August 4, 2011

69% of Americans think scientists may have falsified some of their global warming research.

According to Rassmussen:
[A] 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.
How likely is it that the scientists will admit they are partly responsible for this public opinion?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not at all likely
  
pollcode.com free polls

118 comments:

laddy said...

I really don't find that result surprising if people have been paying attention to the debate.

Shouting Thomas said...

No shit!

Only 69%?

The remaining 31% must have been hiding under their beds, or living like the Unabomber in a hand made cabin in the forest.

The Crack Emcee said...

Bring on the "Arab Spring"!!

traditionalguy said...

Unlike the old Perry Mason shows, the lying criminals do not suddenly admit it all in public.

The reliance on faked science and weather myths will not go away. They are counting on P T Barnum's rule.

Fen said...

The remaining 31% haven't heard of the CRU data hack. Or they are in denial.

I have a good friend who lobbys Capitol Hill re AGW. When I asked him about it, he brushed it off. He had no idea what had been uncovered at the CRU. The MSM had shielded him from that knowledge.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

87% of polar bears would like a bigger ice floe.

Scott M said...

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is, doesn't it?

Shouting Thomas said...

Crack, you forgot the second good thing about liberals.

They don't reproduce much. They seem to hate babies.

Thus, they are voluntarily killing off the next generation of liberals.

chuckR said...

What's above very likely? Absolute certainty of falsification is what I'd vote for. These guys have always had five unknowns, three equations and coupla hunches. Sure, you can model the whole damn earth for decades and centuries with that level of sophistication.

Chip S. said...

How likely is it that the scientists will admit they are partly responsible for this public opinion?

Which scientists?

It is a near certainty that some scientist will blame some other scientists for this.

It is also a near certainty that no scientist actually involved in data manipulation will accept any blame for this. Rupert Murdoch, however, will be mentioned frequently.

"Scientists" are just like the rest of us--if the rest of us lived off NSF grants.

Fen said...

But 47% now believe the media makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is,

I think the number is much higher than that. Alot of liberals who believe in AGW would agree that the media makes global warming appear worse than it really is and they approve of that.

Curious George said...

31% of American's like Kool-Aid.

The AGW gang should be tried for crimes against humanity.

Scott M said...

What is this "global warming" you guys are referring to? Due to the crumbling edifice of data that was specious to begin with, the currently accepted term is "climate change". When this fails to gin up the required hysteria, they will switch to the less-well-liked-by-focus-groups term, "weather sucks".

Maguro said...

The scientists will blame Faux News.

Alex said...

Manbearpig said we need an "American Progressive spring".

Drew said...

It's a very strange question. I can see scientists agreeing that they may have confused people by talking about things that we dummies don't understand, and if given the chance to explain themselves over and over ad nauseum, we would certainly agree that taxpayers must foot the bill to save the earth from CO2.

But would they agree that they've been attempting to fool us all along? No, they wouldn't.

Alex said...

I guess 69% of Americans are evil holocaust deniers.

MadisonMan said...

What does falsified data mean here? Created out of thin air? No way.

Massaged the data in a 'statistically meaningful' way? More likely.

Didn't use all the data they could? Even more likely.

Drew conclusions from numerical simulations that weren't warranted? I'd say no -- but that other people -- policy planners -- took the conclusions and stretched them to infinity...and beyond! The qualifying statements in a scientific paper are always the first things to go in a presser.

gerry said...

Climatology is a science? I thought it was sort of like sociology, or maybe phrenology. Or homeopathy.

Alex said...

MadMan - the biggest sin of these climate scientists is they decided to become moral crusaders instead of just sticking with the science.

Alex said...

James Hansen is a uniquely evil individual.

The Crack Emcee said...

I linked to this old post on another thread, but thought it would be more appropriate here.

The song at the end is a classic.

MarkG said...

Depends on what you mean by "falsified." I'm sure a lot of things get emphasized and uncertainties exploited that coincidentally lead to more studies and funding.

