And why there's so much forgiveness for making HONEST mistakes.

An HONEST mistake that shakes up the mountain of work perched on the mistake can MOTIVATE folks to redo their work and see what happens.. If those mistakes were intentional and with malice -- no one really wants to put in the effort to fix the pile of rubble..

 

[daveman]

You can laugh, but that doesn't change the fact that he's right.

How many climate researchers do their own independent work from the ground up? How many don't use data and models from others?

It's all built on a house of cards. And it's crumbling right in front of you.

This would be an example of how ethic violations in science are the single greatest WMD. And why there's so much forgiveness for making HONEST mistakes.

An HONEST mistake that shakes up the mountain of work perched on the mistake can MOTIVATE folks to redo their work and see what happens.. If those mistakes were intentional and with malice -- no one really wants to put in the effort to fix the pile of rubble..

I believe the majority of climate scientists are acting in good faith. But the ones disseminating bad data and flawed models are doing so knowingly.

 

[westwall]

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Wednesday, August 03, 2011

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 .)

69% Say It

It just keeps getting better and better. A super-majority of Americans thnk the "real scientists" fake the data in an effort to suppor their own beliefs! 69%....

not winning

pardon the typos'..........I must admit, when I see further a further crash and burn of the alarmist k00k agenda's, the level of excitment will occassionally cause me some motor fcukk ups.

I guess the skeptics don't have real scientists, right? Otherwise, why wouldn't it be the skeptical scientists that the public believes to be falsifying data? For example, the way the skeptics grossly misinterpreted the recent NASA study "in an effort to support their own beliefs"!!!

Wow, that is a pretty amazing bit of convoluted rationalisation there konrad.
I have to hand it to you.....you will argue that the moon doesn't actually reflect the suns rays if your priests tell you so. Amazing.

 

[westwall]

So, all the scientists worldwide, from the various political systems are all faking their data. And when people go on an ship tour up the Alaska coast, the scientists go ahead of them and chop off the ends of the glaciers that have receded greatly in historical times, right? Same for the glaciers in the mountains.

Now everybody, make sure that you have your tinfoil hats on, no way would we want to allow rational thought to pollute your little brains.

No, it seems the PUBLIC believe it is confined to the AGW alarmists. They were pretty specific on that point.

 

[IanC]

konradv- you claim that the scientists were exonerated but in fact they were found unguilty of twisted and ambiguous versions of the charges. Penn asked Mann if he actively conspired to delete AR4 related emails. His negative response was accepted at face value even though he passed along Jones' email and Wahl subsequently deleted his incriminating AR4 materials. Why werent even rudimentary questions investigated? even more importantly, why werent the deleted materials examined for wrongdoing? in England it was even worse. they didnt even ASK Jones if he sent the email, or the reasons why. the inquiry was spent discussing materials that were peripheral to the problems, and no critics were allowed to be part of the proceedings.

I think you have failed to look into this matter farther than reading a headline. do you actually know anything about the controversial proxies such as Yamal or Tiljander? do you know how many of the temp reconstruction use bristlecone pines? do you know about how many of the most popular proxy series have been updated but the latest results have been kept sequestered because they no longer show the 'right' results? I read blogs and papers from both sides and there is much more to global warming than just headlines and the final number spit out of a climate model.

 

[IanC]

konradv- do you even know what the controversy about the AR4 emails was about? do you know what they were trying to keep under wraps. a one sentence answer would be sufficient. can you do it?

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[IanC]

no shit skooks!

and the more times climate science ducks legitimate questions and FOI requests, the more people start thinking something fishy is going on. once trust is broken it is very hard to get it back

 

[westwall]

no shit skooks!

and the more times climate science ducks legitimate questions and FOI requests, the more people start thinking something fishy is going on. once trust is broken it is very hard to get it back

They'll never get it back. The scientific community at large regards them as pariahs. The publics attitude is reflected in the polling report. The only people who don't care are sycophants and political hacks. What pisses me off is their stink rubs off on legit scientists the world over.

 

[Si modo]

no shit skooks!

and the more times climate science ducks legitimate questions and FOI requests, the more people start thinking something fishy is going on. once trust is broken it is very hard to get it back

They'll never get it back. The scientific community at large regards them as pariahs. The publics attitude is reflected in the polling report. The only people who don't care are sycophants and political hacks. What pisses me off is their stink rubs off on legit scientists the world over.

Indeed, they are pariahs. And, their stink is offensive to those who value scientific integrity.

This, from December 2009, predicted their pariah status and sums it up nicely, IMO:

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

A few weeks ago, emails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England were published on the internet. With any illegally obtained information, the credibility of the contents should be questioned. However, if these published emails are genuine, the contents indicate a scandal in the climate science community that is an insult to the integrity of the entire scientific community. It’s an insult to truth.

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.

Nancy Neale, former professor of Chemistry, is a guest Liberty Features Syndicate writer for Americans for Limited Government.

An Insult to All Science