Statistic on what Americans think of Global Warming

[SUBMAN1]

Good thing I am in the majority. I was wondering how many whackos believing in man as the problem were in this country. Seems only a third or less are whacked.

I especially like Greenpeace's founders comments. He hits the head on the nail, and he is also in a position to know:

No wonder Greenpeace's co-founder Patrick Moore wrote recently that "the environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity." Moore frowns on using the term "environmental" for the Global Warming campaigners. I can see his point.

Perhaps it's time hear from "traditional" environmentalism for a change, instead of its successor, the Carbon Cult?

Full article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/23/global_warming_yawn/

-S

[kurtz]

Your point being?

Scientific study is not a matter for voting on, I heard somewhere that a sizeable number of Americans believe in creationism.

[SUBMAN1]

Your point being?

Scientific study is not a matter for voting on, I heard somewhere that a sizeable number of Americans believe in creationism.The scientific study of onloy a handful of scientists known for hyping garbage? Sure.

At least in America, we still have our brains.

-S

[CCIP]

Perhaps it's time hear from "traditional" environmentalism for a change, instead of its successor, the Carbon Cult?


Agreed 100% on this. Mind you, I think it still entails curbing emissions - cars etc. don't only produce carbon - but I am tired of this global warming thing becoming the only environmental issue on the table. There are more overarching concerns at hand.

[CaptHawkeye]

Your point being?

Scientific study is not a matter for voting on, I heard somewhere that a sizeable number of Americans believe in creationism.The scientific study of onloy a handful of scientists known for hyping garbage? Sure.

At least in America, we still have our brains.

-S

We're talking about the same country that voted for President George W. Monkey Boy not once, but twice.

[SUBMAN1]

We're talking about the same country that voted for President George W. Monkey Boy not once, but twice.For lack of a better alternative. And, if you look at his track record, its not that bad.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Agreed 100% on this. Mind you, I think it still entails curbing emissions - cars etc. don't only produce carbon - but I am tired of this global warming thing becoming the only environmental issue on the table. There are more overarching concerns at hand.Best way to put it right there - :up:

[Tchocky]

Controversy creation, and all that.

[CaptHawkeye]

We're talking about the same country that voted for President George W. Monkey Boy not once, but twice.For lack of a better alternative. And, if you look at his track record, its not that bad.

-S

Lack of a better alternative my ass, Gore schooled Bush on every point during the pre election policy debates, but Americans didn't vote for him because he sounded "arrogant" while he was wiping the floor with GW. Americans have a cultural AVERSION to intellectuals which they've proven over and over again.

Oh yes, i'm sure historians will look at George's track record and totally forget the parts about ignoring the Bill of Rights, inflating the dollar into uselessness, and expanding the war on terror into a pointlessly protracted campaign when he had Bin Laden right at his fingertips.

[TDK1044]

I read a very interesting study that looked at sunspots and other solar activity and the effect that such activity had on the Earth's climate. Many climatic anonalies related to GW were explained and correlated in that study.

Common sense tells us that we should all work at caring more about our planet and our impact on it, but much of the GW argument is politically motivated nonsense in my view.

[August]

inflating the dollar into uselessness,

Care to explain what Bush did to inflate the dollar?

[Safe-Keeper]

The scientific study of onloy a handful of scientists known for hyping garbage? Sure.Scientists hyping? That's new to me. Scientists don't hype, the media does. And only a handful? If thousands upon thousands of scientists are 'only a handful', you're one hard person to impress.

And either way, Scientific study is not a matter for voting on, I heard somewhere that a sizeable number of Americans believe in creationism.

[SUBMAN1]

Lack of a better alternative my ass, Gore schooled Bush on every point during the pre election policy debates, but Americans didn't vote for him because he sounded "arrogant" while he was wiping the floor with GW. Americans have a cultural AVERSION to intellectuals which they've proven over and over again. Gore? Are you serious? He is the biggest idiot to ever run for Pres! This whole thread wouldn't even be here if he were a little smarter. Yes, maybe their are idiots in AMerica - approximately 1/3rd of them believe Gore's BS.