I've personally seen a lot of that in the DoD. The truth is stretched for some "greater good" (which some middle manager gets to define himself). Often, next year's budget is a part of the "greater good." And then a culture develops where that's not only okay, but standard operating procedure.

Moose said...

It's not the fact that the Earth is getting warmer thats in dispute. Its what is causing it thats in dispute.
People invest themselves in their ideas to the point of making decisions to weight the data to favor their ideas. It's human nature.

Fen said...

MadsionMan: What does falsified data mean here?

Cooking the data:

"Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these "alterations" run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g., omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g., estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line)."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

Cedarford said...

Alex said...
I guess 69% of Americans are evil holocaust deniers.

===================
Part of the problem is the raddicals on both sides have taken to shouting against people that dispute their gospel truth about

Liberals - "The Great global warming crisis and the need to desperately ramp back the standard of living in the West to set a moral example" or

The Religious Right - "That ol' hoax by these big scientists with their big degrees. When everyone that man can't mess with what Jesus sees over and gummint tell me I need a more efficient car when Jesus will give us all the oil we need forever."

Neither side wants to hear "The Earth's climate is cyclic. This time the warming cycle may well be influenced by the tens of trillions of tons mankind has dumped into the atmosphere in the last 200 years...but we don't know how much it added to warming...so solutions demanded are too exteme and hasty given lack of knowledge. But at the same time, we need to really understand and work this problem out, and not fall back on what some rube at an Alabama fish fry says about unlimited oil and Jesus loves NASCAR and will ensure no CO2 bothers nobody.

motionview said...

And if you are one of the 31% who don't think they have falsified the research, here's a Berkeley professor (who thinks man-made CO2 is causing global warming) pointing out how climate scientists have falsified their research.

Fen said...

@ C4: Huh? Where did you get the idea that the Religious Right is a significant portion of those that question AGW theory?

Neither side wants to hear "The Earth's climate is cyclic.

My "side" had been saying that for years.

Alex said...

"climate is cyclic" is the latest meme of the deniers. When you pump trillions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere it's logical to conclude a devastating greenhouse effect. Let's not become Venus. Don't tase me bro.

Scott M said...

Let's not become Venus.

The latest NASA data reveals that heat is escaping into space at a much higher rate than we ever thought. I somehow doubt we're in danger of turning into Venus, especially when one sizable volcanic eruption puts enough shit into the air to make us look like the wannabees we are.

virgil xenophon said...

Whatever the self-interested delusions of many "scientists" on NSF grants, etc., the types who started the AGW ball rolling in the first place had STRICTLY, FIRST & FOREMOST an ideological, eco-stalinist, lefty Statist people-control agenda from jump-street. "Global Warming" nee "Climate Change" was just the hook to hang their political beliefs on..

Fen said...

motionview: here's a Berkeley professor (who thinks man-made CO2 is causing global warming) pointing out how climate scientists have falsified their research.

Exactly. Thanks for linking that.

chickenlittle said...

I blame Linus Pauling's wife. He was a brilliant scientist--the sine qua non of modern American chemistry. She goaded him into political activism, and Oslo rewarded him, just as Stockholm did earlier. Now perhaps preventing tritium-laced clouds was worth it in the end, but even he couldn't forsee the scurvy of falsified data in the name of do-gooding.

Fen said...

"climate is cyclic" is the latest meme of the deniers.

Also, the energy from the Sun is cyclic. Thats another pesky fact we "deniers" keep bringing up.

"Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at MSU, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. But so far nothing is happening.

In the past, they [solar physicists] observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700."

Maybe you guys should shift back to the "Global Cooling" theory of the 1970's. Go ahead, we'll all pretend not to notice...


http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/lack-of-sunspots-causing-a-global-cooling-phase/

Seeing Red said...

Now they're saying it was China's sulfer that caused their models not to work?


NASA what timing.


Where is the stupid party on the hearings?

Seeing Red said...

Should we mention the dirty little secret of cosmic rays & they're finally considering those?


Geez, read Insty.

J said...

