Rasmussen says that almost 70% of adults think that scientists have been falsifying data in climate change research. A bit of good news amidst the coming economic apocalypse.
14 thoughts on “Count Me In”
Comments are closed.
Rasmussen says that almost 70% of adults think that scientists have been falsifying data in climate change research. A bit of good news amidst the coming economic apocalypse.
Comments are closed.
And yet “40% believe Americans should take immediate action to stop global warming.” So that would indicate at least 10% of the population believe scientists have falsified data, but that we should take immediate action based on that data.
Sigh.
Curt, this might explain your 10%:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
-Stephen Schneider
Well, if you include the ones that think it’s “somewhat likely” that some scientists have done it.
“Fake, but accurate.”
reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change
Requires falsifying data???
–OR–
Report the data as accurately as possible and not presume yourself to be smarter than others that would then draw conclusions based on data they can trust.
One day a earth killing meteor must be on it’s way to earth. So let me falsify data to say it’s going to hit next year.
Then it doesn’t hit next year.
But one day it’s going to.
Wolf….wolf….wolf….wuuuullllffffff. You can trust me.
My first reaction to this is, how did they let scientists who falsify data to support AGW constitute 10% of their survey sample?
It doesn’t specify whether it’s the “warmist” or “denialist” scientists who’re supposed to be falsifying data.
As Glenn might say: “Do you think scientist have been falsifying data in climate change research? Yes. Next question.”
I never understood why “Climate Science” wasn’t immediately labeled an oxymoron.
If you refuse to release your data, assumptions, “tweaks” and computer model code, you are not engaged in science.
Andrew W, you mean “crooked frauds “or “denialists”.
Wolf….wolf….wolf….wuuuullllffffff. You can trust me.
For a while. But this is how that ends.
(Much of that site is NSFW. In fact, in the archives they warn you about the cartoons that aren’t obscene. But most of them are pretty funny …)
I think AndrewW is back to his tired old trope, and claiming that the “luddite deniers” are the ones who are actually cooking the books.
“Give us hell Quimby!!!”
Warning: This will be used by anti-nuclear activists.