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

[bripat9643]

Sorry dumbass but saying "the public thinks it's false and that proves it false" is a logical fallacy no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

Try harder.

No one said that, dipstick.

 

[bripat9643]

There have been independent investigations into those emails and none of them have found fraud.

"Independent?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Are you serious?

However they were all done by scientists so if you think all science is intent on making up global warming then you can just dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

They were done by notorious warmist hacks.

 

[Father Time]

Sorry dumbass but saying "the public thinks it's false and that proves it false" is a logical fallacy no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

Try harder.

No one said that, dipstick.

Learn to read.

Why is your side losing so spectacularly then? Hmmmm? Three years ago every wacko environmental law you could think of was likely to get passed, now.......crickets MENSA boy, crickets. That is all the proof I need...and the rest of the planet as well it seems.

 

[Patrick2]

The Rasmussen poll is ominous for AGW religionists, since unlike most other major polls, theres is based on likely voters, not all adults.

 

[westwall]

This part is interesting to me.

"No critics were on the panel and no critics were interviewed by the panel."

So what? I mean this is about what some scientists did and what they sent to other scientists. What insight would some random critics have brought?

If they did bring a critic all they would say would be "This email says X, and this email says Y" and since they have the emails they really don't need a critic.

Here is an analogy you might be able to follow. A hit man kills someone at the behest of a corporate executive. He is caught. He gets to prosecute himself using evidence he chooses. His judge is the man who hired him.

So what you're saying is that every person in those review panels were directly involved in this?

That's demonstrably false.

Not all, but enough to control the outcomes of the "investigations". Look, I don't give a whit if you believe me or not. Just open your eyes and read about the shenanigans from as many different sources as you can and not just the lefty side or the righty side. Review them all. Then come back and tell us what you've found.

 

[Father Time]

Here is an analogy you might be able to follow. A hit man kills someone at the behest of a corporate executive. He is caught. He gets to prosecute himself using evidence he chooses. His judge is the man who hired him.

So what you're saying is that every person in those review panels were directly involved in this?

That's demonstrably false.

Not all, but enough to control the outcomes of the "investigations". Look, I don't give a whit if you believe me or not. Just open your eyes and read about the shenanigans from as many different sources as you can and not just the lefty side or the righty side. Review them all. Then come back and tell us what you've found.

To be honest I'm getting sick of this discussion although I might look into that later.

 

[IanC]

my, my.....

seems as if Father Time has actually looked into the inquiries beyond the headlines and is now not quite so certain whether or not he should send his support their way.

the climategate emails are a treasure trove of clues as to where people should investigate, not proof positive of guilt. for instance: Jones sent out an email calling for the deletion of IPCC related correspondence immediately after the UEA received an FOI request for those materials. Mann may, or may not have deleted his info but he certainly passed the email on to Wahl who has admitted to deleting the inconvenient AR4 correspondence after receiving the forwarded Jones request. the Penn investigation asked Mann if he was involved and he said no. Penn took him at his word and performed no further investigation, such as asking Wahl what happened. in England it was even more farcical. they did not even ask Jones whether he wrote and sent the email, which would have been strong evidence of conspiracy to break the law concerning the freedom of information act. instead they frittered away their time unsuccessfully recreating the UEA temperature record and looking at non-controversial papers, while studiously avoiding any area that might prove embarrassing.

that is one tread in the spiderweb of climategate. it leaves many questions unanswered. what was in the deleted correspondence?!? why were the principle players allowed to duck the hard questions and the subordinants not even spoken to? unfortunately this is not an isolated event. the NAS inquiry into the Hockey Stick, followed by the Wegman report, and a further overview study of both of those also sidestepped the hard questions and refused to track inconsistencies and cunondrums to their sources. it is one thing to have rogue scientists that think they are above scientific principals, it is another to have the scientific community protect them in their malfeasance.

 

[westwall]

So what you're saying is that every person in those review panels were directly involved in this?

That's demonstrably false.

Not all, but enough to control the outcomes of the "investigations". Look, I don't give a whit if you believe me or not. Just open your eyes and read about the shenanigans from as many different sources as you can and not just the lefty side or the righty side. Review them all. Then come back and tell us what you've found.

To be honest I'm getting sick of this discussion although I might look into that later.

Yes, it does make one feel sick when they realise that those they had placed their trust in were lying to them.

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks can believe whatever they want.........which makes coming into this forum even more of a hoot for guys like me, Ian, West, wire, gslack, Daveman et. al.. They can bark about the "science" all they want.......but nobody is giving a rats ass. Its called reality in 2011. The k00ks think this debate is occurring and we're back in 2006.. This "global warming" shit is as good as a myth..........and by the way, Keynesian Economics is very close to achieving the same status!!!


Indeed.............its good to be KING!!!!!

 

[Father Time]

Not all, but enough to control the outcomes of the "investigations". Look, I don't give a whit if you believe me or not. Just open your eyes and read about the shenanigans from as many different sources as you can and not just the lefty side or the righty side. Review them all. Then come back and tell us what you've found.

