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

From Rasmussen Reports, some bad news for Al Gore and the Hockey Team:

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.

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 . See methodology .

Voters have been almost evenly divided on whether human activity or long-term planetary trends are to blame for global warming since May of last year .

Full story here at: Rasmussen Reports

h/t to Jer at Skeptics Corner (click and give him some hits)

About these ads

139 thoughts on “Rasmussen poll: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

  1. I want to know what is wrong with the 31% who don’t know that the “scientists” are fudging the data.

  2. “Democrats are more likely to support immediate action on global warming compared to those from other party affiliations.”
    So socialists are more naive than the rest of us? No! Say it ain’t so!

  3. It’s OK to make that speculation (I guess.) — but don’t you have to know the truth before you can formulate a lie? Or are some people (some climate scientists anyway) “just making stuff up” — as Steve McIntyre has recently speculated….

  4. Well, they should model it to see if it jives. The real survey should be taken of Scientists, to see if the much vaunted consensus exists. I doubt that it does, no denyin’ it. What this survey would seem to indicate is that people are getting fed up with the ongoing alarmism with no outcome…and that’s a fact!

    :-)

  5. Did anyone correlate responses with whether the respondents were Creationists or Darwinists?

  6. posted this story twice under ice posting today. BTW what is really significant is that from what I can tell Google is suppressing this story under news “climate” or “global warming”, even “Rasmussen climate etc” doesn’t bring it up. This would be extremely distressful to Climate Team. I’m sure the team is on the phone to their pals at google to stifle this urgently.

  7. WillR says:

    “It’s OK to make that speculation (I guess.) — but don’t you have to know the truth before you can formulate a lie? Or are some people (some climate scientists anyway) “just making stuff up” — as Steve McIntyre has recently speculated….”

    Will, Steve McIntyre didn’t “speculate.” When the Climategate emails were leaked, a file named “Harry_read_me” was also leaked. The programmer admitted fabricating many years of temperautre data:

    “Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
    Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
    What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

  8. 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,

  9. David, UK says:
    August 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    “Democrats are more likely to support immediate action on global warming compared to those from other party affiliations.”
    So socialists are more naive than the rest of us? No! Say it ain’t so!

    It’s not naivete as much as it is that entire side of the political spectrum threw their weight into this endeavor. It’s was going to be a grand reason to unify world politics under centralized controls for the salvation of humanity. It would be very hard for anyone to abandon all that political effort regardless of what their rationality may (or may not) be saying to them.

    In order to restore sanity to both political parties in this matter, large short-term variability in spite of any of mans activities, will have to be demonstrated. That may be coming.

  10. “You Reap What You Sow”

    This perception is the outcome of years of obfuscation. If climate organisations such as UEA/CRU continue with their present policy of out and out obfuscation then the 69% can only go one way.

    In the UK the same applies to politicians, if they continue to obfuscate about the amount of green taxes that are hidden in energy bills, the trust level will fall further.

    Mind, with UK politicians and UEA/CRU a further fall in trust maybe very difficult!

    And I used to be proud of my country

  11. There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen, the well-deserved reputation of research scientists has been trashed by the Warmista. Al Gore, can you hear me? This is one of the truly evil things that your contributions to science have helped bring about.

    Isn’t it ironic that in the USA 69% of respondents say that malfeasance by scientists is possible yet their children who attend public schools are fed the garbage produced by Warmista on a daily basis? I guess it goes to prove that parents have no say in the operation of the public schools.

  12. Dermot O’Logical says: August 3, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    [Did anyone correlate responses with whether the respondents were Creationists or Darwinists?]

    Darwin was a Creationist.

    Darwin only concluded that Natural Selection was responsible for the development of species in to how they appear today. He did not accept the Bible as a historically accurate record but he never speculated or proposed a conjecture as to the origin of the laws of the universe; he maintained that God was the ultimate lawgiver.
    So if you want to re-phrase that irrelevant and divisive question, I would suggest the following

    Did anyone correlate responses with whether the respondents were Static Creationists (like the Pope) or Evolutionary Creationists (like Darwin)?

  13. WillR says:
    August 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm
    “It’s OK to make that speculation (I guess.) — but don’t you have to know the truth before you can formulate a lie?”

    WillR, please. Lying is deceiving (or attempting to deceive) another about what you know or believe to be the case. You can lie about your fantasies.

  14. Anyone who has heard of “back to 1400 censored” would vote ‘100% likely’ on #5, the lie question.

  15. Let’s be clear about this:

    W know, with 100% percent certainty that som so called ‘climate scientist’ are faking, massaging or torturing their data. To show what they want it to show.

    That doesn’t mean that 100% or 69% of them fake their data, or that 69% of the data is wrong. It merely says that the assessments are tainted, and towards the warmist’s side.

    Also know, that this is used as a diversion tactic. Whenever a faulty data set unravels, the counter-claim is: This hardly matters at all in the grand and global scheme of things. Combined with all the other data, this difference is hardly visible.

  16. This decline cannot be hidden – no tricks Mike.
    You can fool some of the people – all of the time [grauniad NYT readers, RS + British Politicians, John Beddington and G Moanbot], you can fool all of the people – some of the time……………………… but you can’t fool us all – all of the time. And some people just won’t be fooled by fools.

  17. Its not creationists I worry about. Its socialists intent on bankrupting the country and making the poor and middle class pay way more for electricity and heating than they need to be. Thereby in effect adding another tax to the already horrid tax burden.

    If rich socialists want to pay more and can afford more, let them donate money to the power companies instead of Obama’s re-election campaign.

  18. “Rasmussen poll: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research”

    Whoa!

    I’m actually in the majority on something!

    :)

    Seriously –

    I would not be surprised to find that the majority of those polled by Rasmussen did not get their opinion from a scientist, but from the journalists, politicians, activists, etc. that shape opinions.

    Even so, that makes the results of this poll more surprising.

  19. This isn’t just bad news for Al et al, it is bad for all of science. The alarmist are responsible, probably none more than Jim Hanson.

