The latest Rasmussen Reports 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. (To see survey question wording, click here .)
The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the extraordinary recent scandals in science, persecutions of dissenters, or abysmal failure of peer review.
No! It’s all to do with the fact that ignorant members of the public don’t have rational minds or free will.
The government needs to vote the people out of office and elect a new “pro-science” public that would never think they had any right to question such things.
The poll said the following, and I quote:
“The latest Rasmussen Reports 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.”
What does this mean? To me it means that 69% is influenced by a very succesful obfuscation campaign. It means to me that gossip sells but boring facts don’t. And I bet there is not a single person of that 69% that can name even one case of fraud. It would indeed be hard to do so because, to my knowledge, there is no fraud. Only baseless accusations of fraud. Worse still, every fraud accusation investigated so far proved to be no fraud at all! Odd, don’t you think? How can that be.
In conclusion: What is the added value of this poll?
Well, it at least shows the reason why we always seem to react after the facts. The problem, uniqueness and difference and contrast with every re-active problem we addressed in the past is, that the fact of AGW affects the whole world.
Inaction is an option … but probably the most costly option.
Thanks for the clarification, Do you have the source of this information?