To be honest I'm getting sick of this discussion although I might look into that later.

Yes, it does make one feel sick when they realise that those they had placed their trust in were lying to them.

my, my.....

seems as if Father Time ... is now not quite so certain whether or not he should send his support their way.

That is not what I said. It's just good practice to see both sides.

 

[konradv]

The Rasmussen poll is ominous for AGW religionists, since unlike most other major polls, theres is based on likely voters, not all adults.

Well AGW isn't running for anything, so what does "likely voters" have to do with it? More "actual" voters voted for Gore than Bush. I guess he won, eh?

Who's more religionist, people who want to do the real science or those who want to shut it down because we should have FAITH that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth? Considering what we've already done, that's kind of hard to swallow.

 

[skookerasbil]

And as an aside, and adding insult to injury, Co2 levels have fallen dramatically................

fuckking Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!.........U.S. carbon emissions fell record 7 percent in 2009: EIA | Reuters

 

[rdean]

Do you understand what a peer reviewed scientific journal is?

In the case of climatology, it's a con game.

That's the right wing definition. And of course, MORE than 6% of scientists are Republican.

 

[westwall]

The Rasmussen poll is ominous for AGW religionists, since unlike most other major polls, theres is based on likely voters, not all adults.

Well AGW isn't running for anything, so what does "likely voters" have to do with it? More "actual" voters voted for Gore than Bush. I guess he won, eh?

Who's more religionist, people who want to do the real science or those who want to shut it down because we should have FAITH that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth? Considering what we've already done, that's kind of hard to swallow.

I suggest you look at your side for evidence of trying to shut down debate. Boy, you really have a hard time with the truth don't you.

 

[Father Time]

And as an aside, and adding insult to injury, Co2 levels have fallen dramatically................

fuckking Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!.........U.S. carbon emissions fell record 7 percent in 2009: EIA | Reuters

Are you illiterate or just stupid?

It says that EMISSIONS have fallen not CO2 Levels.

 

[Wicked Jester]

69% Say It

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 .)

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.

Soooooooo, that must be why the following douchebag got so upset the other day:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SfWdDP5v_A]‪Al Gore Meltdown at the Aspen Institute - Profanity laced rant as Global Warming Scam collapses‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Poor ol' Algore....That sap is watching his fraudulent cash cow known as the bogus global warming lie go down the fucking tubes.

 

[konradv]

And as an aside, and adding insult to injury, Co2 levels have fallen dramatically................

fuckking Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!.........U.S. carbon emissions fell record 7 percent in 2009: EIA | Reuters

LOL!!! CO2 emissions going down isn't a an ooops for AGW, IT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Despite what your polls are saying, it seems someone is listening.

 

[konradv]

69% Say It

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 .)

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.

Soooooooo, that must be why the following douchebag got so upset the other day:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SfWdDP5v_A]‪Al Gore Meltdown at the Aspen Institute - Profanity laced rant as Global Warming Scam collapses‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Poor ol' Algore....That sap is watching his fraudulent cash cow known as the bogus global warming lie go down the fucking tubes.

LOL!!! Another know-nothing with a hord-on for Gore. As I've said many, many times before, those that know the subject, discuss it; those that don't, discuss Gore.

 

[IanC]

This part is interesting to me.

"No critics were on the panel and no critics were interviewed by the panel."

So what? I mean this is about what some scientists did and what they sent to other scientists. What insight would some random critics have brought?

If they did bring a critic all they would say would be "This email says X, and this email says Y" and since they have the emails they really don't need a critic.

why would anyone want some random critic? wouldnt an informed critic who was involved with much of the IPCC shenanigans but outside the hockey team roster be a better choice? the fact is that the UEA inquiries avoided the hard questions and didnt even investigate the answers to the easy questions that they did ask. even the House of Commons Inquiry into the Inquiries did a better job, but they were handicapped by a time limit which gave no opportunity to check the slippery answers given against the facts. Stringer still came down very hard on the abuse of science involved.

I can understand how you, or any member of the public, would wish that the inquiries were sufficient to exonerate the scientists and institutions involved. unfortunately it was a whitewash that ultimately may cause even more harm to the reputation of science.

 

[skookerasbil]

And as an aside, and adding insult to injury, Co2 levels have fallen dramatically................

fuckking Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!.........U.S. carbon emissions fell record 7 percent in 2009: EIA | Reuters

LOL!!! CO2 emissions going down isn't a an ooops for AGW, IT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Despite what your polls are saying, it seems someone is listening.

INdeed......let me tell you.........the amount of significant climate change legislation over the last two years is nothing less than daunting!!!


Hate to break it to you s0n, but nobody's listening. Its 2011......nobody cares about the science or Co2 except the far left internet oddballs. Of course, I made a post over three months ago asking any of the k00ks to post up a link that proves otherwise and Im still waiting...........