  20. The media must be well aware of this poll by now, and I’m thinking they will be in a bit of a panic over the results. What this poll demonstrates quite clearly is that people no longer believe what they are being told by the “legacy” media. Others that will take note of this will be advertisers — that is what terrifies the AGW lobby the most.

  21. In equally important polling news (/sarc), coming from an innovative online method, it has been reported that Internet Explorer users ‘have below-average IQ’.

    Note that if you switch to Firefox (or a variant like Iceweasel for Debian Linux), you can install CA Assistant which will give you a handy Preview button as well as HTML formatting assistance. Thus you can see if the formatting is correct before posting, thus avoid unseemly errors that make you appear to be less intelligent than otherwise.

    (It also has the beneficial side-effect of reducing premature aging among the moderation staff caused by aggravation from correcting common HTML formatting mistakes, the sort that may make them think the poster really isn’t that smart.)

  22. Actually, Andrew30, the Pope believes in evolution. You can google this to confirm. Enough about that.

    69% of people is a lot of people! Of course, this doesn’t really say anything about the etnire body of work, the questions were about whether they think someone had fabricated data. Of course, I would say it’s probably likely, also. Why would science be the only human endeavor free from human failings, like falling prey to the temptation to fabricate data?

  23. results like this are partly down to the total failure to effectively investigate the CRU and Mann over their actions. The white washes really where the worst of both worlds for all sides . Arrogance or ignorance of the public and its concerns, you take your pick over how they could fail to understand the way they managed the ‘reviews’ would be seen outside of their own little world.

  24. Well, it seems that the public has reached CONSENSUS on the question of whether Al Gore and AGW climate scientists have faked their data, the issue is SETTLED!

  25. That is because the science has been sold as a Democratic Party solution to a number of their wants.It was an easy way to get money and influence.

  26. It is remarkable such a high result occurs, as this is quite a strong question. A lesser one is whether they exaggerate or are selective in the use of data. Or take a short trend, be slightly out over modelling that trend, and then project over a long period, and you get totally false or misleading results.

    Anyone encountered Tamino of “Open Mind”? He used a “model” to try to debunk an article on Australian Sea level rise recently. Extrapolate his “model” of sea level acceleration and those sea levels will eventually reach the sun.

    http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/tamino-on-australian-sea-levels/

  27. Andrew30-Your calling the Pope a “static creationist” is a little odd. The Catholic Church’s position on evolution is in fact not at all “creationist” especially when compared to the positions of many evangelical Protestants.

    But how this is in anyway relevant to people’s understanding of the academic dishonesty of climate scientists is totally unclear. As far as I can tell, this is blatant misdirection.

  28. The jig is 69% up, and counting for these “scientists”. The smart ones will be looking for, and taking any exits available. I’m reminded of how the Nazis tried to cover their tracks as the Allied troops began to overrun their positions. Only a question of time now.

  29. Human cannot contribute to any GLOBAL warming; there is no such a thing as a GLOBAL warming. 2] Yes human is contributing to climatic changess; climate can change for better and for worse; climate never stops changing, nobody can stop climate from changing; doesn’t need any global warming for climate to keep changing. Puting the phony GLOBAL warming with the real climate changes is not something to be proud off. Soon one day will have stigma atached to it

  30. I have never, never, ever…in a million years, ever exaggerated. I swear on my sainted mothers rubie slippers I will never, ever in ten billion years stretch the truth

    Ben Darren Hillicoss

  31. ” Think Progress” is already claiming that Fox News helped Rassumusen do the poll, and that the numbers are inaccurate. They sure jumped on that one.

  32. Yeah, but you only use public polls to drum up support for climate change action, not the other way around. (from Squealer’s little red book).

  33. Hmmmm. So “69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research”. And the U.S. government just pushed up the national debt limit because we’re broke. The government is paying for most of this junky global warming “research”. Hmmmm. What, conclusion can I draw here…thinking…thinking…

  34. There have been a few, a very few commenters in the past who have forecast that the data falsifying , the hiding of data and refusal to follow the accepted protocols of making data and computations readily available for others to repeat and verify, the deliberate fraudulent incorporation of suspect or made up data by climate science and scientists will drag the whole image of all of science down into the gutter with very serious long term implications for the public funding and advancement of science as a whole.
    Scientists have been placed on a very high pedestal since the end of WW2 as they were seen by all sides in that great conflict as making an immense contribution to their side’s ability to wage war and were seen in the end to be one of the most important contributing factors to the victory of the allied nations over the axis nations.
    Then came the Cold War and the Race to Space where again the superiority of the science and the calibre of the scientists were seen as critical factors in the final outcomes of both those historical interludes.
    And then for each of us the personal angle where science and scientists are seen as the great contributors to the health and medical professions that have done so much in the western world to ameliorate so much suffering and have lengthened lives in a way that for the most part, those longer lives can and still are productive and enjoyable.

    Now through hubris and disgraceful dishonour in the way they interpret science and the way they practice their so called science, a coterie of very influential and powerful AGW climate scientists are dragging the profession of science deep into the muck of the fecal pit as seen by an increasing number of the public who are forced to pay for that corrupted climate science and corrupted climate scientists.

    And as James Lovelock of Gaia fame said in a Guardian interview mid 2010;
    [quote"]
    Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the stolen CRU emails [he later clarified that he hadn’t read the originals, saying: “Oddly, I felt reluctant to pry”:

    I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.

    I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

    Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.

    You can make mistakes; they’re helpful. In the old days, it was perfectly OK to make a mistake and say so. You often learned from it. Nowadays if you’re dependent on a grant – and 99% of them are – you can’t make mistakes as you won’t get another one if you do. It’s an awful moral climate and it was all set up for the best of reasons [end]
    [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock ]

    Science has been on the high pedestal of public opinion for nearly three generations and as in all things this will eventually come to an end and science will and maybe already is being brought back down to earth, to the level of the common people who pay for it, from that pedestal of high public esteem.
    Perhaps it is a necessary requirement for all of science to now take a long hard look at itself, review what has happened to science, clean out it’s Augean stables of the filth that has accumulated therein and renew it’s charter and agreement with society who pays so generously for that science.
    If scientists and science don’t do this on their own accord and do it very soon it will be done for them and the end result may be one that science and scientists might well be appalled by.