The researchers forgot a key piece of data: of those polled, 80% could not define "AGW", GHG, or "margin of error", and also agreed that Rush Limbaugh was qualified to speak on science.

Besides, there is consensus on AGW among scientists, yet a straw poll of the public's views on AGW or any serious topic doesn't prove anything. Ask for a show of hands at Shouting Assclown's klan-rally and the majority would say "Hitler was a great politician".

Seeing Red said...

The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.

“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?

Because, Heuer says, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”

Seeing Red said...

Except NASA's latest data isn't corresponding to the computer models.

OF COURSE the scientists agree - GRAVY TRAIN!

Seeing Red said...

Let me repeat this:


One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”



Weren't we told a couple of years ago it's all man?


We're to ignore that big yellow fireball in the sky?


You've been conned.

Fen said...

J-Libtard: there is consensus on AGW among scientists

No, there is not consensus.

And even if there was, thats not how science works.

Carol said...

We've seen these kinds of shenanigans in other areas of science, like heart disease research and antidepressant trials. Why would AGW be any different?

Follow the grant money.

Seeing Red said...

& the polar bear scientist is under investigation, along w/a pal.

Chip S. said...

Is sexting involved?

Scott M said...

You've been conned.

When the man says cosmic rays should only be considered as one of many parameters, could an AGW skeptic say the same thing to an AGW promoter?

In other words, don't draw any conclusions because man should only be considered as one of many parameters.

Seeing Red said...

...For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.




Hadley - quelle surprise?


Opponents of global warming should be given less coverage by the BBC than the climate change lobby, the corporation will rule.

The BBC is set to publish a report tomorrow on its science output announcing changes to rules on impartiality

Shouting Thomas said...

Ask for a show of hands at Shouting Assclown's klan-rally and the majority would say "Hitler was a great politician".

Another display of crack induced logic, by our frothing at the mouth loon, J. Better known, of course, as Fat Ass.

If you don't want people to know what you look like, Fat Ass, don't put your picture up on the web.

Scott M said...

Hadley - quelle surprise?

"It's Hedley"

dbp said...

Alex said...
"climate is cyclic" is the latest meme of the deniers. When you pump trillions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere it's logical to conclude a devastating greenhouse effect. Let's not become Venus. Don't tase me bro.

Your numbers got me thinking, so I did a back of the envelope calculation and got 2 trillion tons of total CO2 in the atmosphere. After calculating, I checked Wiki and they had 3 trillion. I seriously doubt that all or even most of the carbon in the atmosphere is traceable to man.

Seeing Red said...

They're singing a different tune now, Scott.


Man Made Global Warming


Now it's well, maybe there are other things


that we can't control.


Which is what our side has been saying.


Can't control the sun.

Think of all those, billions, trillions wasted

which could have been put to better use.

You've been conned.

We are a blip, it's been hotter before pre-industrial.

J said...

11: 45: Yo Fen-tard the village idiot--Im not a Demo for one (or GOP). You obviously don't know fuck about AGW: there is consensus on the temperature increases, even among skeptics (that is, the intelligent ones--not the Fox news sort of zombie) the problems concern the causes of the increases--CO2, water vapor, methane. But that's getting a bit deep for you, isn't it trailerpark king--ah'm sure you got some meth to cook or somethin.'

But spewing your peasant BS--the Feds need more evidence of the Alttard terrorists

Shouting Thomas said...

J, the frothing crack addict gets scientific!

Put down the crack pipe and turn off the National Geo channel for a while, Fat Ass.

SPImmortal said...

Why ask people's opinion on something that is an absolute fact, except to find out how many stupid people are out there?

The East Anglia emails prove that research was falsified (hide the decline).

So the 31% that said scientist have not falsified research just don't know any better.

Carol_Herman said...

Global Warming isn't science! It's the UN!

It's like thinking Norway gives out prizes for really creative approaches to science. This isn't true, either.

It was a TAX SCHEME.

But the EURO is going down the toilet.

