POLL: Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Believe In Man-Made Global Warming
POLL: Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Believe In Man-Made Global Warming
National Journal has released a new “Congressional Insiders Poll,” which surveyed 113 members of Congress — 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans — about their positions on global warming.
The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
Question: Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?
The last Congressional Insiders Poll on global warming was in April 2006. Subsequently:
– In June 2006, the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization created by Congress to provide scientific guidance, unequivocally concluded that natural causes cannot explain the unprecedented warmth over the last 400 years. Rather, “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” the report states.
– In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “concluded for the first time that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and that human activity is the main driver, ‘very likely’ causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.”
Nevertheless, belief in global warming among Republicans in Congress dropped by 10 points.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
279 Responses to “POLL: Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Believe In Man-Made Global Warming”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The GOP slogan should read: CAUTION: Heads Concealed in Rectal Orifice - blind, deaf, and dumb! Are these idiots for real?
Someone needs to remind them that "Denial is not just a river in Egypt"....how delusional can one get?
February 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmRepublicans don't believe the government scientists. Sounds like a bunch of liars to me.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pmI wonder how much money those Republics have made since the start of the Bush War.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmand who the hell is molly johnson? if that is a joke (which it must be), why did you post it on this thread?
February 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pmWhen you take people like Rush seriously you can only get dumber.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pmha, TP censored the "down sydrome contagious" comment, you guys missed a reeeeeeeeeal stupit person (to use zooey's description of michael)
February 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmthis is why so many more retarded legislators will lose elections in 2008, if there is a world in 2008, or anyone cares.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pmthat doesn't appear to be within the current dick king's intended uses for humanity
PLEASE> name these people so the people of their state can determine if they wish to support ignorance and stupidity
February 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pmTP censored the “down sydrome contagious†comment, you guys missed a reeeeeeeeeal stupit person (to use zooey’s description of michael)
Comment by CarlX
It is still at the thread below. Its a provocative, inflaming post in order to derail discussions.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pmThis is not surprising. The Republicans can only look out the window and still see blue sky--while snuggling in the pockets of the oil lobby--as they dream of dying in their sleep. And most Americans are OK with this. That's why there are still Republicans in Congress. Mystery solved.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pmThat's the GOP: Don't let reality stand in the way of ideology!
February 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pmThis is not shocking, nor surprising. Hasn't it ALWAYS been the republicans who have pushed back on this issue? This has always been a Dem issue and unfortunately for the Republicans they have painted themselves into a corner on this. Any time you put yourself at ideological odds with science you're bound to lose. It happened with the Christian church when they tried to silence scientists who said the sun was at the center of our solar system and that the earth was round. They fought against the idea for hundreds, even thousands of years. Eventually they were shown to be ignorant fools, idiots even. I don't know why anyone takes them seriously anymore when they try to discredit science or scientists. Haven't they already been proven to be wrong again and again??
Evolution is real.
The Earth IS round.
The Universe is vastly older than 6000 years.
Dinosaurs did not live along side humans.
Global warming is real too.
Someday these will be accepted as fact just as people accept that the Earth is round. The only difference is that now we don't have centuries to weed out the idiotic ideas - global warming will destroy us while we're trying to debate if its "real" or not.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pmWhen the situation falls apart, and the earth is a tragic mess, I want to survive long enough to be able to seek out as many "global climate crisis" deniers as possible and beat the living sh*t out of 'em.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pmBreaking News
Ruddy just declared he is entering the race.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmNone of the arguments suggesting that global warming is man caused, stand up under the scientific method.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThis poll just goes to show how deep the vast left wing media conspiracy runs in this country.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm#20 - 20braincellsorless,
There is no argument in the scientific community, only the religious fundamentalist dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence. Seems that they wish to reserve the right to claim that this is all some god's doing so that their apocalyptic fantasies can come true.
Delusion is what happens when you combine below average intelligence with complicated realities. And you, madam, are as deluded as they come.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThis poll just goes to show how deep the vast left wing media conspiracy runs in this country.
Comment by polished dude
Heh. Dude, read this:
None of the arguments suggesting that global warming is man caused, stand up under the scientific method.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Bunch of idiots.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pmhttp://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
February 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThere is no way anybody can ever go from being Democratic to Republican.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
That's true. But with a little education and sound logic you can go from being a rightwing, redneck, radical dipstick to being democratic.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmSpudge,
even the evangelicals, are not knocking global warming anymore, it is primarily big business.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmI wonder how many of them believe that we (human beings) walked along with the dinosaurs 6000-1000 years ago? They should all be shown the door.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmWhat else do you expect. Remember the Know Nothing" Party of old? These people do not think. They are not interested in obtaining facts. They believe only that which comports with their narrow self interest. They honestly believe that anyone who is not on their ideological side must be a liar. What else could they be? They know that their enemies would show the same willingness to distort and lie as they would to obtain their own conservative views
February 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pmSays the person who doesn't know a whit of real science. I notice you don't post anything that would support your view, no matter how tenuous the source.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm#27 Joe 6
that was funny, thanks, i can get back to work with a smile on my face now
February 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmUh Roger,
you source is hardly unbiased.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmI see we're getting rebuttals on findings by scientists from a bunch of people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Don't forget, this is the same type of "critical thinking" practiced by people who refused to believe the Earth revolves around the Sun and Galileo was persecuted because of it. Note to Republicans: get an education in something other than Marketing and give us a call . . . there's so much we can teach you.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pmRoger*2,
Anyone who cites Crichton as an authority in Global Warming, and who praises Crichton so-called surprisingly detailed analysis of the "flaws" behind the science, has no credibility whatsoever -that would be "Dr." Ball, and you by association.
Crichton is a science-fiction writer. Emphasis on fiction. Read this rebuttal to get some actual science.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmHey if you want to see a Canadian right wing rag click on the link Roger_roger provided. Then click "front page" and scroll through the hate.