  35. “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. This quotation summarises AGW “science” perfectly. I cannot remember who said it, can anyone help me out, please?

  36. Question 5 of the survey is interesting:

    “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?”

    Do they mean scientists who support the AGW consensus or scientists who reject the consensus? Or both? The wording is ambiguous (deliberately or accidentally so?).

    BTW, in response to Andrew30, it might surprise you to find out that the Pope is not a static creationist but much more in the mode of Darwin. I think you might be confusing the teachings of the Catholic Church with that of some Evangelicals (though of course, some individual Catholics would be static creationists and some Evangelicals equally “creationists” in the Darwinian mode). Darwin of course was a clergyman by training though he never practiced as a minister of religion.

  37. Adriana Ortiz –

    u r right about google hiding sceptical views re CAGW. several pieces i looked for this week were found only after going through ten to thirty-plus pages of results, on Bing as well as Google, even tho i had all the necessary search terms.
    just followed your comment and searched for global warming + rasmussen and while the latest rasmussen poll – from 2009? – came up tops in the results, there was only a single google news result – and i do mean ONE news item only – this ridiculous piece by richard black (BBC):

    22 July: BBC: US heatwave raises climate complexity
    The Yale/George Mason survey, and another from Rasmussen Reports, showed that about 60% think the world is warming, but are about evenly split on whether humanity or natural forces are the primary factor…
    This is why columnist Thomas Friedman advocates the term “global weirding” rather than “global warming”, because it includes the apparently contrary impacts that can result from an overall increase in global temperatures, such as cold snaps.
    But other elements of the media have not been so keen to make clear distinction between weather and climate; and overall, the scientists who blame the media for the conflation may have a point.
    Another of their common complaints is over “false balance” – an issue that the BBC Trust has just addressed in its review of BBC science coverage…
    In the US, the Yale/George Mason survey showed that 40% of Americans believe “there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is happening”.
    This is clearly not the case, as illustrated by surveys of scientists themselves; yet, somehow the perception of much doubt in the ivory towers has been promulgated, for which again the media – or parts of it, at any rate – must take part of the blame…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14254856

  38. The wording on the question does not differentiate fudging data to disprove AGW and fudging data to prove AGW.

  39. WillR says:
    August 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    It’s OK to make that speculation (I guess.) — but don’t you have to know the truth before you can formulate a lie? Or are some people (some climate scientists anyway) “just making stuff up” — as Steve McIntyre has recently speculated….
    ——————————————————————————————————————————–

    Yes, the “It’s not fraud, we are just stupid!” Defense… I don’t think that is going to work out for them.

  40. So 6% of those sampled think it is Not At All Likely that climate scientists are faking data. I think Rasmussen must’ve screwed up and heavily oversampled folks who happen to be climate scientists making stuff up, since the only people who would’ve answered with that selection are members of The Team.

  41. @adriana
    Jonova not working here in uk for several hours, cannot access database. Probably nothing to worry about, but things are getting ugly in oz so who knows?

  42. 6% say not at all likely? The poll may have uncovered the ‘consensus’ The natural born scepticism of American is going to save the world from the new world order. I hope republicans realize this poll shows the way forward for the election. What is the population of Missouri? For those who think this is a non sequitur look up “I’m from Missouri”.

  43. I personally doubt that much data has been actually falsified. Fudged, mishandled, improperly manipulated, misinterpreted and cherrypicked all to hell most definitely. Falsified … no!

    I suppose that is too fine a distinction to put into a public poll.

  44. In a weird survey conducted under the most appalling act of telephone terror it was found that:

    95% thought that climate scientist was just visiting aliens living in a different world

    85% believed they might be illegal aliens

    75% didn’t believe in them at all

    65% thought they might just lack the funds to get back home

    55% did not answer the phone

    In a parallel survey it was found that political affiliation had it that:

    95% of the democrats are 100% more likely to be available for “A probing” by visiting aliens to save the planet

    95% of the republicans are 100% more likely to shoot aliens on sight to save the planet from probing aliens

  45. Check out Mooney at Desmogblog on this subject. Turns out he and his ilk think it is all a pyschological problem of self-identity: you learn something and become suspicious or skeptical about the subject being touted by the “experts” and your ego feels attacked. So you deny the reasonableness of what the experts/authorities say or do.

    The warmists haven’t done the numbers to figure out that THEY are the minority. Or perhaps they have – as the shroud of “majority” slips from their shoulders they are aware that they stand much more alone than they thought. Which is due to a conspiracy.

  46. The general public is not buying the CAGW story of the Old Legacy Media (OLM). We shouldn’t call it MSM anymore because it isn’t Main anymore.

    Thank you WUWT for keeping us vigilant.

    John

  47. Theo Goodwin says:
    “Isn’t it ironic that in the USA 69% of respondents say that malfeasance by scientists is possible yet their children who attend public schools are fed the garbage produced by Warmista on a daily basis? I guess it goes to prove that parents have no say in the operation of the public schools.”

    As I said several months ago and Dr. Roy Spencer has reiterated: It takes time for the water in the kettle to boil.” Todays teachers are products of the flower power movement of the 60’s and 70’s. It will take another 20 years to flush them from the system. Only then will our children and , in my case, grandchildren begin to learn the truth. Today’s teachers will never admit to their misdeeds. They aren’t smart enough to know that they have been teaching untruths.

    Truth is Science – Science is Truth. All else is fantasy.

    DonB

  48. Before everyone rejoices too much, be advised that I am working on a model to make these data state that 69% of the respondents think that the Gore-ites are telling the truth.

    Stay tuned.

    /sarc

  49. My local news today had a story about the “hottest July ever”. But before you have a heart attack, they placed the blame squarely on the urban heat island effect. (Link to the video) The video concludes by saying that 6 of the 10 hottest years in Raleigh were in the last decade but that was only a trend in the city and not the rural parts of the state. Do you think such stories would have been on the news 5 years ago? The times they are a changing. I myself live 45 minutes east of Raleigh. The temperature reading on my car is always a few degrees higher once I get near the city. One cool morning I put the convertible top off my car when I had to drive through Raleigh. It was chilly until I was in the first suburb of Raleigh. After I passed Chapel Hill around where I-40 merges with I-85 the temperature was noticeably cooler again. People notice this and it says something that the news actually blames the broken records, not on global warming, but on urban heating.