Oh yes, i'm sure historians will look at George's track record and totally forget the parts about ignoring the Bill of Rights, inflating the dollar into uselessness, and expanding the war on terror into a pointlessly protracted campaign when he had Bin Laden right at his fingertips.Bill of rights - I'm a little in your camp on that one. This is mainly due to Congresses failure in keeping with checks and balances however.

Dollar - this is great news in my book. Stopped outsourcing dead in its tracks. There is more behind this than you seem to realize. Good place for you to start is to study up on why China keeps its currency artificially low.

Bin Laden at his finger tips? When? SHow me something on that.

-S

[Konovalov]

Bin Laden at his finger tips? When? SHow me something on that.

-S
I'm guessing that he is referring to the Tora Bora situation in the early stages of the Afghan war.

[SUBMAN1]

Scientists hyping? That's new to me. Scientists don't hype, the media does. And only a handful? If thousands upon thousands of scientists are 'only a handful', you're one hard person to impress.Better check again. And for every scientist saying anything pro global warming, you have 2 saying they are incorrect. What you have is a couple scientists who see something and say it must be man made, and then they get excited and hype it. THe media hears them, and hypes it even further. Regardless, global warming has been happening since the day we left our mini ice age in the 1800's. Now we are headed back down hill towards another ice age. Imagine that!

And either way, Scientific study is not a matter for voting on, I heard somewhere that a sizeable number of Americans believe in creationism.Believe what you want on creationism, since you can't explain some things any other way - science has no explanation when it even comes to human kindness.

As for scientific study - that works only when all scientists are in agreement, so you can flush that argument down the toilet too.

-S

[Konovalov]

And for every scientist saying anything pro global warming, you have 2 saying they are incorrect.
Did you just make that up or is there some survey conducted of "world scientists" that backs up your claim?

[CaptHawkeye]

inflating the dollar into uselessness,

Care to explain what Bush did to inflate the dollar?

Expanding the war on terror and spending out the ass on programs that do nothing. No one even seems to care anymore that the dollar is crashing so hard they can feel it in the third world.

Gore? Are you serious? He is the biggest idiot to ever run for Pres! This whole thread wouldn't even be here if he were a little smarter. Yes, maybe their are idiots in AMerica - approximately 1/3rd of them believe Gore's BS.

That's a good conservative! Don't even explain why Gore was a bad idea! And if you do, be sure to take lots of out of context quotes and ad hominem him to death! Then whine and moan whenever someone does the same to a conservative icon!

Did you just make that up or is there some survey of "world scientists" that backs up your claim?

Of course, he won't prove it. And if "tries" to, he'll just post some random links from bumjack scientists number X whom convienently no one knows of and if they do have already labeled a crackpot.

I love how subman has gone out of his way to show he doesn't even know how the scientific method works.

Believe what you want on creationism, since you can't explain some things any other way - science has no explanation when it even comes to human kindness.

Oh I see, you're a fundy wacknut. Typical. Nevermind that morality and emotion existed long before religion did. Nevermind that the last people in the world who should be lecturing everyone else on morality are the religious. First rule of fundamentalist arguing, go out of your way to blatently misrepresent history.

As for scientific study - that works only when all scientists are in agreement, so you can flush that argument down the toilet too.

Bingo! You don't even know how the scientific method works! Second rule of fundy argumentation! Act as if the science is a democratic institution and that if it can't prove something 100%, then it must be better to go with the theory that is obviously LESS accurate. Like religion! I love it when creationsts just treat all of science like it's some kind of politically motivated party out to get them. They simply have no concept of anything else.

[SUBMAN1]

And for every scientist saying anything pro global warming, you have 2 saying they are incorrect. Did you just make that up or is there some survey conducted of "world scientists" that backs up your claim?Show me the thousands of scientists first. And yes, I have read that in some paper before.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

inflating the dollar into uselessness,
Care to explain what Bush did to inflate the dollar?
Expanding the war on terror and spending out the ass on programs that do nothing. No one even seems to care anymore that the dollar is crashing so hard they can feel it in the third world.

