We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Dr. Gray, uh. One scientist does not a fact make. I think I’ll go with the GROUP OF HUNDREDS OF PROFESSIONALS over one guy.
At one time people thought phrenology was science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
They also thought the world was flat and the moon was made of cheese.
Doctors are wrong every day too. That’s why the scientific method uses peer review and seeks consensus based on verifiable data.
I plotted some different graphs based on their data and they all look like at best over a 10 year period possibly, maybe a 0.1 degree increase if you did a regression analysis. It could also just as well be looked at as a decline or no movement at all.
I think there needs to be a total evaluation of the data by reputable scientists for and against global warming and a vigorous public debate.
The original warmers like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and the United Nations climate people need to stay out of it. This needs to be an objective study by objective scientists and let the chips fall where they may.
If we are going to spend billions of dollars I want to know with a reasonable degree of certainty that this not just pie in the sky BS cooked up by academics who were trying to get grant money.
“Final remarks
Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations andinterpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surfaceare warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, onecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21 st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years,
convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing airtemperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production andrangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important
goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction. Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate
change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.
[This statement is considered in force until February 2012 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]
© American Meteorological Society, 45 Beacon Street, Boston, MA”
Better a dog brain than a no brain troll.
Come on. Tell us all again how the leading professional association for meteorological scientists are wrong.
As many of you know, we have relied on Dr. William M. Gray from Colorado State University for many many years.
He has studied the Atmosphere and Hurricanes for over FIFTY YEARS.
Dr. Gray’s tropical season forecast has been accepted by the Associated Press and others as the Official Forecast for our hurricane seasons.
The National Hurricane Center incorporates all of Dr. Grays analysis.
For someone to put a government employee against a man such as Dr. Gray is not some what ludicrous, it’s just flat out.
I’m better at this than you. Too bad you just can’t keep your facades together, troll.
Three cheers for the ignorant troll who counldn’t resist the bait!
Three cheers for the ignorant attack dog who continues his effort to eliminate intelligent debate on the Turley Blog!!
Sorry folks. It may be early but I’m getting pretty sick of the non-stop attacks by the resident chihuahua directed at ANYONE who presents an adverse opinion.
William Gray is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph.D. and M.S. students.
Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Gray pioneered the concept of “seasonal” hurricane forecasting—predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray and his team (including Christopher W. Landsea, Paul W. Mielke Jr., and Kenneth J. Berry, among others) has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.
I doubt the barking beast has the credentials to stand with him.
The remark “Oh, a poll” continues to demonstrate the same. The Professor wrote this article about THAT VERY SAME POLL, dog brain.
here is a link to a website that has CRU temperature data and you can graph different plots.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2010
these guys aren’t even trolls, they’re spammers, an even lower life form
Come on. Let’s see some more “scientists” defend an irrational number like those “statistics” FAUX provided. Everyone knows they make shit up.
I should also point out that gate crashing and climate change have squat to do with each other. Much like the neurons in climate deniers heads.
Oh, a poll.
About what semi-educated people think instead of the professional scientists.
Is that some of that “common sense” your lot are so big on?
Another appeal to ignorance.
Volume of material doesn’t make your propaganda true either. You can say what you are saying in a lot less words. More bullshit is . . . just more bullshit.
Climate change is real and the scientists aren’t the ones arguing about it being real. They argue how bad it’s going to be, but unless they are a congenital moron, they agree it’s happening. The only people insisting it isn’t real are 1) the brainwashed and 2) the fascists who have a profit interest in Big Oil.
You can disbelieve gravity all you want. It’ll still kill you.
And for the record, you should leave out terms like socialists when talking about SCIENCE.
It tips your hand, troll. Just like your other PNAC/Neocon code words.
Like “family values”.
Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.
While many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
But just in the last few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed to reject any such disagreement in a response to a question about global warming, “I don’t think … [global warming] is quite, frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.
That’s a lower level of interest than has been shown about the White House party crashers and suggests that Americans have had their doubts about the science of global warming for some time.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming
Here you go, climate trolls. James Brown wrote a theme song for you.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6OoOhKM_yc&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Too bad the EPA doesn’t agree with you. Or most other meteorological professionals.
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.pdf
Nice try, troll. You’re no more a weather man than I’m a superhero. And if you are, you’re a bad one.
We seem to have a climate troll on this thread.
Buddha, your estimate may be low!
Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.
There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.
Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 ‘s influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.
The last century’s global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe’s temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.
The recent ‘ClimateGate’ revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.
The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.
The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA’s just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world’s continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country’s sovereignty.
Dr. William M Gray Colorado State University
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/
Chances FoxNews makes up what they report?
1000%
Fiction. It’s not just for entertainment anymore.
I hear that the Accountants that worked for Enron found work. They now compile statistics for Fox.