That's where a jackass like roger here gets his expert advice on Science.
I wonder how much money EXXON paid to have this fiction created.
Roger could never trust the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization created by Congress AND The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Too many big words.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pm* Nothing against Marketing majors, but I will listen to Ph.D.'s with scientific degrees when it comes to climate change.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pmRoger_Roger sez:
Check here for a good runown on why the "National Resources Stewardship Project" needn't be given any consideration.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pmReadyforchange sez:
Go easy on 20wordsorless...he's obviously heavily handicapped in the 'critical thinking' area, as demonstrated by his unswerving literal belief in the Bible.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pmThese would be the same who have been so taken with the "everyone clap your hands" theory of diplomacy and war, I guess.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmTest
February 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmRoger*2,
Anyone who cites Crichton as an authority in Global Warming, and who praises Crichton so-called surprisingly detailed analysis of the "flaws" behind the science, has no credibility whatsoever -that would be "Dr." Ball, and you by association.
Crichton is a science-fiction writer. Emphasis on fiction.
My link to Real Climate doesn't make it through, but you can easily google Real Climate Crichton -go get yourself some actual science.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:08 pmDidn't feel like global warming when I went out to start my car this morning.
BTW, where were you guys a thousand years ago when the Vikings were populating Greenland -- and then things cooled down and they had to leave because the growing season got too short. Why didn't anybody do anything to keep the earth from cooling -- causing some Vikings to starve? Couldn't the European elites have burned more fossil fuels to heat the earth back up or something?
February 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pmThose damn ignorant Repugs! Homo Ignoramus. Lowly and beneath contempt.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pm#42. Nice trolling. Besides, the Vikings were too stubborn to change their habits to their new surroundings. The Inuit thrived in northern Greenland just fine over much of that same period, but they had adapted hunting techniques that fit the climate. The Vikings were stubborn and refused to change and eventually died out -- just like Republicans today.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pmCynicon Implant sez:
And once again, a neocon shill proves his inability to engage in honest debate about Global Warming by mouthing this tired old chestnut.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pm4 of the Republican lawmakers below are not completed deluded:
Sens. Lamar Alexander, Jim Bunning, John
Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Johnny Isakson, Mel Martinez, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, John
Sununu, John Thune; Reps. Marsha Blackburn, John Boehner, Kevin Brady, John Campbell, Chris
Cannon, Eric Cantor, Michael Castle, Tom Cole, Mike Conaway, Tom Davis, John Doolittle, David
Dreier, Phil English, Jeff Flake, Bob Goodlatte, Kay Granger, Doc Hastings, Pete Hoekstra, Bobby
Jindal, Peter King, Jack Kingston, Mark Kirk, Ray LaHood, Dan Lungren, Kenny Marchant, Jim
McCrery, Patrick McHenry, Cathy McMorris, John Mica, Marilyn Musgrave, Sue Myrick, Mike
Pence, Tom Price, Deborah Pryce, Adam Putnam, Dave Reichert, Tom Reynolds, Mike Rogers of
Michigan, Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, John Shadegg, Christopher Shays, Adrian Smith, Zach Wamp,
and Joe Wilson.
Only 4, though.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmDinosaurs did not live along side humans.
Comment by ReadyForChange — February 5, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
You don't fool me. I've watched The Flintstones and there ARE dinos with humans. And can be tamed as pets, too.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:20 pmHey I'm all for conservation, but I need to see a little more evidence in this Global Warming stuff before we start axing jobs over it.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
And this guy, a longtime climatologist, thinks that GW is complete myth...more religion than science.
So maybe, if I may float an alternate theory here, the Republicans aren't stupid....just following a different set of facts and experts?
February 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmJohn,
any website that has an ad about Nancy Pelosi; UN trooper, is a little suspect. Besides, Rogerx2 already floated the same link, and nobody bought it. Try reading the thread before commenting.
PS I wonder when that guy gets his 10 grand from exxon.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pmProof positive that Republicans are flat earthers.
Freaking idiots.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#20 20wordsorless
None of the arguments suggesting that global warming is man caused, stand up under the scientific method.
If that works, you should try typing "I just won $250 million in the PowerBall" and see if that comes true, too.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pmThe way in which you guys have phrased this post's title is problematic. Using the term 'believe in' actually undercuts your point- as if recognizing global warming is a matter of faith. How about: "POLL: Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Accept the Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming"
Just a thought.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThat Canadian Free Press article was written by Timothy Ball, long-tied to Exxon and Tech Central Station. Shill, shill, shill....
It's "Last Gasp of The Asshats".
February 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pmIn the link Both Roger*2 and John provided, "Dr." Ball mentions -again- Michael Crichton "surprisingly detailed analysis" of the "flaws" behind the science.
Anyone who extolls Crichton as an expert on the subject has no credibility.
(I read "Dr." Ball's rant so you don't have to)
February 5th, 2007 at 3:39 pm#48 - "Hey I’m all for conservation, but I need to see a little more evidence in this Global Warming stuff before we start axing jobs over it." Comment by John — February 5, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Who said jobs would be axed? Well, outside of the "Thar aint no such thang as global warmin, yall!" crowd.
Actually, more jobs would be created as we transfer to technologies that don't negatively impact our environment as severely as the ones we currently have. As we transfer to environmentally friendly technologies, the old environmentally hateful technologies would shift their job force over and we'd be in the "green" and even more in the "black" financially speaking!
February 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pmTimothy Ball - "But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology"
Saddly, the criteria for becoming a PH.D. in Climatology back in the 60's wasn't very good. Being the 'first one' doesn't give him any extra credibility points.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pmAlright, so why the f don’t the dems. get some serious legislation going to curb green house gasses in the u.s.?