Gore? Are you serious? He is the biggest idiot to ever run for Pres! This whole thread wouldn't even be here if he were a little smarter. Yes, maybe their are idiots in AMerica - approximately 1/3rd of them believe Gore's BS.
That's a good conservative! Don't even explain why Gore was a bad idea! And if you do, be sure to take lots of out of context quotes and ad hominem him to death! Then whine and moan whenever someone does the same to a conservative icon!

Did you just make that up or is there some survey of "world scientists" that backs up your claim?
Of course, he won't prove it. And if "tries" to, he'll just post some random links from bumjack scientists number X whom convienently no one knows of and if they do have already labeled a crackpot.

I love how subman has gone out of his way to show he doesn't even know how the scientific method works.

Believe what you want on creationism, since you can't explain some things any other way - science has no explanation when it even comes to human kindness.
Oh I see, you're a fundy wacknut. Typical. Nevermind that morality and emotion existed long before religion did. Nevermind that the last people in the world who should be lecturing everyone else on morality are the religious. First rule of fundamentalist arguing, go out of your way to blatently misrepresent history.

As for scientific study - that works only when all scientists are in agreement, so you can flush that argument down the toilet too.
Bingo! You don't even know how the scientific method works! Second rule of fundy argumentation! Act as if the science is a democratic institution and that if it can't prove something 100%, then it must be better to go with the theory that is obviously LESS accurate. Like religion! I love it when creationsts just treat all of science like it's some kind of politically motivated party out to get them. They simply have no concept of anything else.Perfect. Wanted to hear how whacked you really are. THis pretty much explains it.

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

Bin Laden at his finger tips? When? SHow me something on that.

-S
I'm guessing that he is referring to the Tora Bora situation in the early stages of the Afghan war.

Does it really matter? Only an idiot like Bush would expand the war on terror as quickly and as beligerantly as possible thus giving every warlord in the middle east the proof they need to make people think America is out to get Islam. It obviously isn't, but that's not going to matter to John Suicide Bomber now is it? It's always the same circle of death for that country. No one has ever taken the time to sit down and figure out WHY America is in a perpetual state of war when it's so clear. But who cares right? Kill the terrorists now and they'll leave me alone until I get my pension and that's all that matters right? I'm sure all of the grudges created during the Iraq war will all just magically dissappear. And if they don't, well, it's only my kids problem right?

[CaptHawkeye]

Perfect. Wanted to hear how whacked you really are. THis pretty much explains it.

-S

Posture more. I'm getting bored.

[SUBMAN1]

Perfect. Wanted to hear how whacked you really are. THis pretty much explains it.

-S
Posture more. I'm getting bored.Oh - me first! :D I was bored long ago with your extreme left wing rhetoric, that lacks any real substance (even look at your previos post to this one - same thing rhetoric without substance). Hence my post.

-S

[Konovalov]

And for every scientist saying anything pro global warming, you have 2 saying they are incorrect. Did you just make that up or is there some survey conducted of "world scientists" that backs up your claim?Show me the thousands of scientists first. And yes, I have read that in some paper before.

-S
If I had said that there were thousands of scientists in the affirmitive and few in the negative I would have provided evidence to back up that position. But I didn't make any such claim for the simple reason that I do not know.

You however did claim that for every scientist that held a "pro global warming" position there were two scientists who held the opposite view. So instead of coming back with a "you show first" stance how about presenting something to back your claim up?

[TDK1044]

I think there is a tendency with the Global Warming issue for the GW folks to not look at the full time line.

They make statements about things that have happened "in our lifetime" and they make statements suggesting that the state of our climate is the worst since records began.

The reality is that this climate has been evolving for millions of years, and to make any kind of judgement based on a couple of hundred years of record keeping would be like a Doctor making a medical judgement on the condition of a patient based on a one minute assesment out of a 80 year lifespan.

