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

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.

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?

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!

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/

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

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).

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.

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.

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

Adriana – Jo Nova’s site has been down for me all day as well.

@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?