Comment by CarlX
Good question.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:45 pmOnly the uninformed would believe that dinosaurs lived along side humans. They in fact never existed. God just put 65+ million year old bones in the ground to test the faith of the righteous – or so I have been told.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pmDemocrat Soldier - "Actually, more jobs would be created as we transfer to technologies that don’t negatively impact our environment as severely as the ones we currently have."
Just watch as the US lags behind these technologies and the Europeans become the experts. /Sarcasm on Good thing the oil companies get tax breaks. Sarcasm off/
February 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pmTo John and others concerned about axing jobs:
If the U.S. decided to mount a "Manhattan Project" to get off of dependency on fossil fuels, this would create LOTS of jobs.
Also, the big oil companies are diversifying. I have dinner regularly with a woman whose daughter works for British Petroleum, Amoco office outside of Chicago. I met the daughter. She says BP is actively investing in developing alternate sources for energy. These guys see the handwriting on the wall. Too bad Bush and Cheney don't. Too bad people like John, 20wordsorless, Cynical Implant, and others don't.
I also have a close friend who works in the Tree Ring Lab at the University of Arizona. Some of his co-workers have proved through tree ring analysis of trees more than 4000 years old, that our current warming cycle is unprecedented in all that time. Ice core samples taken in the Antarctic show concentrations of CO2 unprecedented in 600,000 years. The overwhelming number of scientists, including climatologists, meteorologists, oceanologists, tree ring scientists, etc., are looking at all sorts of evidence worldwide, and new evidence is all going to support the global climate change hypothesis. They prefer "global climate change" to "global warming" as the former term is more descriptive of what is actually happening; i.e., while the temperature worldwide is gradually increasing, some areas will actually show cooling trends.
John, the cooling period which resulted in the "Mini Ice Age" in northern Europe in the first few centuries of the second millennium, is well known, and is accounted for in the global climate change hypothesis. Nobody denies that fluctuations in climate have occurred in the past. But based upon many types of observations WORLDWIDE, by thousands of scientists, the current warming trend, and the current concentration of CO2, IS unprecedented. You need to educate yourself more widely.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:47 pm#48 John
I hate to burst your bubble, John, but the organization behind your little anti-GW link, the NRSP, is just another front for the energy industry. For a little background on those astroturfers, you can check this:
http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project
or this:
http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=1750336&f=8217&u=0
or just Google it yourself.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pmDon’t just listen to the Liberal gobbledy gook about global warming
naw, I can point to pentagon studies about global warming, it is a fact. Where they disagree is how much humans have to do with irritating the natural carbon cycle.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pmYet more evidence that the Republicans in congress are simply out of touch with reality...
February 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pmOnly the uninformed would believe that dinosaurs lived along side humans. They in fact never existed. God just put 65+ million year old bones in the ground to test the faith of the righteous – or so I have been told.
Comment by Dreary Urbanite
I thought it was those Berkley students or the Reptilians. =)
February 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#57 Yikes
Saddly, the criteria for becoming a PH.D. in Climatology back in the 60’s wasn’t very good. Being the ‘first one’ doesn’t give him any extra credibility points.
He wasn't even honest about that. He was a professor of geography, not climatology.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pmChimpeach - "He wasn’t even honest about that. He was a professor of geography, not climatology."
Well that makes alot of sense. Of course the mountains aren't melting, therefore, no global warming caused by man!
Tim Ball believes that the earth has been cooling since 1940!
February 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pmActually, this doesn't surprise me. Given the gas prices and profits of the big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil, quite frankly Exxon has these guys by the b@lls. They own them.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pmIs this truly surprising? The higher the gas prices, the great the profits for companies like Exxon-Mobil. The greater the profits (nearly 40 billion last year alone) the more creative uses to which they can put their money -- including owning the "braintrust" of the Republican Party.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:07 pm#48
I'd like to know just how the heck anybody could draw parallels between those who believe the science of global warming is solid and those of religious faith.
Global warming = religion???
Uh, yeah. Those deniers are getting really desperate, so desperate that they are resorting to pure projection.
Just a little review - religion involves believing in a god or gods and also involves a little thing called faith. Global warming is based on science, measurements, physics, computer simulations, space technology, etc.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:13 pmNone of the arguments suggesting that global warming is man caused, stand up under the scientific method.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Dude, here's a question for you:
February 5th, 2007 at 4:14 pmWhat is your definition of "scientific method?"
LOL a good laugh off of John, and Roger x 2's source
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop020307.htm
February 5th, 2007 at 4:22 pmJust back from a two weeks in Germany and Austria where we witnessed two entire countries waaaaayyy head of USA in energy conservation. Even the picturesque Bavarian chalets in the Alps have solar panels on their roofs. As you travel through the countryside there are solar panel farms 'growing' right along side of crops like hops and canola. Fields of panels all pointed South. On the hillsides there are large windmills supplying small towns. Lighting inside of hotel hallways is motion-sensitive. CFL's instead of incandescent lightbulbs. At night, they turn off lights in office buildings. People use public transportation - trains, trams, subways, buses. Or, if they own a car it is a small vehicle, mostly Beamers. My Toyota is a big car over there. No SUV's! They hate them. Gas guzzlers are frowned upon. They recycle everything, and I mean everything. It was the cleanest environment I've ever seen. Even the AutoBahn is kept groomed. And everything works; public toilets, parking meters. The big difference? Theirs is not a Me-Me-Me society. They have their personal interests, but they also work together for the common good. We have forgotten how.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pmMaybe these buttheads should move to the State of Denial. It's right next to the State of Affairs, where most of them have thiers.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pmFor anyone who is still stupid enough to deny the current anthropogenic global warming crisis, check out this link. It's a compilation of every scientific rebuttle to nearly every arguement against global warming. Global warming is the biggest problem on earth right now and needs immediate attention. Republican trolls, get with the program already!