Proving yet again that in a storm not all boats sink. We couldn't kill the TAX SCHEME ... as well as current circumstances can.

roesch-voltaire said...

So? Polls also show that up to 50% of Americans do not accept Darwin's description of evolution. Of the many thousand of peer-reviewed articles on the topic, very few have been challenged as falsified, but reviewers did get the hockey stick graph creator to admit that he switched to tree ring data without making that clear. The problem revealed in the latest NASA article is the difficulty of measuring the feedback loops. Although climate and weather are different, I suspect that next year when this question is asked folks who are experiencing yet another heat wave may not be so skeptical.

J said...

11: 35:

Ah touched a nerve, and Shouting Wicca Queer whines again. Yr the fat ass, joto--sure it hangs off when you ride sisssy-style on your boyfriends' harley. Heh heh. Knocked down again, eh perp. Don't it suck byatch? I knock down trash such as you every day, byatch

Now keep spewing BS--the Feds need a bit evidence for your cyber-terrorism case, perp.

Scott M said...

Polls also show that up to 50% of Americans do not accept Darwin's description of evolution.

I noticed you inserted "description" there instead of using "theory". Why?

Fen said...

J-Libtard: 1Fen-tard blah blah village idiot blah blah You obviously don't know fuck about AGW blah blah there is consensus blah blah trailerpark king blah you got some meth to cook or somethin. blah blah spewing your peasant BS blah Alttard terrorists

Thats your best defense?

You obviously don't know fuck about AGW: there is consensus on the temperature increases, even among skeptics

Do you even know what AGW stands for? Yes, there is consensus on the temperature increases, there is NOT consensus that its man-made. You are conflating the two. Because you are stupid.

Fen said...

We'll pause while you look up "conflate"....

Shouting Thomas said...

Although climate and weather are different, I suspect that next year when this question is asked folks who are experiencing yet another heat wave may not be so skeptical.

Don't forget, cold winters also prove the theory. In fact, everything proves the theory.

Climate and weather are different...

Jesus, you really know how to fling the bullshit, r_v.

Fen said...

Try looking under "C"...

[...]

[chirp]

[chirp]

[...]

Shouting Thomas said...

Because you are stupid.

Stupidity is least of Fat Ass' problems.

Seeing Red said...

Let us not forget the last time out Bildeburg betters met

GLOBAL COOLING was on the agenda.

MadisonMan said...

"It's Hedley"

*Laughs* You can sue her!

Fen said...

Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."

Qualifier to discuss AGW here - in the last decade, there has been

a) more global warming

b) no global warming


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/

Seeing Red said...

Of the many thousand of peer-reviewed articles on the topic, very few have been challenged as falsified,


A. Peer - reviewed


B. The WaPo argued Memorial Day weekend that Mann's proprietary work should stay proprietary, cos the university is being sued to release his work.


Talk about a circle-jerk.


And the NAS just suggested to the EPA that they start releasing more of their data

or

people will lose trust in science.


Aren't you for more openness?

rhhardin said...

I don't think the scientists falsified anything. I think they're deluding themselves.

The ones using statistics don't actually understand statistics; the ones modelling the atmosphere don't actually understand the consequences of the approximations they make.

They are not receptive to criticism.

Ridicule seems to be noticed however.

Seeing Red said...

I am CREDENTIALED!

Bow before my superior...

Seeing Red said...

Things aren’t going too well for the Prime Minister’s boast of leading “the greenest government ever”, giving us, as he said last year, “a real opportunity to drive the green economy, green jobs, green growth”. In 2007, Mr Cameron made a big play of opening a factory in Coventry to build electric-powered vans. Last week, after making only 400 vehicles in four years, the firm, Modec, sacked half its workforce and went into administration with debts of £40 million.

Meanwhile, in Australia, ridicule greeted a radio interview with Jill Duggan, a senior British official with the European Commission, who is playing a key role in the EU’s bid to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. Taken aback at being faced by two well-informed sceptics, she admitted she had no idea how many hundreds of billions of euros this would cost, or how much it could hope to achieve by way of reducing global temperatures. Nevertheless she claimed that “tackling climate change” has created “over a million new jobs” in Europe, including “many hundreds of thousands in the UK”.

