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)
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?
[Snip. d-word infraction. ~dbs, mod.]
I’m willing to bet that 31% have never heard of Piltdown Man and why it took so many years to uncover the hoax.
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
Shevva said on August 4, 2011 at 2:23 am:
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.
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
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.
@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.
@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.
From Richard S Courtney on August 5, 2011 at 3:38 am:
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:
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.
@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.
MorinMoss,
Sorry things aren’t going your way.
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! .
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!