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
February 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pmThe science of global climate change couldn't get any more real. Only the un-informed and the ignorant have not cayght on yet. However, I can see why they are so far out of the mainstream on this. They haven't even learned about the Atlintic convection or the melting permafrost yet.
Their little minds can't grasp anything on a global scale that doesn't come from their bible. These are the people that need to be the first to fall victum to golbal warmings devastations that will be starting soon. When they are gone maybe we can have an intelligent conversation about what to do about climate change. What a bunch of fools.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:34 pmOperative word in this post 'believe' - Republicans rely on faith instead of science... science is not belief - you don't believe in science.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pmbboop. I have been there and know what you are saying. One thing we lack is any sense of shame. We were on a train in Germany and near us was a Woman with two kids about 10 years old. One of them took his empty pop can and through it out the window. Well holy crap. There were two couples across the aisle from them and these couples ripped a strip off the woman and two kids. Couldn't understand them but sure got the drift of the conversation. In Germany, if you don't keep your yard in good shape and clean, you are looked at in shame. If you don't recycle properly, you are looked at in shame.
Sadly, we have no sense of shame.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pmDoes anyone doubt that the trailing edge of the intelligence curve is primarily red?
February 5th, 2007 at 4:43 pmOK -- here's what I believe: earth might be warming slightly but it's unclear how much of it (if any) is due to man. Projected impacts of warming are overblown (if Boston is a little warmer I can live with that) -- besides, projected impact of adopting Kyoto measures is minimal.
Bottom line: the sky is not falling so all you chicken littles please stop your clucking.
The more you scream, the less we listen.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:45 pmCynicon Implant.
Let me get this straight. You say "here’s what I believe." And then the rest of it was kind of like "blah blah blah blah"
The more you write the more blah we hear.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pmthen your behind the curve cynicon, more and more are listening, understanding, and preparing to do something. That is what scares big oil. The politicians may be ineffective in dealing with this problem, but populas measures can be effective. Especially when the power of the checkbook is applied. Any company not moving towards carbon offsets, and green solutions, could soon find themselves out of business.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:53 pmYikes, good to see another lefty who is not interested in dialogue.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pmabsolutely absurd. shows that the reps of a major US party get their information from right wing talk radio hosts and preachers. these sex-on-the-wrong-brainers can't read outside the right wing think tank drivel placed in front of them every morning or they would shrink into their caves from fear of the uncertainties of nature. that's why they only worked two days a week- they're so lazy they let their staffs do all the work. which is perfect since the industry lackeys they hire to write their legislation wouldn't have it any other way.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pmI can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThis just in: Republicans officially batshit-crazy.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pmCynicon Implant, what type of dialog do you expect when you say "all you chicken littles please stop your clucking."? You invite no dialog with shit like that. blah blah blah
February 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pmMy guess is that post #48 by "John" was put there by a disinformation specialist working for the fossil fuel industry or one of its proxies.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:06 pmHow about: “POLL: Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Accept the Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Global Warmingâ€
Comment by Philly Guy — February 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
This is a great point, and has been one of my pet peeves for awhile now. Belief has nothing to do with it.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pmMy question relates to the poll results provided in the posted entry (haven't read the linked poll itself--for some reason I can't get the PDF file to open). What is the position of the GOP NON-responders? Note the survey was of 113 members of Congress, 58 Dems and 55 GOPers, yet the numbers listed for the results only feature 41 Dems and 31 GOPers. And it's *those* votes that make up the "frightening" percentages. 31 of 55 is 56% which leaves a solid 44% of those polled whose view is NOT known. Of the Dems, we're not talking much better, as the view of nearly 30% of those polled is NOT known. Overall, the poll question was answered by only 65% which should, by any rational polling standards, consider the result as being insufficient to report (just as the push-polls done by groups sending out surveys to specific target audiences--i.e., their dues-paying members--have little legitimacy). I've seen a number of polls/surveys done where the results may be prefaced by a comment along the lines of "question received insufficient number of responses to be considered valid and results are shown merely for the sake of completion". I've even seen some polls which simply note the question didn't receive enough responses to be shown at all.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pmWhile this poll is an interesting bit of trivia, it really is not all that newsworthy, Nico. Also, the percentages are somewhat irrelevant if the hard numbers don't match. How many Dems and GOPers were surveyed in the last poll? How many of those surveyed failed to respond at all? Were the same people surveyed both times? For that matter, how many people were surveyed in the previous poll? Yes, 13 IS 10 less than 23, but that line should read that "belief . . . dropped by 10 PERCENTAGE points" since it dropped from 23% to 13%. Without knowing how many GOPers were surveyed in the prior poll, you actually make it LESS significant than it could be. Even if only 55 GOPers were surveyed last time, and only 31 of those responded, that 23% would equal 7 respondents, a more astonishing 43% drop. BUT, if the same 55 were surveyed but only 17 responded, that would result in only 4 respondents, an astonishing 0% drop. As they say, the devil's in the details.
(For the record, I don't have any dispute with the realities of global warming and the human factor in the equation. I just feel that poll numbers taken so out of context do little, especially when one particular poll question received so few responses. Yes, providing the numbers for completion's sake is fine, but no serious polltaker would attribute any significance to this question's results.)
Didn’t feel like global warming when I went out to start my car this morning.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — February 5, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Cynicon, if you believe what you write, you are a blind fool.
To all the trolls/shills/idiots out there who dispute the science of global warming: you are just embarrassing yourselves. You sound like you are arguing that the earth is flat. It is pathetic.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:09 pmA conservative's version of dialogue.
First this:
The more you scream, the less we listen.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — February 5, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Followed by this:
Yikes, good to see another lefty who is not interested in dialogue.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — February 5, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Cynicon, you may want to stop projecting so blatantly.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:27 pm#78 Cynicon Implant
OK — here’s what I believe:
I'm glad we have scientists who are willing to put in the years of hard work necessary to test hypotheses and make determinations, so we aren't stuck having to rely on what somebody 'believes'.
