Statistic on what Americans think of Global Warming

[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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by 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.

You should CCIP.

[Canonicus]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

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%20page..._bin_laden.htm

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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

That is because it is a load of crud.

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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?