Citing a new study which estimates that diverting £330 million into renewable energy destroyed 3.7 British jobs last year for every one created, the interviewers suggested that, with an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, there didn’t seem to be much Europe could teach Australia.

Scott M said...

Aren't you for more openness?

Hard to do that when enduring the "most transparent administration in history". You know...the same crew that accepted an award for transparency behind closed doors?

If I tried to submit a story lack that to my agent, it would be rejected outright as implausible.

SPImmortal said...

Of the many thousand of peer-reviewed articles on the topic, very few have been challenged as falsified, but reviewers did get the hockey stick graph creator to admit that he switched to tree ring data without making that clear.

----------

Why comment when you obviously are way out of the loop and don't know shit about the topic.

Mr. Mann in the East Anglia emails talking about subverting the peer review process:

"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views."

See, that's the sort of info you might get if you read the WSJ or watched "Faux News". You might learn something other than the information exactly what flatters your ideology.

You might find out what's actually going on.

Scott M said...

If I tried to submit a story lack that to my agent, it would be rejected outright as implausible.

And he'd probably note the manifold spelling errors.

traditionalguy said...

The UN Warmists are like someone who claims that they have purchased a winning lottery ticket in the " trace gas CO2 is pollution lottery" and they want their 100 Trillion Dollars now.

They refuse to let anyone examine their claims, because they printed the phony ticket themselves.

Dreams of a lifetime of sexual service workers dance in their heads as Gore and DSK push for a quick ticket redemption.

Roger J. said...

Havent followed the AGW kerfluffle, but last I looked it does seem like things with mother gaia are warming up ever so slightly--Empirical data such as temperature is pretty straight forward (with some caveats)..So there may well be "consensus" that the earth is warming ever so slightly, and perhaps this is artifact from the end of the last ice age--or sun cycles.

The issue at question is what is causing it. AGW is anthropogenic (man caused) Global Warming.

Riffing off Fen, conflating global warming with AGW is a bit misleading.

Rumpletweezer said...

I'm waiting for the alarms and hand-wringing over "global climate staying the same." Sorry, that should be "anthropogenic global climate staying the same."

clint said...

J: "Besides, there is consensus on AGW among scientists..."

There are three kinds of truth, established by three different standards.

Religious truth is established by the appeal to authority.

Political truth is established by consensus building.

Scientific truth is established by reproducible, publicly available evidence.

We don't believe that the Earth is round because there is a consensus among cartographers. We believe it because of the reproducible and publicly available *evidence*.

Michael K said...

Follow the grant money. Papers have been rejected by journals when AGW enthusiasts got themselves appointed to the position of reviewers of all papers on that topic.

This sort of thing happens in science and medicine all the time but not on this scale. There are previous examples of research that was rejected for years because of a "consensus" of people in the field. Examples include Lithium for depression and Helicobacter pylorii as a cause of ulcers.

There was a lot more money in AGW because of the effects on industry and the politics of authoritarianism, which the left always turns to when frustrated. The greenies finally got a weapon they could use on modernity.

J said...

Put on your HITLER TUTU's Fen-tard and Shouting-Joto, and DANCE!

ta ta for now, grrrls

Scott M said...

Of the many challenges he couldn't respond intelligently to, J said, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of misspellings and bad logic.

gutless said...

How many fraudulent academic sinecures are endangered?

clint said...

Roger J.: "Empirical data such as temperature is pretty straight forward..."

Unfortunately, it's really not.

Yes, it's pretty easy to put a thermometer outside your window and get a reasonable idea what the temperature is outside.

But to show global warming you have to do three extremely difficult things to an extreme degree of accuracy:

1) You have to figure out what the average temperature of the whole planet is, on the basis of a limited number of measurements, including enormous regions served by single thermometry stations.

Of course, if you just want to show that Manhattan has gotten warmer, you don't need to show this, but that's a totally different topic.