I think there is also a tendency for people on both sides of this argument to cherry pick the data and include only the information that supports their position.

My belief is that the planet is going through a natural cycle, and that such cycles can last for a 100 years or more. Add to that the effect of sun spots and other solar activity and you can explain much of the GW activity.

Could we and should we do as much as possible to minimize our impact on our planet's continued development? Absolutely. Do we need to worry about doom and gloom predictions from people like Al Gore? Absolutely not.

[Letum]

Why bother with data collection, analysis, field study or in-depth studies when we can
just see what Americans reckon about it.

Depending upon those more informed than our selves is sooo 20th century. Now we
can learn about the world through the rantings of the most vocal mob. This is clearly
the way forward.

:up:

[mrbeast]

At least in America, we still have our brains.

You know Subman, its funny but everytime you spam out this forum with thread after thread after thread, you seem to want prove the exact opposite of that statement. :hmm:

[August]

Why bother with data collection, analysis, field study or in-depth studies when we can just see what Americans reckon about it.

Says the guy from a country that spies on the level of garbage in its citizens trash cans. Actually now that i think about it a little it all fits...

[kurtz]

Why bother with data collection, analysis, field study or in-depth studies when we can just see what Americans reckon about it.

Says the guy from a country that spies on the level of garbage in its citizens trash cans. Actually now that i think about it a little it all fits...

August,Do you know what a 'non sequitur' is? Just wondering.

[August]

Why bother with data collection, analysis, field study or in-depth studies when we can just see what Americans reckon about it.
Says the guy from a country that spies on the level of garbage in its citizens trash cans. Actually now that i think about it a little it all fits...
August,Do you know what a 'non sequitur' is? Just wondering.

Sure i do. Apparently you just don't like responses in kind.

[kurtz]

Why bother with data collection, analysis, field study or in-depth studies when we can just see what Americans reckon about it.
Says the guy from a country that spies on the level of garbage in its citizens trash cans. Actually now that i think about it a little it all fits...
August,Do you know what a 'non sequitur' is? Just wondering.

Sure i do. Apparently you just don't like responses in kind.
That would be,"No", then.

[baggygreen]

isnt this a nasty lil thread!

problem with stats is you never ask everyone, so you never get a true reflection of what everyone thinks.

If it was asked in a census it'd be believable, but til that day comes (and i hope it doesnt, I hate censuseseses) i find it easiest to take any stats with a grain of salt....

[CCIP]

My professor is actually doing research on environmental discourse, focusing on the two views this whole climate change issue specifically. I can't quote you the numbers, but he actually has the data on the for/against side - but the overwhelming majority of scientific journal articles on the topic argue in favour of global warming. He's a very respected expert on academic writing and he's done excellent research over the past several years on this, including interviews with experts from both sides.

I could actually talk to him and probably get you the figures.

[Stealth Hunter]

Your point being?

Scientific study is not a matter for voting on, I heard somewhere that a sizeable number of Americans believe in creationism.The scientific study of onloy a handful of scientists known for hyping garbage? Sure.

At least in America, we still have our brains.

-S

You have brains... but do you use them?:hmm:

To add to TDK's post, yes, Earth's temperatures have been evolving since the creation of it roughly 4.5 billion years ago... and yes, we shouldn't all jump to the conclusion that recent warming with Earth is spelling out our doom as Al Gore says, but what we can't afford is to ignore the simple fact that our climate is changing, and whatever the cause may be, we need to keep our minds open and our sense about us. We need to remember that we play half the game in heating Earth's surface and we do cause some of the problems with the greenhouse effect, though the other half is natural.

Are temperatures up? Yes. Is the pollution level up (this includes CFCs)? Yes. Should we be concerned? Yes. Should we think this is our doom? Certainly not. Should we start focusing more on studying the cycles Earth goes through? Absolutely. Should we try to decrease the amount of pollutants we emit (including carbon dioxide)? Absolutely.

