Are liberals capable of honesty? The scam de jour is a fabricated survey by a gay activist with a PH.D. The American Spectator reported the following:
Two aspiring political scientists exposed a widely referenced study, which maintained that homosexuals discussing gay marriage with citizens proved “capable of producing a cascade of opinion change,” as a total fraud.
Berkeley grad student Joshua Kalla and Stanford professor David Broockman, eager to add to the project with their own study, discovered that the survey firm identified in “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality” maintained “no familiarity with the project,” “never had an employee with the name of the staffer” believed as assisting the research, and “denied having the capabilities” to conduct such an endeavor.
The debunking unleashed myriad reactions, none as gleeful as the ones that greeted the initial study late last year.
“Perhaps he meticulously planned the whole thing with malice aforethought,” Duke sociologist Kieran Healy speculates about Michael LaCour, the gay UCLA Ph.D. accused of fabricating data. Widener University law professor John Culhane, lashing out at how he imagines conservatives will spin the news, argues at Politico.com that proof of the concoction merely “tells us… that the gay canvasser study should be tried again; properly, this time. Not that gay canvassers have no effect.”
Doesn’t this sound familiar? One of the biggest scams perpetuated on the world is another survey that touts 97% consensus on man-made global warming. Forbes reported the following:
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
The only thing I’m alarmed about is a liberal with a doctorate degree.