I believe that you won't believe global warming is a serious problem until everyone's living in a house on stilts and there's no place left to drive the gas-guzzlers. I apologize for not having the patience to sit around waiting for you to have your forehead-slapping moment of clarity. It's just not that gratifying to be able to say "I told you so."
February 5th, 2007 at 5:35 pmFollow the money. How much did Christopher Columbus turn down from flat -landers before he set sail? You some kinda kook, there Chris? Follow the money....
February 5th, 2007 at 5:38 pmhttp://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
February 5th, 2007 at 5:43 pm#94: that source has already been shown to be bought and paid for by the petroleum industry. How about a reliable source, or at least one that doesn't suck?
February 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pm#94 michael
Kinda slow, aren't you michael? Two other trolls already posted links to the oil industry's astroturfers.
You see, that bit about repeating a lie often enough only works when the lie isn't getting shot down by at least a dozen people every time it's uttered. Nice try, though.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pm#95 And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
I guess that was the only talking point issued to the global warming deniers today.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pm"that source has already been shown to be bought and paid for by the petroleum industry. How about a reliable source, or at least one that doesn’t suck?
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — February 5, 2007 @ 5:47 pm"
And so I'm sure you can tell us what is incorrect in that article?
February 5th, 2007 at 5:57 pm20wordsorless,
I'm guessing you don't have an answer for me on the definition of scientific theory. Here ya go, baby:
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).
February 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pmSpudge_Boy,
That's how you know they're all paid from the same spigot of dishonest money. How could they possibly have an original thought, when they clearly have no thoughts whatsoever?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:15 pm#98: did you read the prior posts? Timothy Ball and the group have been shown to be paid for by the petroleum industry. You'll have to do better than pasting the same URL into the thread, then saying, "tell me what's wrong with this article." I could do the same, but it would be hundreds of links to peer-reviewed articles.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:17 pm"do they have one frickin’ original thought between the three of them"
I'm sorry, I missed some of your original thoughts? Can you point me to them?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:17 pmI don't pay attention to "michael" anymore, after last Sunday when he said he was going for a drive in the Sierra's.
His posts dropped off for maybe a half hour at best, when I asked him later "How was your drive?", he replied with "The food was great!"
February 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pmNow I understand that, to michael, a drive in the Sierra's means clearing space in the cab of the Sierra, and going to McDonalds to drive back and forth over the speed bumps.
#100: I couldn't believe it myself, talk about beating a dead horse! He could at least use TinyURL or something to get us to click the link again. When your argument has been shot in the head fifteen different ways, it's time to move on. You've lost the war (Repubs should be used to that feeling).
February 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pmMichael, there's nothing in that article, nothing at all. Its so unsubstative, even you could have written it.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:23 pmAll these ranting & raving intelectual wannabies parroting the same un-scientific, half-baked so called theories about global warming remind me exactly like the global cooling wackos of the 70's.
There are more good reputable and knowledgeable scientists out there that will state emphatically that global warming caused by humans is laughable at best.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pmI repeat spudge:
I’m sorry, I missed some of your original thoughts? Can you point me to them?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pmok, first time i've been to this site. Glad to see "Think Progress" includes a lot of jumping to conclusions (see comment 89 for explanation), steriotyping all Christians as idiots, and just straight meaningless bashing. We all wear 99 cent t-shirts from China, buy bottled water and the latest electrical gadgets, just to be replaced next year by the hipper one.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pm"I’m sorry, I missed some of your original thoughts? Can you point me to them? Comment by michael — February 5, 2007 @ 6:26 pm"
I'm sorry, michael, I misse some of your original thoughts? Can you point me to them?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pmLet's see:
1. Author states that temperature trends for last 400 years are all normal and within natural variation with no facts to support his conclusion so that current trends can be examined likewise.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pm2. Author's scientific analysis of current trend is a pithy comment that he'll see another 'cycle before retiring'.
3. Author states that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas with no supporting scientific facts.
4. Author states that Michael Crichton and a few others are examples of a 'voice crying in the wilderness'
All these ranting & raving intelectual wannabies parroting the same un-scientific, half-baked so called theories about global warming remind me exactly like the global cooling wackos of the 70’s.
There are more good reputable and knowledgeable scientists out there that will state emphatically that global warming caused by humans is laughable at best.
Comment by Mitre — February 5, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Come on sonny, you know better than to post crap without anything to back it up, don't you? I'm sure you do, otherwise people might lauch at you and call you a liar. By the way, I think the bolded text is the bit you will have trouble with.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pmAnd the problem with my post prior to #113 was what exactly, TP? It was a simple breakdown of why the CanadaFreePress article was not science.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pmGLOBAL WARMING IS BECOMING MORE CONTROVERSIAL, NOT LESS
BEYOND THE APOCALYPTIC VISIONS
Look, look, up at the sky! Do you see that? And that? The sky, the sky, it’s on fire! It’s burning, and can you see how it’s spreading? Look over there – those -- over there, they look like clouds, but if you look closely, they’re not, they’re on fire! More and more of the sky is changing into fire! Everyone is looking up, and they see the same thing! It’s on fire, it’s burning, and it’s going to kill us all! I can feel the heat, it’s getting hotter and hotter, and we’re all going to die...Ohh, my God, we’re all going to die!
The key problem for global warming theories is that the sea level has not risen much in the last 150 years. A small rise may have occurred, but this may be attributable to the “tail end†of the last ice age. If sea level rises much more, we may be able to ascertain what, exactly, is going on. If sea level declines, then theories of human-caused global warming will probably be relegated to the dust-bin of history.