[TDK1044]

Good post, Stealth Hunter. :up:

[August]

My professor is actually doing research on environmental discourse, focusing on the two views this whole climate change issue specifically. I can't quote you the numbers, but he actually has the data on the for/against side - but the overwhelming majority of scientific journal articles on the topic argue in favour of global warming. He's a very respected expert on academic writing and he's done excellent research over the past several years on this, including interviews with experts from both sides.

I could actually talk to him and probably get you the figures.

You should CCIP.

[Canonicus]

We're talking about the same country that voted for President George W. Monkey Boy not once, but twice.For lack of a better alternative. And, if you look at his track record, its not that bad.

-S
and expanding the war on terror into a pointlessly protracted campaign when he had Bin Laden right at his fingertips.


Say what!....Please let the record show that back in the mid-90's the Algerians had Bin-Laden IN CUSTODY....and asked the US State department if we were "interested in him".

NOTHING WAS DONE!....

Seem like old Bill was to busy playing with his cigar!

[joegrundman]

that's a pretty lame argument, canonicus. I'm surprised you bothered to write it

[Tchocky]

I've never heard of this Algerian business. Link?

[Canonicus]

My bad...I meant to reference the Sudan in my post above....


link..as requested...
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

[Konovalov]

I've never heard of this Algerian business. Link?
That is because it is a load of crud. :down:

The only truth concerning Algeria is that the Salafist terrorist group, the GSPC made a formal pledge of allegiance to bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organisation in effect becoming an umbrella group of Al Qaeda and that is it. There is NO record of Osama bin Laden ever being in Algeria let alone being held in custody. This myth is almost as stupid as the one about the CIA being involved in bringing down the twin towers.

[TheSatyr]

The whole problem over Sudan offering us Bin Laden is that we don't know the whole story. We don't know what Sudan wanted in return. Obviously,they wanted more than the Clinton admin was willing to pay. (Anyone that thinks Sudan was going to turn him over to us out of the goodness of their hearts is living in La La land.).

[caspofungin]

from what i hear from friends/family in sudan, all they wanted was the u.s. to take them off the states sponsoring terrorism list and open up for trade again.

of course, that's the non-official, man-on-the-street view. there was actually a lot of controversy in sudan after the al shifa strikes -- "we offered to hand them bin laden, and now they attack us?"

Anyone that thinks Sudan was going to turn him over to us out of the goodness of their hearts is living in La La land.).
bin laden was investing in sudanese infrastructure, but there was more money in getting on the u.s.'s good side then.

also, we can't even see the original topic from here...

[bradclark1]

And for every scientist saying anything pro global warming, you have 2 saying they are incorrect. Did you just make that up or is there some survey conducted of "world scientists" that backs up your claim?Show me the thousands of scientists first. And yes, I have read that in some paper before.

-S
You are a liar.

[Tchocky]

He may well have read it somewhere, Brad.

Doesn't mean it's true. Check out the Oregon Petition.

[bradclark1]

He may well have read it somewhere, Brad.

Doesn't mean it's true. Check out the Oregon Petition.
I doubt it.
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment,
Like this is serious? Manmade greenhouse gases are keeping the world healthy?
The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud. Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed. The verification of the scientists was listed at 95%, but the means by which this verification was done is not specified.
Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree. The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but provided no details confirming this claim.
Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. The petition sponsors state that 2,660 scientists were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences.
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Yes, maybe their are idiots in AMerica


Sorry S, I had to. ;):rotfl:

[Fish]

My bad...I meant to reference the Sudan in my post above....


link..as requested...
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton.

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/seanhannity) thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_5.pdf) "no reliable evidence to support."
As Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/itembody/200406220008), the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919) on right-wing news website NewsMax.com (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406010002) that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. (Clinton's statements are posted here (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/112336.shtml)).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

[StdDev]

If you want to know the truth.. go to the source (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/i'll-be-just-fine%2c-says-planet-20080306774/)!