    Adriana Ortiz says:
    August 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    BTW what is really significant is that from what I can tell Google is suppressing this story under news “climate” or “global warming”, even “Rasmussen climate etc” doesn’t bring it up. This would be extremely distressful to Climate Team. I’m sure the team is on the phone to their pals at google to stifle this urgently.

    Try again tomorrow or a few days later. The report was dated today. The rate at which a search engine indexes the site depends on how many updates are on the site. For example, this site will be index a lot more frequently than Rasmussen reports because there is new content daily here but Rasmussen probably doesn’t change daily. It is impractical to expect a search engine to index every site the hour it changes.

  50. The 22% seem to have 69% of the bumper stickers over 90% of the back of their vehicles announcing their beliefs and affiliations.

  51. What happened to R. Gates and the rest of the trolls?

    I mean surely R. Gates has conclusive proof that this survey was funded by XOM and conducted by a right wing institute, right?

    Surely it is statistically impossible that 69% of ordinary Americans could be conspiracy nut-jobs who do not fully trust the claims and settled science of the priests of CAGW?

    /sarc off

  52. chris1958 says:
    August 3, 2011 at 5:19 pm
    Question 5 of the survey is interesting:

    “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?”

    “Do they mean scientists who support the AGW consensus or scientists who reject the consensus? Or both? The wording is ambiguous (deliberately or accidentally so?).”

    Ask yourself a simple question: “How many news stories have there been about people who do not believe in global warming falsifying their data to support their lack of belief?” This question should reveal to you that the idea that the survey question is ambiguous is utter and total Warmista spin!

  53. WillR says:
    August 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    It’s OK to make that speculation (I guess.) — but don’t you have to know the truth before you can formulate a lie? Or are some people (some climate scientists anyway) “just making stuff up” — as Steve McIntyre has recently speculated….
    ======================================================

    lol, Will, do you really think we don’t know that the lies told to Steve Mc by the cli-sci are well documented? All we have to do is jot over to his archives and start reading. But, it doesn’t start and end there. There has been an continuous litany of acts of deception since this whole mess started. Heck in the U.S. it started with playing with the thermostat and they haven’t looked back since.

  54. I just noticed that part of my post had been snipped.

    My apologies, Mods, the snipped part definitley was quite snarky, and didnt help the thread. I, like a many others here, had just become a bit irritated at those trying to blatantly derail the thread or just throw out crass insults or accusations. However, the best way to counter these attacks is with solid evidence, not rude comments.
    Again, my apologies.

  55. AGW Progress Report.

    …-

    “700 Environment Canada jobs on the chopping block”

    “OTTAWA—Meteorologists, scientists, chemists and engineers are among more than 700 Environment Canada employees on the chopping block as the department launches sweeping cuts to cope with federal belt-tightening.

    The shakeup could be a taste of further cuts in other departments to come as the Conservative government reins in spending to eliminate a $32 billion deficit.

    The cuts represent 11 per cent of the workforce at Environment Canada, calling into question the department’s ability to carry on its mandate, said Bill Pynn, national president of the Union of Environment Workers, which represents 476 of the affected workers.

    “It’s massive,” Pynn said, saying he can’t recall cuts of a similar scale in Ottawa in the last two decades.”

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1034331–700-environment-canada-jobs-on-the-chopping-block

  56. KnR says:
    August 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    “results like this are partly down to the total failure to effectively investigate the CRU and Mann over their actions. The white washes really where the worst of both worlds for all sides.”

    Actually, the whitewashes really prepared the way for this. Ordinary folk might not have time to investigate the science but Americans have to do jury duty and they are quite astute regarding investigations of lying and fraud. The whitewashes clearly proved that the rot covered the whole fish from head to tail. Those who would defend climate science missed a huge opportunity when they did not nail The Team. If they had nailed them (and stuffed Gore’s mouth) then the public might very well support climate science today.

    Maybe arrogance is the explanation for inaction. Maybe our ruling elites feel that the masses should eat whitewash.

  57. Theo Goodwin says:
    August 3, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    WillR says:
    August 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm
    “It’s OK to make that speculation (I guess.) — but don’t you have to know the truth before you can formulate a lie?”

    WillR, please. Lying is deceiving (or attempting to deceive) another about what you know or believe to be the case. You can lie about your fantasies.

    But Don Barnett stated it correctly just above:

    “Truth is Science – Science is Truth. All else is fantasy.

    As a consequence, you can indeed lie about your fantasies, but it matters not at all–a true or false fabrication is still just as fabricated. And people, for whatever reason, now see climate scientists as fabricators (whether pro or con, it matters little–the reputation of the science is shot).

  58. Wade says:
    August 3, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Excellent post. Everyone who commutes rural to city, as you describe, recognizes that there is UHI and that it increases rather steadily. To me, one of the key blunders of the ClimateGaters was Phil Jones’ publication of specious UHI studies which argued that UHI is negligible.

    Glad to see that Raleigh, a famous bastion of liberalism, can wise up.

  59. I do not take comfort in this poll. Polls are used to convey truth about a subject based upon uninformed opinions. Certainly the Federal Government uses them for propaganda purposes when they agree with the poll results and ignore them when they don’t. In recent times I do not see any evidence that the people who are making major economic decisions listened to any polls except those that pertain to their re-election to office.

  60. Ian H says:

    “I personally doubt that much data has been actually falsified. Fudged, mishandled, improperly manipulated, misinterpreted and cherrypicked all to hell most definitely. Falsified … no!”

    Falsified… Yes!

    From the Climategate leak [Harry_read_me file]:

    “Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
    Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
    What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

    Thirteen years of fabricated data, invented to support the climate alarmist narrative. How is that not ‘falsified’?