If a long trend of global warming is occurring, there are two ways it could be related to humans. First, humans might be causing the warming. Second, global warming might be causing the humans. That is, most land mass is in the Northern hemisphere, where warming would increase and improve arable land, growing seasons, crop yields, and available water supplies. We know that global warming was beneficial to humans when the last ice age began retreating, but we do not know if these benefits have stopped. World population is increasing, but GDP per capita is also increasing rapidly, which probably causes more energy use per person. In this way, global warming could CAUSE the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, instead of CO2 causing global warming. CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas– --water vapour is. CO2 levels may or may not be causing global warming, and global warming may have stopped in 1998.
The entire warming debate is based upon conjecture until any sea level changes can be clearly attributed to human activity. Science has not yet clarified this key issue. References available upon request
February 5th, 2007 at 6:49 pmGlobal warming deniers, prominently represented by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), continue to twist the facts to serve their rhetorical needs. For example, yesterday, said senator charged that the media was covering up the fact that the IPCC summary to be released this week "was not approved by scientists but by politically motivated UN bureaucrats."
This is flat-out false. As my story from yesterday points out, the scientists have the right of refusal to any language changes in said summary that do not reflect the underlying science. And the document is largely being negotiatd by diplomats from the respective countries, not the UN at all.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:55 pmhttp://www.sciam.com
Re: "first time to this site"
Jumping to conclusions in it's healthier form is known as posing a theory, or better yet, simple conjecture.
Both can be helpful in trying to understand twisted and exploitative logic (a la neo-cons, corporatists, etc.)
I, for one, try to bash with meaningfullness, without being mean.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:55 pm...er, well, at least not really mean.........
They simply lie. C'mon, these are people with mostly very good education behind them...it's the same thing with religion. Many of them are agnostics/atheists but would not dare to say it out loud, it could kill their careers after all..
February 5th, 2007 at 6:55 pmWhile this poll is an interesting bit of trivia, it really is not all that newsworthy, Nico. Also, the percentages are somewhat irrelevant if the hard numbers don’t match.
Comment by JosephW — February 5, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Although you make some valid points about the nitty gritty, I disagree that these numbers aren't newsworthy. Forget percentages. Forget what the rest of Congress believes. Just look at the absolute numbers: there are at least 25 Republicans in Congress who don't accept global warming science. This number should be zero. Period. Only the stupid, the ignorant, the wishful, or the corrupt hold this view.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:57 pmThe entire warming debate is based upon conjecture until any sea level changes can be clearly attributed to human activity. Science has not yet clarified this key issue. References available upon request
Comment by DemocracyRules — February 5, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Time to put down the crack pipe, buddy. The baseless crap you write reminds me of hearing creationists invoking the second law of thermodynamics to "prove" creation, only to comically demonstrate that they can't even explain the law at its most basic level, much less apply it to a system.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:04 pmbut GDP per capita is also increasing rapidly, which probably causes more energy use per person. In this way, global warming could CAUSE the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, instead of CO2 causing global warming.
Hmm then how do you explain the swings in CO2 variation exactly correlated with temperature (from the ice core record) when there were next to no people around most of these last 500,000 years or so? Where did the global warming come from then?
The key problem for global warming theories is that the sea level has not risen much in the last 150 years.
Need some proof here, please. So yes I'm requesting the references. Please contrast with the IPCC 4th edition when you disagree.
Second, global warming might be causing the humans. That is, most land mass is in the Northern hemisphere, where warming would increase and improve arable land, growing seasons, crop yields, and available water supplies.
Well this is a bold leap of cause and effect. I would put it to you that it is in fact the unusually stable climate these last 10,000 years since the ice age that has allowed humans to settle down, grow some stuff and procreate. The problem is going to be when climate change occurs too quickly for the 6+ billion people to adapt. Take your water supplies comment - first can you give us an example of a region where useable rainfall is increasing and second, please address the case of the San Fernando valley which is fed by snowmelt and in the likely event of disrupted/reduced snowfall due to warner climate, where that 'breadbasket' is going to get its water from?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:08 pmMichael's original thought has proven as unsubstantial as the article he touted.... *crickets chirp*
February 5th, 2007 at 7:09 pmok, first time i’ve been to this site. Glad to see “Think Progress†includes a lot of jumping to conclusions (see comment 89 for explanation), steriotyping all Christians as idiots, and just straight meaningless bashing.
Naw, I am a Christian, just a quiet one, the liberal vs fundamentalist one is created by and perpetrated by the FUX Noose pundits and repeated here as gospel.
Such as Coulters inane book Liberals are Godless which is easily debunked when you consider 80% of America considers itself christian.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:28 pm#98: And so I’m sure you can tell us what is incorrect in that article?
Ball's article contains no science whatsoever. Some excerpts:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Really? Great. Where's the evidence to support this statement? Oh, yeah. There is none.
[T]here is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement.
Actually, Izrael--and the rest of the IPCC--issued a report last week that directly contradicts this statement. Don't you go to hell for this stuff?
These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun.
Great! Where's the peer-reviewed study that confirms this statement?
[T]he major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
Evidence to support this statement?
What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals.
There's plenty of evidence that the Bush administration has suppressed climate change science, but I have never heard of any scientist losing his or her job for being a global warming "skeptic." Just ask Ball's hero Richard Lindzen, who has made $2500 a day for "consulting" for ExxonMobil. Seems that being a "skeptic" can be quite lucrative. Seems to contradict Ball's argument that "skeptics" are marginalized and harassed.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda.
Apparently Ball contradicts himself one sentence after accusing Suzuki of "lying."
Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
Perhaps that's because his arguments aren't supported by science.
The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
Of course, Ball forgets to mention that the theory has been tested extensively by 2500 of the world's leading researchers on climate change.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change.
