Inhofe Questioned About Manipulating Climate Polling Data

Read time: 1 min

“Did Jim Inhofe Manipulate Poll Data On Climate Change Policy?” asks Eric Kleefeld today at Talking Points Memo.  Kleefeld questions whether Inhofe falsely represented polling data on American public opinion about climate policy. 

Following his bizarre trip to Copenhagen, Inhofe penned an op-ed in USA Today earlier this week arguing that “The bottom line is this: The American people have caught on to the significant flaws of cap-and-trade policy,” and citing a Washington Post poll which he alleged proved his point that “the American public is growing restless with policies that would put more Americans out of jobs and raise the cost of energy.”

But Kleefeld takes issue with Inhofe’s interpretation of the poll.  “The problem is this: The poll doesn’t say that people are against policies that would raise the cost of energy – in fact, it says quite the opposite,” he writes.

The Washington Post poll results clearly contradict Inhofe’s spin. 

The Post confirms that “majorities of Americans remain supportive of such regulations even if they increased monthly bills, so long as they lower greenhouse gas levels. If energy bills jumped $10 a month, 60 percent back new limits; at $25 a month, it’s 55 percent.”

Read more at Talking Points Memo.

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


We could start an Inhofian Dictionary of Political Spin. Would probably need to be a two volume work though.

With an appendix for Marc Morano.

Have a good Christmas.

There is no one who wants higher energy costs for any reason. The wealthy can afford any price, but the other 95% choose between food, energy, mortgage etc.

Polls never tell the whole story and are most often rigged.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A fierce Christmas storm dumped more snow and ice across the nation’s midsection Friday after stranding travelers as highways and airports closed and leaving many to celebrate the holiday just where they were.

how about politics and science?

The trouble - the real trouble - is that science has become mixed up with politics and you just can’t trust politics ever.

The scientists really need to be apolitcal and they need to be seen to be apolitical otherwise public trust starts to evaporate.

For example Michael Mann.

I’m sure it would have been difficult for Michael Mann to hold back from taking a potshot at Sarah Palin - after all - she started it. But when Mr. Mann did that - he entered more surely into the political arena.

He becomes more viewed as a politically motivated person rather than purely a scientist and gives up a bit of his special status.

The problem is rightwingers who think that politics must dominate everything and who insist that facts be warped to suit their delusional beliefs about how the world works. The effect of their dishonesty and stupidity will be to drive scientists into more leftwing political views.

You want scientist to be apolitical? Quit attacking them. But it’s probably too late. You are forcing them to choose sides and they will choose the reality-based side.

The left and right are both reality based. They are simply different models for governing.

On the Left - The Soviet Union was very successful for a good long time and in fact many Russian citizens want to to return to the good old days.

China on the far left is not tackling emissions, but I suppose they could change directions in a hurry if they wanted to. They don’t have to answer to the people in the way the US government does.

A powerful government running the show without oppposition seems to be just the thing to tackle CO2 emissions.

On the Right - The US was also very successful for a good long time. However, limited government might not be the best way to tackle CO2 emissions. People have too much personal power and do what they want. (which often involves some sort of combustion)

So - is the CO2 problem big enough to hand over greater authority to government?

Just a little leftism won’t get it done. If you want to change the world, full on communism is your best bet.

No, what has happened now is that rightwingers are moving farther and farther away from reality and they are making stupid destructive decisions. They are trying to manufacture their own reality and they cannot do it. The glaciers are melting, the globe is getting warmer, the world is changing and we are going to have to change with it.

“If you want to change the world, full on communism is your best bet.” Thanks Rick, I always wondered how denialists arrived at the conclusion that climatology is really a communist plot to take over the world.

It’s probably too late for Inhofe but NASA’s Dr. James Hansen* has begun work on a helpful website to overview and update climate science; called “Updating the Climate Science, What Path is the Real World Following?” the site can be found at:

From the website intro: “Our aim is to help people understand global climate change — and how the factors that drive climate are changing. … The stability of climate that existed while civilization developed will not continue during the next several decades — that much is already clear. But whether climate change is moderate — something humans and most species can adjust to — or whether climate change accelerates and spins out of control, with devastating consequences for future generations — that depends…. Construction of this web site is just beginning.”

The ‘Temperature of Science’ pdf found on the website landing page and published by Dr. Hansen in mid-December has many instructional graphs and figs, too.

* Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.

Hi Keith (BRIFFA),
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).

Don’t like the truth?
Simple, if you are an IPCC climate “Scientist”, bury it.

Cap and Trade is a non starter in 2010 and don’t blame Inhofe. It’s going nowhere for at least 12 months because of the 2010 elections and yes it’s the dems that will have no part of it.

So does Obama have the guts to put it through in 2011? I doubt it. He’s going to start watching the polls himself and for a guy running a permanent campaign, the last 20 months will be too important.

Cap and Trade will be put off until his second term and my presumption is that he won’t ever get a second term.

So much for planetary emergencies. Political emergencies come first.


At the bottom of this page

From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
It includes:

British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG
Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG
Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’

You might what to check out what these and the other funding companies actually do.

This is all about Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Food to Ethanol.

They have been paying for the research and getting the results that they have paid for, the results that you accept, and drive you to demand low CO2 products. They have the products you now want so desperately, and they are ready to deliver.

The raw data, the computer models and the methods used by the CRU have not been released, only the results. The CRU does not do science; they are in the anti-CO2 business.

I do not see a difference between this and Merck, their ‘researchers’ and Vioxx

It’s business, it is capitalism.

So can you climate scientologists please stop with the skeptics in the pockets of Big Oil thing, it’s getting old. These companies have been funding the CRU for years and years. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell were in there right at the start in 1972.

This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.

The trouble with this poll is the numbers are too low

“if energy bills jump $10. , $25?

If energy bills jump $25/ per month, then exactly nothing will be accomplished in terms of lowering emissions.

(evidence: BC’s carbon tax did nothing for emissions, BC’s carbon out put is rising, not falling - if you want to lower emissions, you have to get serious)

How about a poll that asked if energy goes up $300/month and food prices triple because of passing on increased energy charges?

guess what - 99% will not be in favor

Here’s a good idea for a poll:

Would you be willing to accept serious and significant changes to your lifestyle in order to prevent global warming?

answer will be a clear NO!

lets have some honest polling questions please.

I’m starting to find the James Hansen concept quite interesting.

Tax carbon and then return all the tax money to the general population to spend as they individually see fit.

The effect will be that the population will tend to conserve on carbon and try to spend money on carbon alternatives.

They will go for a walk instead of a drive and they just might consider an electric car and vacation locally instead of in some crazy place like Copenhagen.

As a method of preserving fossil fuel, it could make sense, but only if all the money was returned to the general public and not wasted in various government boondoggles.

I think this is actually a good and realistic question to ask. I think you might also be right, that the majority of people might be opposed to actions that would change their lifestyle significantly.

It is a difficult position as a species, and particularly in a culture that is committed to democratic rule. What happens if we collectively refuse to take action against a known threat to the planet? (I know you’re not necessarily down with the science, but if you were, you would probably agree with the dilemma.)

I personally hope that as people begin to understand the gravity of the situation, they will be prepared to take more and more courageous action. A good first step would obviously be to make sure they’re actually getting the message. No one’s going to do anything if they’re told global warming is a hoax. :-(

If your house burns down will you accept the major lifestyle choice of becoming homeless? What choice would you have?

Global warming is going to force changes upon us.