  61. Steve Schapel and Adriana, Jo Nova’s site will be down for a while either this week or next as she switches to a new US server, so be forewarned. I’ve had problems accessing the site several times over the past two weeks, but it may just be a glitch with her current server.

  62. Theo Goodwin says:
    August 3, 2011 at 3:18 pm
    “…Isn’t it ironic that in the USA 69% of respondents say that malfeasance by scientists is possible…”
    ————————————————
    Most of this is misfeasance not malfeasance. Misfeasance is doing something that is wrong but nor illegal. Malfeasance is illegal.

  63. It is full filling to see that the public is clearly beginning to understand the underhanded games that are being played by the climate alarmist scientists and their co-conspirators in the media. The incredible use of deceit, deception, exaggeration, erroneously manipulated data, dirty trick peer review process, outright lies, data and analysis secrecy, political bias, tax payer government funded greed, scientifically unvalidated models, incompetent global temperature data quality control, mathematical statistical analysis fraud, cherry picked weather and climate data, pure politically driven and scientifically unsupportable climate fear conjecture and much much more. These are the hallmarks of the climate fear alarmist scientists and their media groupies in the press which have tried so hard to destroy the centuries old principles of the scientific method and substitute in its place a completely biased and corrupt political consensus. Hopefully this window in the history of time will be the beginning of the end for the despicable shenanigans which characterize climate fear scientists and their brazen and purely politically driven motives .

  64. Theo Goodwin

    “How many news stories have there been about people who do not believe in global warming falsifying their data to support their lack of belief?”

    Visit any warmist website and you will find mountains of allegations that non-warmists have distorted the scientific record or have deliberately lied or are in the pay of big oil, etc, etc.

    So my comment that the survey question seems to be ambiguous is stating simply that – no more, no less.

    The question looks as if it is asking whether climate scientists have falsified data to prove AGW. However,this implies that all climate scientists believe in AGW. Some don’t. Hence the ambiguity, which as I pointed out could be accidental (but because I can’t read the pollsters’ minds, I don’t know for a fact – it could be deliberate).

    Similarly, you can’t read my mind. Your assumption that my comment is “utter and total Warmista spin” is precisely that – an assumption.

  65. Jon Shively says:
    August 3, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    I do not take comfort in this poll.

    A show of hands, who doesn’t trust polls?

  66. Is man made climate change/ Man Made global warming a problem or actually happening in the real world?
    Is it?
    There are billions of scientists that say the earth is warming due to Carbon Dioxide (apparently) So if one hypothesis can be so accepted and then abandoned then whats the point of it?
    I wish I was a qualified scientist, well actually I am, apparently it depends!

    I will stick this whole scientific elephant out to it’s truthful conclusion, that’s a FACT.

  67. From Phil’s Dad on August 3, 2011 at 6:54 pm:

    Just for KD Knoebel @ August 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

    It was fun while it lasted though.

    This was alluded to in the Telegraph piece, note the caption under the pic of the browser icons: “The story reporting that Internet Explorer users have below-average IQ was a hoax, say reports.” But it did sound quite believable, given the many details. As the BBC piece notes:

    ApTiquant issued a press release claiming that it had invited 100,000 web users to take IQ tests and matched their results with the type of browser they used.

    It also supplied extensive research data.

    Consider this another example of an impressive survey-based result, with impressive-sounding numbers, that ultimately just ain’t true. Sort of like that “97% of scientists accept AGW” one.

    (Declaration of interest – I am a Mensa G2 level IE8 user)

    Mensa membership runs the gamut from PhD’s to high school dropouts. Notable members include porn stars, and formerly included the white supremacist who committed that horrific shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC in 2009 until he didn’t pay his Mensa dues (ref).

    The Mensa organization also appears quite worried about the reality of (C)AGW, and invited many (C)AGW-confirming speakers to their 2009 National Colloquium (Theme: “Weather or Not – The past, present and future of climate change”), including Dr. James Hansen, the esteemed peer-reviewed federally-funded anti-coal protester and climatologist.

    It was quite brave of you to make your admission. Don’t worry though, we’re generally a tolerant bunch around here and won’t hold either of those things against you. ;-)

  68. @Sun Spot
    I agree that there is certainly an element of pseudoscience involved, but the warmists have such conviction about something that they (or anybody for that matter) knows very little about, and they promote it as fact. In a lot of cases they are not even scientists, so how can they possibly use scientific method.

    i just thought the Duggan-Kruger effect covered both sides of the argument very well.

  69. Climate ‘scientists’ are now known to be less trustworthy than second hand car sales people, politicians, and those engaged in the real estate business!

    And their response will be…’we need to communicate better’ (= more cutting and pasting).

  70. There a large population that sleepwalk through their lives; without even a rudimentary knowledge of their own body or health. And that doubles or triples for anything to do with the Planet or it’s environment as most readers here know already.

  71. While it is very heartening to find that the general public doubts the quality of the “Science” published by the Hockey Team it is depressing to note that with a few exceptions (e.g. the Institute of Physics) the vast majority of professional institutions and universities don’t recognise scientific fraud even when you rub their noses in it.

  72. The cartoon scientist needs a bag of grant money in the other hand, partly hidden behind his back.

  73. Dear Team,
    You should have know this was inevitable.
    You should now know that an imminent poll will read,
    69% Say Scientists who have falsified Global Warming research should be prosecuted.

  74. Regarding the falsification of research, the Australian blogger Professor Bunyip has done a lengthy (and brilliant) analysis of the suspended Charles Monnett’s research on drowning polar bears (as seen in An Inconvenient Truth). He also wipes the floor with a local warmie who says Monnett is being victimized by Big Oil, which is the party line at the moment.

    http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/08/bear-faced-facts.html

  75. Robert of Ottawa says: “The nonsense will continue until government funding of the scam is halted.”

    The Greens have infiltrated both major UK parties, effectively disenfranchising the people. Funding there will continue until the major parties are eliminated. The longer until this happens, the uglier it will get.