This might be the one statement Ball makes that I actually agree with. The only politician I can think of who knows anything about the science of climate change is Al Gore.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:30 pmNice post in #122, TTT, but I wouldn't waste your valuable breath on DemocracyRules. You won't get anywhere trying to teach it anything.
Debating with the trolls about global warming is ridiculous. Would anyone seriously debate whether the earth is flat or round? I think most of us would just walk away from that kind of ludicrous debate.
My approach isn't to reason with them, but to simply point out again and again that the scientific consensus about the general theory of global warming is virtually unanimous. There is no longer a single qualified scientist that I know of who disputes the general theory, except for a handful of proven wackos and known industry shills. If they want to believe otherwise, that is their right. They should just be led to understand that they will be perceived by most people, including virtually all well-educated people, as clueless idiots or conspiracy nuts.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:35 pmWell I was willing to give Dem wotsit a chance... the post contains a couple of interesting angles: that warming is contributory to human growth and that the economic benefits of warming might be measurable. I could have said "f*** off you are a d***head"... but then my mom told me to be nice to people you don't know and always swim down when chased by a shark.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pmGetting the Congress to that point was carefully orchestrated over years, since lets say 94. This just didn't happen overnight. Funny thing is, the Rapepublicans blew it quickly. The money is still flowing to "all the right places" even with the new Congress.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pmYeah, Richard Lindzen. I'm glad that name was brought up here. The same Dick Lindzen who wrote an editorial in the WSJ claiming that there is a global cabal of scientists that persecutes anyone who disagrees with it.
I have been a practicing scientist for over 20 years. I can assure all of you that it would be utterly impossible for such a large and powerful clique to ever form in science. Richard Lindzen has been a practicing scientist for much longer than I have. His accusation is nothing short of bizarre. It might be incipient mental illness. It might be corruption. In any case, he has made an embarrassing fool of himself, at least within the scientific community.
Another thing about Lindzen: he does not actually dispute the general theory of global warming. His position is that the extent of anthropogenic warming has been exaggerated. His primary basis for this claim is a pet idea he has fallen in love with: the cloud iris effect, which he claims counteracts the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Trouble is, nobody in the professional community believes in this effect anymore.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:58 pmI could have said “f*** off you are a d***headâ€â€¦ but then my mom told me to be nice to people you don’t know and always swim down when chased by a shark.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — February 5, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
I admire your patience and good character.
Really, sometimes I think it is good to debunk what the trolls write. Not for their sake of course, but for the greater audience.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:03 pmI assume you liberals are on this thread because you support the notion that global warming, if there is such a thing, is caused by man? So when someone comes along and challenges this theory I would expect that you would be able to enlighten them with some facts. That's how a give and take or debate works. So I decided to go back to the beginning of this thread and collect all of spudges intellectual contributions. Here is every one of them:
Republicans don’t believe in science. They think the world is flat and has only been around for 6000 years. There is no way anybody can ever go from being Democratic to Republican. You would have to suspend your beliefs in reality and embrace fairy tales.
By vast, do you mean The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Bill Maher, Keith Olberman and Air America. Yeah, that sure is vast. That’s so vast, that it isn’t vast.
This isn’t an argument between the left and right. This is an arguemnt between religion/big business vs science.
Did Roger X 2 actually post a Canadian Freepers link for his proof? Oy!
1. Did this freaking retard post the same Canadian Freeper linkn as Roger X 2?
Fu*k, they aren’t even original in a single thread!
Yep. Faith based reporting needs to go the way of the dodo.
Did michael post the same fu*king article that Roger X 2 and John already posted? OMFG do they have one frickin’ original thought between the three of them? Talk about group think and brainwashing.
1. You posted the same exact link that TWO other trolls have already posted. You are an unoriginal turd.
You want something origianl from me?
Go fu*k yourself with a baseball bat with rusty nails sticking out of it.
You’re welcome.
Yawn…….
Since this is your first time on this site, you don’t know anything about our ongoing (read years) of battling with the same exact trolls using different names.
As you can plainly see, not one comment that has any scholarly support for the theory of global warming. Not one! All you get from this person is insults or name calling. Now remember, you liberals posted this thread and I assume believe what it says. You begin you comments with:
The GOP slogan should read: CAUTION: Heads Concealed in Rectal Orifice - blind, deaf, and dumb! Are these idiots for real?
Someone needs to remind them that “Denial is not just a river in Egyptâ€â€¦.how delusional can one get?
This is where my challenge begins because you see, your statement above does NOT support, with facts, anything said in the article. It is childish and an insult. My skin is thick and can take it, so I don't mind. But this is just a simple example of something that occurs here a lot and that is mindless posts by mindless posters!
Comment by veritas — February 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
February 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pmSo when someone comes along and challenges this theory I would expect that you would be able to enlighten them with some facts.
michael, michael, michael,
You want facts? Read the IPCC report. You want facts? The general theory of global warming is accepted by virtually all qualified scientific experts. Why does anyone here need to repeat these or any other facts to you?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pmMichael - here is the argument: http://www.ipcc.ch/ - why don't you try reading it.
global warming, if there is such a thing, is caused by man?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/04/warming04.xml
You'd take 90% odds, if it meant your life our your children's lives, eh? Or perhaps you are destined to be another data point in support of Darwin's evolutionary science.
As you can plainly see, not one comment that has any scholarly support for the theory of global warming. Not one!
After your useless Canada Free Press article, you sir, are projecting. Perhaps when you start showing some honesty, you will experience a little less ridicule.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pmmichael,
Do you want us to explain celestial mechanics to you when you insist that the earth is at the center of the universe? Do you want us to review for you the "east-west" convention adopted by mankind, according to which we say "the sun rises in the east?" Do you want us to prove to you that the earth is round? Just what is it that you want? The facts have been laid out for you by the scientific community. Now start paying attention and do your own homework.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pmS,...?
