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
Group think isn’t the issue, Mr. Afraid Of Socialism.
It’s the review process itself.
Are you so insecure in your individuality that consensus has no value? That’s just insane. And anti-democratic when it comes right down to it. You claim to love democracy yet you disparage the value of consensus in the endeavor of science. That’s a contradiction, Byron.
According to another the Rasmussen poll, 150% of the American people think FOX gives us fair and balanced news.
Not a bit. You’re assuming Gray is right just because the individual assessment is somehow more important than the review. It’s not the theorem that makes a scientific law. It’s the verification of a theorem that makes it law. You can posit all kind of insane crap. The trolls prove that every day. It’s easy to do without proof and verification. They are appealing to authority here. The authority of an individual disproved by the majority on valid grounds his analysis is superficial and wrong. By your own admission it needs better review of the data set.
again it was the individual mind that prevailed. There is too much stock put in group think.
In discussions about climate change/global warming, people bring up temperature charts, graphs, CO2 levels, etc. Numbers is numbers.
Let’s get down to basics. What if we look at evidence we can actually see–not numbers and studies? The ice caps are shrinking. Wouldn’t there have to be some increase in planetary warming for this to happen? I’m not talking causes here–just the fact of shrinking ice caps.
Byron:
just pie in the sky BS cooked up by academics who were trying to get grant money
I’m always curious about this
seems to me the real money would be in disproving GCC. The oil companines have deep pockets. I would think that if money is the only motivating factor for these scientists this would be a no brainer and we would have a plethora of William Grays.
Oh I should have included Dr. Hawking in that pantheon of discoverers. Thanks for pointing out that oversight.
Byron, Well said.
and their peers thought they were wrong, you miss my point.
And even Einstein was wrong on occasion. He was wrong about quantum mechanics in his life time and Hawking has proved him wrong about the cosmological constant. None of which would have been discovered without peer review.
John Puma, Thanks for the link. The poll was performed in September thru early October 2009. Wasn’t that before the email controversy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
Byron,
And you are missing the point. All of those “individuals” were checked by their peers.
Come on. Appeal to Dr. Gray’s supposed authority again.
It’s funny.
How long he studied isn’t salient. His being wrong in his analysis by the estimate of just about every other scientist is salient.
You’re a troll. And you’re going to get mauled here today judging by your performance so far. Enjoy.
We sure will.
CORRECTION:
“… BITE more than you can CHEW…” (mutatis mutandis)…
Buddha:
Copernicus was one guy, so was Newton, so was Darwin, so was Aristotle, so was Galileo, so was Lister, so was Salk, so was Einstein, so was . . . well you get my point.
Sometimes the Royal Societies don’t see the forest for the trees as they did when Darwin published his tome. He was alone in the wilderness. The rest of science had to catch up with him. Some people are standing on the mountain and see the far pillars long before the rest of us reach the summit.
It is the individual mind that has moved human society along the road of knowledge, not committees of learned sheep.
This is how one man can change the world with a consensus of the scientific community. Al Gore comes to mind. A man who never received a grade higher than a “D” in science.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
Oh those English are tricky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
@ Dr. William Gray:
I started reading your rambling rant-please, allow me this redundancy–till I hit the adjective “socialist” which convinced me you were talking, not from any objective perspective, but from the height of a huge pile of B.S. that purports to be science… You sadly remind me of those “doctors” who question evolution…
BTW, don’t you think you’re trying to chew more than you could possibly bite? I mean, meteorology, which deals with short-term events, is already too much for one single human brain. And to add to that climatology, which tackles long-term phenomena, is, in my view, flirting with shamanism and charlatanism. C’mon, Doctor, are you trying to tell us you’re some kind of a Renaissance brainiac able to dabble in all the arts and sciences of your day? I mean, Doctor, even in literary studies, there are limits to what a single human being could muster… That’s why, in literature, you got for example, literary history (with circumscribed periods), critical theory, and so forth. And, believe me, Doctor, there are also doctors in literature… Professor Jonathan Turley, whom I often see commenting on TV, specializes in just one area of law of the vast corpus of American law: constitutional law!… And last but not least, what’s this “doctor” thing you feel the need to cover yourself with on a blog? You are positively out of your mind and at your wits’ end!
One wonders why a half-century of science can’t free a mind to see the possibility that the effects of 6+ billion MORE people cannot be considered to ADD to whatever underlying, non-human processes (repeat of Medieval warming) being used to try to counteract the “well organized international climate warming conspiracy.”
This fallacious logic is rampant in the anti-environment camp: there be shown a non-human cause therefore there cannot be a human cause. The bitter irony arrives when these same folks begin the personal responsibility rap, not to mention family values (as in, the existence of future families.)
As to what most Americans believe about global warning:
While only 36% of Americans think humans contribute to global warming and 39% accept the theory of evolution, 55% believe in angels.
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/americans-angels-humancaused-global-warming/
(Just reporting here, not proselytizing.)
“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”
Not according to Dr. Gray. This is a man who has dedicated his life to the study of ATMOSPHERIC science. Over FIFTY years.