69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[CatholicCrusader]

69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ntists_have_falsified_global_warming_research


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.

From Rasmussen Reports: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ntists_have_falsified_global_warming_research

 

[CatholicCrusader]

>>>>>>>>

"Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009 ".

Awww, isn't it a shame that 57% of Americans agree with Rick Perry that the science is not settled yet? It must really bug the Leftys that everyone is not blindly following them like lemmings.

 

[myp]

Of course some falsified research- we already know that. And of course there is disagreement within the scientific community on the ramifications of global warming. What is not deniable, however, is that [CO2] is increasing and as a result it is warming the Earth.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Of course some falsified research- we already know that. And of course there is disagreement within the scientific community on the ramifications of global warming. What is not deniable, however, is that [CO2] is increasing and as a result it is warming the Earth.

? Temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ for more information)

? Temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the ?urban heat island? effect; methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it; See Anthony Watt?s ?How not to measure temperature series? at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-66/

?Sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world

? Computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts. Data is usually inputted by persons looking for specific outcomes. See http://www.landshape.org/enm/ for more information

 

[myp]

The conclusion is based on a proven causal relationship. It isn't built on pure temperature measurements because there are many other variables at play there too (which over the long run are expected to balance out as they almost always have). In fact, there have been a few cooler years in recent decades due to various events including volcanic eruptions that have sent sulfur above the stratosphere.

 

[David]

So polls trump science now? It is debatable how much Humans are having effect not that we're warming up. The northern Ice cap doesn't just go poof after all.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

..........The northern Ice cap doesn't just go poof after all.

How do you know. Stuff goes poof all the time in star systems where no man dwelleth

 

[David]

How do you know. Stuff goes poof all the time in star systems where no man dwelleth

So ice melting in't proof of warming? Unless the laws of physics have changed...

 

[myp]

Leave the melting of ice aside and just look at the established causal relationships. Atmospheric [CO2] has been going up. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Put those two established points together and it is clear that they will lead to warming.

 

[David]

Leave the melting of ice aside and just look at the established causal relationships. Atmospheric [CO2] has been going up. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Put those two established points together and it is clear that they will lead to warming.

I understand that, I was just trying to offer glaring proof. Data is no good to people who don't know how to read it but seeing is believing.

 

[myp]

I understand that, I was just trying to offer glaring proof. Data is no good to people who don't know how to read it but seeing is believing.

Unfortunately, I to an extent agree. The ironic thing though is that the world is in fact not intuitive and correlation does not prove causation (meaning that ice melting doesn't necessary mean the Earth is warming or that it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future). In other words, trying to appeal to the "intuitive" crowd might actually make your argument unscientific (and possibly untrue) in the process. Sometimes you just gotta pick intuition or truth- I'll take the latter. If people don't want to bother reading the papers or learn to understand empirical experiments and would instead like to rant about why everything is a conspiracy of the political [insert side here], that is their problem and I for one want no part of it. I will not sacrifice my intellectual integrity for that.

Now if they want to understand the experiments and make legitimate arguments against them for logical reasons like poor methodology, that is a whole other story and I welcome that.

 

[David]

Unfortunately, I to an extent agree. The ironic thing though is that the world is in fact not intuitive and correlation does not prove causation (meaning that ice melting doesn't necessary mean the Earth is warming or that it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future). In other words, trying to appeal to the "intuitive" crowd might actually make your argument unscientific (and possibly untrue) in the process. Sometimes you just gotta pick intuition or truth- I'll take the latter. If people don't want to bother reading the papers or learn to understand empirical experiments and would instead like to rant about why everything is a conspiracy of the political [insert side here], that is their problem and I for one want no part of it. I will not sacrifice my intellectual integrity for that.

Now if they want to understand the experiments and make legitimate arguments against them for logical reasons like poor methodology, that is a whole other story and I welcome that.

Luckily only those with a vested interest in not having environmental protection laws on the books (polluting industrialists) and 'team player' ideologues actually have an issue with this. Even if they're not convinced most people would still support action simply to limit pollution.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

...........The northern Ice cap doesn't just go poof after all.

How do you know. Stuff goes poof all the time in star systems where no man dwelleth

So ice melting in't proof of warming? Unless the laws of physics have changed...

Warming isn't the issue: The cause is the issue.

Liberals want man to be the cause so they can attack coal and oil industries.

Liberals bite into every new stupid thing that comes down the pike. If its anti-Businiess, anti-Christian, or anti-American, Liberals lap it up like pie.

 

[David]

Warming isn't the issue: The cause is the issue.

Liberals want man to be the cause so they can attack coal and oil industries.

Liberals bite into every new stupid thing that comes down the pike. If its anti-Businiess, anti-Christian, or anti-American, Liberals lap it up like pie.

Even if we're not the cause how is that an argument against environmental protection?

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Even if we're not the cause how is that an argument against environmental protection?

Just let the Earth do its thing man.

 

[David]

Just let the Earth do its thing man.

The Earth has a nasty habit of killing everything on it. Hell we're in the middle of the 2nd worse mass extinction at the moment, 80% of all life over the last 200k years if I'm not mistaken.

 

[myp]

Just let the Earth do its thing man.

The whole point of this debate is that we aren't letting it "do its thing"

 

[CatholicCrusader]

The Earth has a nasty habit of killing everything on it. Hell we're in the middle of the 2nd worse mass extinction at the moment, 80% of all life over the last 200k years if I'm not mistaken.

Well we all have to go sometime.

 

[David]

Well we all have to go sometime.

I plan on quoting this 1k years from now.

 

[myp]

The Earth has a nasty habit of killing everything on it. Hell we're in the middle of the 2nd worse mass extinction at the moment, 80% of all life over the last 200k years if I'm not mistaken.

??? Where are you getting these numbers?