Rasmussen Poll: Most Americans Say Climate Scientists Falsify Data
Climate Change Weekly #15
A new Rasmussen poll shows 69 percent of Americans say it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40 percent who say it is “very likely” scientists have done so. Only 22 percent of poll respondents do not think it is likely that some scientists have falsified research data, with 10 percent undecided.
According to Rasmussen Reports, “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.”
A powerful reason for growing public awareness of potential flaws in global warming claims, according to Rasmussen Reports, is recent news coverage of a peer-reviewed study documenting how NASA satellite data show more heat is escaping into space than United Nations computer models have predicted.
“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,” Rasmussen Reports observed.
According to Rasmussen Reports, the number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 percentage points from December 2009.
“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,” observed Rasmussen Reports.
On a related issue, 57 percent of Americans say there is significant disagreement within the scientific community about global warming, up five percentage points from late 2009. Only 25 percent of Americans believe scientists agree on global warming. Another 18 percent are undecided.
SOURCE: Rasmussen Reports
IN THIS ISSUE
Gore launches profane tirade against critics … No climate change signal in flooding events … Severe storms more frequent during colder climate … Critics of Spencer study abandon Scientific Method … Scientist under investigation after polar bear claims … Heartland replies to Nature … ClimateWiki update
GORE LAUNCHES PROFANE TIRADE AGAINST CRITICS
Speaking at an Aspen Institute forum billed as promoting “values-based leadership,” “restorative reflection,” and “nonpartisan principles,” Al Gore launched into a frightening, foul-mouthed tirade about the American public not trusting his global warming claims. Gore repeatedly thundered “Bullshit!” in response to global warming objections and shocked the audience by ranting in anger, “it’s no longer acceptable in mixed company … to use the goddamn word ‘climate’!”
NO CLIMATE CHANGE SIGNAL IN FLOODING EVENTS
There is no sign of global warming having a significant impact on flooding events examined in two studies authored by Princeton University scientist Gabriele Villarini. Judith Curry, a moderate “warmist” who is professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, summarizes and links to the two studies.
SOURCE: Climate Etc.
SEVERE STORMS MORE FREQUENT DURING COLDER CLIMATE
Severe storms along the French Mediterranean coast were more frequent during the cold climate of the Little Ice Age than during the warmer climate of the Medieval Warm Period, reports a paper presented at a July conference held by the International Union for Quaternary Research. The paper reconstructed 7,000 years of storm activity and found an “increase in storm activity” during the Little Ice Age, “Whereas the Medieval Warm Period is characterized by a low storm activity.”
SOURCE: Montpellier Geosciences
CRITICS OF SPENCER STUDY ABANDON SCIENTIFIC METHOD
A study authored by NASA Science Team Leader Roy Spencer shows more heat is escaping into space than United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change computer models predict. Prominent global warming activists, such as Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth, have lashed out at Spencer and the new study. In doing so, the activists are adhering to Climate Astrology rather than the Scientific Method.
SCIENTIST UNDER INVESTIGATION AFTER POLAR BEAR CLAIMS
Government scientist Charles Monnett, whose 2004 report of drowning polar bears was cited as justification for federal government action to protect polar bears from global warming, is being investigated for scientific misconduct. Climate scientist Patrick Michaels discusses the importance of the investigation and the broader issue of polar bear susceptibility to global warming.
SOURCE: Climate of Fear
HEARTLAND REPLIES TO NATURE
Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast replies to a pair of Nature articles addressing The Heartland Institute’s contribution to the global debate over climate change. The articles are surely a sign the debate is not over regarding the causes and consequences of climate change and what, if anything, should be done to alter the human influence on climate. But the articles themselves hardly do justice to Heartland’s efforts or the efforts of many scientists who are speaking out against the fake “consensus” that Nature itself has done so much to promote in its coverage of climate change.
SOURCE: Environment & Climate News
The Heartland Institute has created a Web site, ClimateWiki.org, to help everyone – from high school students to scientists working in the field – quickly find the latest and most reliable information on climate science. Please send your suggestions for new pages or improvements to current ones to John Monaghan at email@example.com. If you have new research to share, ClimateWiki.org is the perfect place.
An example from ClimateWiki, Essential Physics, reads in part:
Planetary temperature is essentially an issue of applied physics. The method of physics is to quantitatively understand geometrical arrangements so simple that they can be experimentally verified. We consider here first, the constraints imposed on a planet’s temperature by the constraints on a ball enclosing the planet and its atmosphere. That is, we consider how to calculate the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball. It is worth noting that the mean temperature of a planet is a much simpler problem than the dynamics of its atmosphere just as determining the mean temperature of a volume of gas determined by the Gas Laws is much simpler than determining the details of its internal eddies. The necessary physics is more than a century old.
If you have questions about the ClimateWiki or about The Heartland Institute, contact Jim Lakely, director of communications, at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 312/377-4000.
RECOMMENDED SITES AND NEWSLETTERS
Power for USA
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
The Climate Bet
International Climate Science Coalition
Climate Scientists’ Register
Science and Public Policy Institute
Climate Depot by Marc Morano
World Climate Report by Dr. Patrick Michaels
E-FACT Report by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Global Warming Policy Foundation by Benny Peiser
Biweekly Updates from the Cooler Heads Coalition
Climate and Environment Review by the Center Science and Public Policy
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change by Craig Idso et al.
Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts
ICECAP by Joseph D’Aleo
Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre
Climate Science by Roger Pielke Sr.
Junk Science by Steve Milloy
The Heartland Institute is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization whose mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. The Heartland Institute publishes the monthly newspaper Environment & Climate News and sponsors the International Conference on Climate Change, the largest regular gathering of global warming experts challenging the notion that humans are creating a global warming crisis. James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.