2) You have to make consistent measurements over the course of several decades -- with different kinds of equipment and different techniques and protocols -- and somehow correct for *large* changes in the area around the temperature measurement station.

And (3) to make the case for a 0.5 degree warming over the last fifty years, you need your measurements to be accurate at that level after dealing with a temperature that shifts by tens of degrees every day, sometimes as much as a hundred degrees over the course of a year, and is systematically increasing at a rate of as much as several degrees per century as your measuring location grows less rural and more urban.

It's worth noting that we still don't know precisely how these corrections were supposedly made in the published temperature record. After a decade of fighting FOIA requests, the "scientists" have finally admitted that they threw the data away, so no one can ever check their work.

Final quote for thought: "A man who has one thermometer always knows what the temperature is. A man who has two thermometers never knows what the temperature is."

Bruce Hayden said...

Hadley - quelle surprise?

The problem with the East Anglia scandal is that the Hadley CRU data was used to calibrate the primary other data sets. So, you can't really say that only that dataset is suspect, since the others were tweaked to correspond to it.

And, in the end, the CRU temperature data is suspect because it is not reproduceable. They probably can't even reproduced it - definitely not from scratch.

Sure, other researchers can get the original data. But they do a lot of manipulation between when they get it, and when they output their results. Much of the manipulation is probably fairly standard - smoothing, removing outliers, etc.

But they have some real problems to overcome in the data, and that is where it gets real sketchy. Much of the world has not been covered by accurate temperature measurements, and the biggest heat sink, by far, the ocean, is not measured well at all. Meanwhile, temperature measurement sites open up, record, then disappear. A whole slug of them disappeared when the Soviet Union fell apart - which was coincidentally about the time that the global temperature started to increase. And, civilization grows up around the recording sites, causing heat island heating effects. So, they are moved, or not.

And, trying to put all this together is a big problem.

The problem though with the Hadley stuff appears to be that they seem to have almost individually tweaked a lot of the data - likely for all the above reasons, but still adjusted it somewhat. And, it appears that they sometimes don't even know why they did it.

I cannot say that the most prominent scientists in this area actually cheated, but rather suspect that it was more that they found themselves under siege, so found themselves actively managing the peer review process and stonewalled on disclosing what they had actually done.

But, it turns out that they really had made mistakes, and in the end were covering them up. Probably not initially intentionally. And, a lot of those mistakes seem to have been because they were in over their heads in such subjects as statistics, computer science, and physics.

Meanwhile we are told that there is a consensus here, so don't even think about trying to look to see what is behind the curtain.

virgil xenophon said...

SOMEDAY climate "science" as a field of study MAY evolve on a par for accuracy and predictive value with that of Economics, but as of yet it's not even close--and we all know how precisely predictive THAT field is..

tree hugging sister said...

As we always cheerfully say at the Swilling...

MadisonMan said...

Qualifier to discuss AGW here - in the last decade, there has been

a) more global warming

b) no global warming

A better question: In terms of Climate Change, do changes with a timescale of a decade matter?

Geoff Matthews said...

I took your question to mean scientists who insist that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, and not all scientists.

traditionalguy said...

The Warmists have the real answer to the sunspot cycle disappearing.

It is well known that massive human sacifice always propitiates the sun god.

So crank up the kill teams and draft the old and the unborn to save us.

Eugenics has never gone away.

Chip S. said...

SOMEDAY climate "science" as a field of study MAY evolve on a par for accuracy and predictive value with that of Economics...

with one difference:

When economists want to justify massive increases in government spending they say, "In the long run we're all dead."

When climate scientists want to do that they say, "In the long run we're all dead unless...."

roesch-voltaire said...

Sp I read everybody from Adrew Revkin blog in the NYT to Ron Bailey over at Reason Mag, and they conclude:Most scientists believe that the ensuing scandal, while noteworthy, does little to undermine the fundamental notion that human activity — chiefly spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — is contributing to a warming of the planet.

Revenant said...