  76. Because 100% of the people polled were not evaluated for competency this poll only means the hapless alarmists are losing the PR battle among possibly randomly selected citizens. The hopelessly hapless harlequins of science alarmism already know that as is evidenced by the plethora of new papers and news items where they are pushing everything that can possibly be nuanced from the alarmist data.

    We are seeing tides, shellfish, grasses, alpine flora, droughts, heavy rains, 60 year cycles that have gone missing and its a travesty we don’t know why, dry lakes, over-filled lakes, carbolic acid spewing dams, etc. used as evidence to justify our shuttering down our lifestyles such that the dark ages will seem a luxury. I expect the hockey stick boyz to continue to influence the tabloid blogosphere with an even greater variety of humanity-shaming concoctions. Perhaps even more teacher on student snuff videos on YouTube.

  77. Jo Nova’s site perfectly accessible from here in BC, Canada. Maybe the UK’s current Prime Minister, who is known to have written to the Australian PM praising her implementation of Australia’s new ‘carbon’ tax, might have put the word out on Jo’s site to UK ISP’s?

    Of course that conspiracy theory probably has more to do with cock-up. Can I say that here without getting snipped?

  78. My 1st thought was that the question was pretty bad, for a couple of reasons. Let’s see it again:

    “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?”

    Chris1958 and Mike both had the same reaction to it — it doesn’t specify which (or whose) theories and beliefs. It could apply to those theories and beliefs that merely indicate anthropogenic global warming is occurring, those that indicate catastrophic global warming is likely in the future, those that indicate minimal warming this century, those that ascribe it to primarily to solar variability, and on and on.

    Maybe less Democrats thinks so than Republicans because less Democrats read the sites and media outlets that are skeptical of global warming — sites that strongly promote the erroneous foibles of what could be termed the “consensus” climate scientists. (As I write this, I note that the question didn’t even specify climate scientists. The question doesn’t even indicate that the research data was about global warming!)

    I would be much more curious about the responses to a question worded more precisely, such as:
    “Regarding the current state of research, do you agree or disagree that climate scientists have conclusively determined that human activities are a primary factor contributing to the global temperature trends observed over the past 30 years?” (The standard responses would be Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, and Strongly Disagree).

  79. Folks, please realize that climate scientists are far from the only ones who cook the books! This type of nonsense goes on all the time in clinical trials, sociology, public health (my field) and virtually any scientific endeavor where policy funding is at stake. I’ve yet to figure out a way to fight the machine, but I keep on trying.

  80. TheTempestSpark says:
    August 3, 2011 at 8:31 pm
    “There are billions of scientists that say the earth is warming due to Carbon Dioxide (apparently)”

    Nit-pick Larry’s comment. Billions of scientists, eh? That means at least 2 billion. What is the population of our fair planet? Let’s pick a friendly even number–say 8 billion. Then at least one out of every four randomly selected people is a scientist. Tempest, would you care to revise your estimate of the number of the world’s scientists?

  81. The wording of question 5 suggests that it is just scientists that have fudged their data, it doesn’t say pro AGW scientists. This just suggests a lack of trust in scientists rather than AGW. There’s a lot of “sceptics” out there who I believe have fudged their data so I’d have answered very likely to this as well.

    “5. In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?”

  82. Declaration of intrerest- I am a Mensa G2 level IE8 user.

    Sir, one of the forgotten things about IQ is the disconnect that follows, that common sense is often lost.

  83. The reality is simple, there are very few climate scientists, but there are lots of “climate scientists” like Hansen, The Team, plus Patchi and his gang. The relatively few real climate scientists in the world today don’t need to falsify/twist/torture/manipulate their data to reach their conclusions or make their models, but for the “climate scientists” there is no choice, there is an absolute need to falsify/twist/torture and manipulate – why?

    Because the funding trough of comfortable salaries and big juicy grants – now an addiction – would be quickly cut off if there was not a continuous stream of scary and bogus predictions of imminent climate disaster.

  84. SteveE says:
    August 4, 2011 at 2:05 am
    There’s a lot of “sceptics” out there who I believe have fudged their data so I’d have answered very likely to this as well.
    Interesting. And what do you base this belief on? I suspect your supposed belief is as well-founded as the belief in CAGW.
    While I agree that the wording could have been better, common sense (a quality sadly lacking in CAGW Believers) tells you they are referring to the “Consensus” climate scientists – the 97% figure the true Believers love to bandy about.
    The truth is that the “consensus” climate scientists have a huge motive for being fast and loose with their facts, figures, and methods, and have been caught doing it, despite their cries of being “persecuted” and even of “death threats”. They are part of an enormous government-funded industry only purporting to do science. It is an industry that is now collapsing, thankfully.

  85. Personally, I blame the new breed of scientists such as Mann, Romm et al who seem to be more interested in their own personal standing rather than the science. As a result of this they seem to have jumped into bed with political and media groups to apparently bolster their standing within the scientific community. One might also look at how the financing of research projects has made this apparent unseemly grab for attention seem so necessary. That is not to say that this is a new occurrence. It just seems the swathe of government and green funds has accentuated this phenomenon of self publicising scientist.
    At least when science was funded by industry or to solve ‘real’ problems for society, then those funding the research at least expected tangible results for their investment. Not seemingly endless soundbites and results targetted at self promotion and the support of a small but controlling clique.
    Maybe it is time we went back to funding the most effective scientists not the loudest or most popular?

  86. I do not think this is the tipping point that will prove Mann made warming!
    (sorry I just had to get the one in print!)

  87. To err is human! To lie, cheat, falsify, destroy data, hide the decline, misdirect, cover-up, and thereby damage wealth by trillions is criminal vandalism and fraud.

    I wonder what a list would look like, that was prepared, according to the following criteria.

    Prosecution: Mainly those that hold positions of public trust or public funds found knowingly deceiving and defrauding.

    Censoring: barred from future grants and prohibited from public teaching positions

    Actually, I think, I will stop here as I am beginning to scare myself!

    Still… I wonder what such a list would look like? GK

  88. Andrew Harding says:
    August 3, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. This quotation summarises AGW “science” perfectly. I cannot remember who said it, can anyone help me out, please?