Most scientists believe that the ensuing scandal, while noteworthy, does little to undermine the fundamental notion that human activity — chiefly spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — is contributing to a warming of the planet.

And if this was a Scientocracy, that would be good enough.

As it stands, though, the question isn't "do climate researchers trust their work", but "does the public trust climate researchers". That would be a "no". It is clear that there have been some catastrophic failures of the peer review process here. Why should we trust that those were isolated incidents? If this sort of thing had happened with, say, a series of businesses or a couple of Republican politicians, every commentator and news outlet to the left of Fox would be bleating about a "pervasive culture of corruption" and demanding new regulations and independent counsels.

If the data isn't public and verifiable, or the data-gathering method isn't public and verifiable, or the model isn't public and verifiable -- ignore it. It can't be trusted. The field is too politicized to trust.

Mike said...

What falsified data? Like hiding the decline???

http://www.nocapandtrade.com/michael-mann-controversy/

slarrow said...

And, in related news, Paul Krugman still believes the stimulus was too small to save the economy.

Mike said...

but reviewers did get the hockey stick graph creator to admit that he switched to tree ring data without making that clear.

And that was the cherry-picked Briffa data. It took quite a while to get that data, since Briffa refused to release it (like much of the AGW data).

It isn't that AGW has been disproved. It is that the AGW supporters not only have failed to substantively prove their hypothesis but they have engaged in scientific misconduct for the support they have generated. As a result, there is rapidly diminishing public support for any scheme to limit CO2--particularly schemes that will cost trillions (and skimmed by government for pet programs and friends).

Tyrone Slothrop said...

roesch-voltaire said...

...Most scientists believe that the ensuing scandal, while noteworthy, does little to undermine the fundamental notion that human activity — chiefly spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — is contributing to a warming of the planet.


Care to fill us in on the statistical method you used in coming to this conclusion? What does "most" mean in this context-- 50.0001%? Did you poll all scientists? Did you poll all literature? Did you quantify "contributing"? Inquiring minds want to know

Milwaukee said...

There are serious problems with the data, and with "data adjustments" and the computer model used. If ocean temperatures are taken by throwing a wooden bucket into the brine, pulling it aboard and then sticking a thermometer in it, or by throwing the thermometer overboard, different measurements come up. Use a metal bucket, and another measurement occurs. Take a temperature recording station in the arid and hot American South-West, and move the thermometer from the back of the building to the front, where the grass and sprinkler are, and temperatures are not measured the same way. I had a professor in Atmospheric Science tell me that the scientist in question added to recorded temperatures to make "adjustments" for such things. Then the differences in temperatures they found were smaller than what they had added. The code in the computer model was poorly written over time by a host of people, and is slip-shod at best.

The 31% still believing want to use global warming as an excuse for controlling other people's lives. Notice that Ted Turner and somebody else, both men with 4 children, announced on separate occasions that couples should have no more than 2 children, for the sake of the planet. Thanks dad.

traditionalguy said...

Roeschy...If you read blogs, then check out the Climate Depot blog.

It links to reports of the latest scientific analysis and the latest Propaganda Storms desperately emitting from the UN IPCC guys.

It might open your eyes.

jr565 said...

And the other 31% KNOW that the data is falsified. Of that 31%,10% are the ones actually doing the falseifying.

Seeing Red said...

is contributing to a warming of the planet.



contributing?


That's not the bill of goods we were sold.


downgraded again.


GW GW

to MMGW

MMGW

to climate change

to climate disruption

jimspice said...

Climate scientists are VERY aware of how badly they have botched the effective communication of their findings to the public at large, and have moved to make improvements.

From the REVIEW OF THE IPCC PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
Guidance on IPCC Communications Strategy:


"
The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes
transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes
guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization
appropriately.
Communication is a key issue in IPCC activities and has been subject to discussions during several
IPCC Plenary Sessions. As the recognition of the IPCC and the profile of its work have grown over
time, so, too, have the requirements placed on the organization to communicate effectively,
particularly with the media"

These are scientists, not masters of ceremony. If they were more adept in communicating their case, denialism would never have had the chance to take hold.