    The internets, the toobz, and the googles are telling me that that quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

  89. Adriana Ortiz says:
    posted this story twice under ice posting today. BTW what is really significant is that from what I can tell Google is suppressing this story under news “climate” or “global warming”, even “Rasmussen climate etc” doesn’t bring it up. This would be extremely distressful to Climate Team. I’m sure the team is on the phone to their pals at google to stifle this urgently.

    While I don’t have much faith in Google, let’s at least be fair – this was published only yesterday, and it takes the Googlebots sometimes many days to pick up and index new pages. The results on a web search are not necessarily instantaneous.

    Click on “News” and it’s the first hit.

  90. Bystander says:
    August 3, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    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,

    So that is acceptable to you Bystander?
    If they were drug safety researchers would you still accept it?
    You feel that climate ‘scientists’ should be held to lower ethical standards then?

  91. chris1958 says:
    August 3, 2011 at 7:38 pm
    Theo Goodwin

    “How many news stories have there been about people who do not believe in global warming falsifying their data to support their lack of belief?”

    “Visit any warmist website and you will find mountains of allegations that non-warmists have distorted the scientific record or have deliberately lied or are in the pay of big oil, etc, etc.

    So my comment that the survey question seems to be ambiguous is stating simply that – no more, no less.”

    You changed the subject from news broadcasts to Warmista websites. I will concede that the question is ambiguous for Warmista, but so is reality.

  92. Mebbe would should just start greeting climate boffins with “Hello liar liar pants on fire!”

  93. re; Google suppressing the story

    I think that’s nonsense.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%2269%25+Say+It%E2%80%99s+Likely+Scientists+Have+Falsified+Global+Warming+Research%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS290US290&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS290US290&q=69%25+Say+It%E2%80%99s+Likely+Scientists+Have+Falsified+Global+Warming+Research&sa=X&ei=cd46TreZEIGx0AGCmZXKAw&ved=0CCAQgwM&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ce1bbbb46c45a76&biw=1280&bih=615

    The third hit from the top on Google web search is this article on Watt’s Up With That. There are thousands of hits on it already.

    Conspicuously absent are hits Google news search. I don’t believe that’s particularly unusual until the AP picks it up, if they pick it up at all. It’s not google’s fault when major news outlets don’t choose to carry the story.

  94. Dave Springer … if Google News drops WUWT from the sites scraped AND only uses biased media like AP, then Google is censoring.

  95. Smokey says:
    From the Climategate leak [Harry_read_me file]:

    “Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
    Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
    What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

    While I have not yet read all of the files, I personally find that one statement to be the most damning.

  96. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    In equally important polling news (/sarc), coming from an innovative online method, it has been reported that Internet Explorer users ‘have below-average IQ’.

    This being a hoax has been discussed. More concerning to me, and somewhat relevant to the topic of CAGW, is how easily the news media was duped with this story. No real credibility left, but they’re considered credible by so many. And even after incidents like this, they suffer no stains to their reputation at large.

    I WAS talking about news media, right?

  97. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    “In equally important polling news (/sarc), coming from an innovative online method, it has been reported that Internet Explorer users ‘have below-average IQ’.”

    What about me? I use both. I use windows explorer with security set to high with the exception of allowing already installed ActiveX controls to run and files can be downloaded. This allows me to view pdf files online and most websites work fine with security settings that high and I don’t get a single damn one of those annoying google interstitial advertisements, cant be redirected to hell and back, or anything else that’s even mildly annoying or intrusive. The few websites that don’t work properly under those high security settings that’s what I use Firefox for. I run that with default security settings.

    This poll has no way of including people like me who have multiple browsers preconfigured for different situations. Which browser they found me using would be totally dependent on whether the test could be done using Internet Explorer with highest security setting. If not I’d have used FireFox to take the test.

  98. My motto is dont believe everything your told. Just think it through and decided what you believe and do base it off of what politicians, TV, or friends are telling you.

  99. I read as many replies here as I could and was surprised to see that most people agree with the polls. There have been ideological shifts in the US and UK that I would never have thought possible years ago. In 2008, people were very much in favor of socialism and ready to put the breaks on unfettered greed. This has since grown into a general distrust of the authorities. The next good step would be to back a third-party candidate in the US in 2012, because our two choices have been really narrow and limited in mental scope: religious fervor and panic on one side, cold intellect and weakness on the other.

  100. P. Walker and Andrew Harding;
    That’s a butchered version. Here’s the real deal.
    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

  101. hannahstories says:
    August 4, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    My motto is dont believe everything your told. Just think it through and decided what you believe and do base it off of what politicians, TV, or friends are telling you.

    Good thought, but garbled grammar.
    Let me fix it:

    My motto is. “Don’t believe everything you’re told.” Just think it through and decide what you believe and do not base it on what politicians, TV, or friends are telling you.

  102. @bobd Dunning-Kruger effect? Yes, I agree that the opposition to anthropogenic global warming does seem to have an enormous number of people who are delusional or irrational.

  103. @MorinMoss you can believe it whichever way you want, but I think you have got it backwards.
    The only people who seem to be totally convinced that the science is settked are the pro ADW “experts” and I use that term very loosely.
    I find that most “deniers” of the faith have an open mind and do not accept the wisdom without proof.

  104. Mike says: (August 3, 2011 at 5:30 pm )
    The wording on the question does not differentiate fudging data to disprove AGW and fudging data to prove AGW.

    Why would anyone fudge data to falsify AGW?

    really?

    What incentive could there possibly be?

    If you have data that falsifies AGW you fail peer review and are not published, you lose grant money, you never get invited to overseas conferencves in exotic locations, you lose standing in the science community, you are called a “denier”, and your academic career is at an end.

    why would anyone publsih data that “disproves” AGW?

  105. I’m willing to bet that 31% have never heard of Piltdown Man and why it took so many years to uncover the hoax.

  106. Friends:

    I like the version of the discussed quote that was provided by PT Barnum: i.e.

    “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. And that’s enough to make a living.”

    Clearly, he could have made a good living from MorinMoss.

    Richard

  107. Shevva said on August 4, 2011 at 2:23 am:

    @kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Might what to check your fatcs :-

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/03/internet_explorer_iq_study_hoax/

    Might want to read all the posts before commenting. That it was a hoax was mentioned by me later on.

    BTW, confession time. Like many others I had first seen the story on Drudge Report. For my comment I Googled for a link, saw in the results that it was a hoax. But as things go, there are lots of “it has been reported” pro-(C)AGW stories of similar worth posted here, and I have been known to use the (C)AGW-pushers’ own findings to refute their claims even while knowing those findings are junk, so…

    As this informal commenting experiment using this hoax story has unfolded, there are amazingly few who have directly rebutted the basic premise found in the headline, as in none. I have one individual saying they are very intelligent and using IE8, another reporting dual-use. It appears the overwhelming opinion here, with regards to the general population, is the premise was in fact true, even if the story reporting it was a hoax.

  108. kadaka (KD Knoebel):

    With respect the conclusion of your post at August 5, 2011 at 2:28 am is a ‘non sequitur’.

    You assert of the hoax;
    “It appears the overwhelming opinion here, with regards to the general population, is the premise was in fact true, even if the story reporting it was a hoax.”

    The two clauses “the overwhelming opinion here” and “with regards to the general population” provide two possible interpretations of your meaning, but neither follows from your argument.

    That nobody refuted “the basic premise found in the headline” of an article which was shown to report a hoax merely indicates that people did not comment on the headline. They may have had any of several possible reasons for not commenting; e.g. they saw no reason to debate an assertion that had be proven to be untrue, or they had no interest in it, or…

    So, the absence of rebuttal of “the basic premise found in the headline” does NOT suggest “the overwhelming opinion here” is that the headline was true or that “the overwhelming opinion here” is that the general population thinks it is true.

    Richard

  109. MorinMoss says:
    August 4, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Your grouping of Tea Partiers and Birthers shows who the real close minded person is. While there are some that can be grouped into both (just like you can say violent activists and peace lovers and some will be in both groups), the fact that you even brought up those categories, which have nothing to do with the AGW debate indicates you are already prejudiced and your mind made up. in other words, your posts are speaking from your own personal experience, not observation.

  110. @PhilJourdan It’s like-mindedness I’m referring to, which I see in the groups I’ve mentioned. They aren’t the only ones and you are right that traits are not limited to certain groups although one or the other may show be markedly more likely to lean one way or the other.
    But you’re flatly wrong about there being no link between the categories, especially if you’re American – there are a significant number of prominent members of Congress who are at least TeaParty and anti-AGW, and some were Birthers as well.

  111. @morinMoss – You either failed to read my response or failed to understand it. I did not say that some members of the Tea Party were NOT Skeptics or NOT birthers. Some liberals area as well. Does that then make them members of the Tea Party? hardly. Your mistake is in equating the different categories. Some Liberals are also Communists. Does that make them all communists? Again, Hardly.

    But by grouping them thusly, you reveal your prejudice. instead of debating the ideas of Skeptics OR Tea Party Politics OR Birthers, you want to lump them into a grand category and dismiss them with any discredited idea you can attach to ANY of them. It is a common debating practice that is not very good, and does not win converts or points. It is called a strawman.

    Deal with the issue at hand. Do not claim that just because Van Jones is a Communist, all liberals must be communists. That is just stupid.

  112. From Richard S Courtney on August 5, 2011 at 3:38 am:

    That nobody refuted “the basic premise found in the headline” of an article which was shown to report a hoax merely indicates that people did not comment on the headline. They may have had any of several possible reasons for not commenting; e.g. they saw no reason to debate an assertion that had be proven to be untrue, or they had no interest in it, or…

    Point: The assertion has not been proven untrue, it was this particular asserting of the assertion, presented as a poll finding, that turned out to be a hoax. I’ve re-read the relevant articles linked in this thread, even the Telegraph’s follow-up story. The story I originally linked to mentions in weaselly diplomatic wording (emphasis added): “A similar study five years ago found that users had broadly similar IQs.” Within the Register’s (UK) original piece about the study (“It’s official: IE users are dumb as a bag of hammers”) it says:

    Those results were then compared with the results of a similar study done in 2006 – and the results weren’t pretty for users of Internet Explorer versions 6 through 9. If anything, IE users appear to have gotten duller over the past five years, and Opera users, sharper.

    Without the actual results of the 2006 study, either as the study itself or direct reporting of it, I conclude from the wordings provided that the 2006 study did show IE users were less intelligent although the results were “broadly similar” thus not necessarily significant.

    As to the lack of responses, it has long been an observation of mine that individual humans do not want what they are doing to be considered dumb. Indeed, there are two responses that can be interpreted as “I use IE but I myself am not dumb.” Now, compare the reaction to that which would come from a story saying “Climate Change Deniers ‘have below-average IQ.'” The howling would be impressive, the rebuttals would overwhelmingly defend climate skeptics in general.

    Where are the rebuttals defending IE users in general? Who has come forward to say “It’s stupid to think IE users (as a group) are less intelligent”? The silence is deafening.

  113. @PhilJourdan I’m not the first to draw links between some of the aforementioned groups. What I’m implying is, whatever the motivation of each group and the basis for their belief, there’s an underlying political manipulation going on that’s shifting the tone to the far-right. Evolution, climate change, etc are all under attack and muddying up reasoned debate, frequently with junk science.
    And, the rabid tone is worrisome. The Forbes articles in support of Roy Spencer’s most recent paper read like a teenage rant over which rock group in a battle of the bands was more awesome.

  114. I like Your Article about Rasmussen poll: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research | Watts Up With That? Perfect just what I was looking for! .

  115. SO WONDERFUL!!! Marvelous! Mainstream Academia is getting its well deserved discredit much sooner than many of us dreamed! Thanks wonderful internet for showing us THE TRUTH! Thanks wattsupwiththat.com and other similar forums for building a NEW ACADEMIA that brings actual science, at 1/1.000.000.000 th the cost of the old corrupt obsolete exorbitantly expensive pseudo science generating Academia!

    Thanks WUWT and others! The TRUTh is coming up!

Comments are closed.