By the way, that's a public document I linked to. Do you deniers think they sent out a members-only email beforehand saying "just ignore the document we're about to release nudge nudge wink wink."

jimspice said...

And please, unless you have ever performed a multivariate regression analysis, checked for skewness and kerosis, maybe logged a variable or performed a Box-Cox transformation, please please PLEASE stop bringing up the "hide the decline" thing. You sound ridiculous.

Seeing Red said...

Umm, that document is about communications strategy,


not the actual science involved.

Release the work.

Seeing Red said...

If they actually included the sun, cosmic rays, etc., possibly taking a bigger view of the issue instead of it's the humans' fault....?

jimspice said...

And as for you who are oh so clever as to think about sun effects,cosmic rays, or whatnot, and assume it has never dawned on scientists who have made this their life's work. Please stop over at Skeptical Science. You may realize this has all been hashed out before.

jimspice said...

Seeing Red: that's funny. I hadn't seen your comment when I hit "submit." Impeccable timing.

"Umm, that document is about communications strategy, not the actual science involved."

Yes, and Prof. Althouse's post was regarding "How likely is it that the scientists will admit they are partly responsible for this public opinion?" not the actual science involved. I was responding to her.

Fen said...

And please, unless you have ever performed a multivariate regression analysis, checked for skewness and kerosis, maybe logged a variable or performed a Box-Cox transformation, please please PLEASE stop bringing up the "hide the decline" thing. You sound ridiculous.

This scientists has done all that. He's a proponent of AGW and even he thinks you are full of shit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

They deliberately fudged the data. Go peedle your snake oil somewhere else.

Fen said...

"you're not allowed to do this in Science"

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Cooking the books has become so commonplace, its expected.

jimspice said...

Fen: I watched yours all the way through. Actually, I had already seen it, but I watched it again just so you would have no excuse for you not reading mine: http:bit.ly/MullerMisinformation. It's four pages, but you can get through it in about as much time as it took to view your video, so it seems like a fair trade to me.

jimspice said...

Don't know what went wrong with that link. Just copy and paste the URL.

dbp said...

If the scientists didn't do anything wrong, how come most people don't trust them?

Is it some kind of deep conspiracy? Most of the press seems pretty on-board with the whole AGW bandwagon, so where is all this doubt coming from?

sorepaw said...

reviewers did get the hockey stick graph creator to admit that he switched to tree ring data without making that clear.

Actually, Mike's Nature trick involved switching from tree ring data after a certain date.

sorepaw said...

And please, unless you have ever performed a multivariate regression analysis, checked for skewness and kerosis, maybe logged a variable or performed a Box-Cox transformation, please please PLEASE stop bringing up the "hide the decline" thing. You sound ridiculous.

A self-proclaimed expert on statistics who can't spell "kurtosis."

Uh huh.

sorepaw said...

Citing an IPCC strategy document hardly establishes that scientists aren't good at communication.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a bunch of politicians pretending they are a scientific organization.

sorepaw said...

So? Polls also show that up to 50% of Americans do not accept Darwin's description of evolution.

Could it be that the some people are correct in distrusting climatological claims of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, and incorrect in rejecting neo-Darwinian accounts of biological evolution?

(No one today accepts Darwin's own theory of evolution completely. He didn't understand the mechanism of heredity.)

jimspice said...

Sorepaw, you are seriously stooping to criticizing typing skills? I would have assumed you were above that. Cripes, I have a degree in Poli Sci and I still mis-spell government half the time.

Maguro said...

Climate science has a messaging problem. But of course. Maybe Al Gore needs to make another Nobel Prize-winning movie, that'll fix things right up.

sorepaw said...

Jimspice,

I have no idea whether you are what you represent yourself to be.

Neither do the other commenters here.

All I can say is, people who know what kurtosis is generally know how to spell the word.

marklewin said...

Isn't it Rasmussen?