[SQUEEK! SQUEEK!]
[SQUEEK! SQUEEK!]
February 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pmYou’d take 90% odds, if it meant your life our your children’s lives, eh?
Sadly, Terry, I think the odds are even grimmer than that. I believe that the 90% is on the very low side, as necessary to obtain consensus among a large number of people. So we can view the 90% figure as the most optimistic view among the experts. I suspect that most experts think it is above 99%.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:25 pmVeritas,
If you want facts, just read a scientific article. Just look out how our glaciers are melting at the poles. How we've encountered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years. And how CO2 levels really do correspond with temperature change. The evidence is overwhelming. Now you give me facts on why it isn't real and factors really account for these changes. And I'm well aware that the earth has gone through natural cycles of warming and cooling, but that does not change the fact that humans can make these changes on a much greater scale. This isn't about being liberal or conservative. We all should want to preserve the world. And if this is revelations, so be it. But lets not make any assumptions and rather take action because it is our duty to take care of the planet the best we can.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:26 pm"Why does anyone here need to repeat these or any other facts to you?"
If you were knowledgable on this particular subject I would expect that you would like to demonstrate it to others? But the blather you get from posters like spudge demonstrates a total ignorance of whether global warming exists or not. Don't tell me to read the IPCC report. Tell me in your own words? Display some intelligence about the subject without having to refer to some report or website. It would go a long way in establishing some credibility!
February 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm"So when someone comes along and challenges this theory I would expect that you would be able to enlighten them with some facts. Comment by michael — February 5, 2007 @ 8:09 pm"
When you post some facts, we'll get back to you.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm"As you can plainly see, not one comment that has any scholarly support for the theory of global warming. Not one! All you get from this person is insults or name calling. Comment by michael — February 5, 2007 @ 8:09 pm"
Like looking in the mirror isn't it?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:28 pm"Don’t tell me to read the IPCC report. Tell me in your own words? Comment by michael — February 5, 2007 @ 8:27 pm"
So we should just do what you do, and ignore the entire scientific body of work, and just wing it? And you wonder why you conservatives have no credibility.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pmThose of you who don't believe in global warming, why do you so strongly oppose it being real? Do you think anybody is trying to prove it for money? What is their motivation. If their motivation is for money or status, then I'd see more reason to question it. But tell me why you think these people are trying to lie to us?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm"But this is just a simple example of something that occurs here a lot and that is mindless posts by mindless posters! Comment by michael — February 5, 2007 @ 8:09 pm"
And mindless posts will continue to happen, until you leave, and take your other mindless cons with you.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:31 pmDerek,
michael only does things for money, so he assumes everyone else shares his corrupted morals.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pmIf you were knowledgable on this particular subject I would expect that you would like to demonstrate it to others? But the blather you get from posters like spudge demonstrates a total ignorance of whether global warming exists or not. Don’t tell me to read the IPCC report. Tell me in your own words? Display some intelligence about the subject without having to refer to some report or website. It would go a long way in establishing some credibility!
Comment by michael — February 5, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Words fail me, michael.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pmhttp://www.redherring.com
Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’
UN report on climate change could help secure long-term market for clean technology.
February 2, 2007
By Jennifer Kho
The first volume of a United Nations climate report released Friday predicts stronger cyclones, saltier oceans, heavy rain and snow, and more droughts and heat waves as a result of manmade global warming.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries, also predicts a temperature rise of between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius by 2099—with a “best estimate†of between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius—and a sea level rise of between 18 and 59 centimeters.
That compares to a previous range of 1 to 6.3 degrees Celsius from the last IPCC report in 2001.
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,†the report states, pointing to increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global sea levels. The temperature already rose 0.74 degrees in the last century, with 11 of the last 12 years charting among the warmest since 1850, according to the report summary.
‘Climate’s been called an angry beast, and we’re poking it with sticks.’
-Robert Wilder,
WilderShares
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Click here to find out more!
The volume also says it’s “very likely†the global warming is primarily the result of human activities, due to greenhouse gases from the use of fossil fuels, land-use change, and agriculture. The term “very likely†indicates a 90 percent probability, while the last IPCC report characterized it only as “likely,†which indicates a 66 percent probability.
Those two words, “very likely,†make the report the most strongly worded so far by the IPCC. The volume is the first of three in this report, which are collectively expected to comprise the direst report yet by the IPCC. (This is the panel’s fourth such report.)
Doomsday Scenarios
According to Australian newspaper The Age, a leaked draft of one of the other two volumes—expected to be released in April—concludes global warming would result in 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people suffering from water scarcity, 200 million to 600 million people who would go hungry, and up to 7 million homes at risk from coastal flooding by 2080.
The predictions, along with the release of the first volume, are focusing international attention on climate change and highlighting the need for clean technologies. The doomsday scenarios in the report imply that cleantech will be relevant for decades to come.
“The warning we’re getting from the international scientific community just keeps getting stronger and stronger, and it should be a message to all of us that we can’t continue on the current path when we’ve got clean energy solutions at hand,†said Jana Milford, a senior scientist at the environmental nonprofit Environmental Defense.
Ms. Milford is also a member of the Science Advisory Board for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A stronger scientific consensus will add to the momentum for cleantech, she added. “I think the timing is excellent, because there’s momentum building and a lot of attention being focused on this issue already,†she said. “This report ought to have a powerful impact.â€
More Money for Cleantech?
Mark Emalfarb, chief executive of Dyadic International, a biotech company developing enzymes to convert cellulosic material like wood chips, corn stalks, and switchgrass into ethanol, among other materials, said anything that brings world focus to the problem is a good thing.
“The good news is I won’t be there in 2100,†he joked. “But my grandchildren will.â€
He added the report will have less of an effect than the political climate change and hopes the report will prompt more government funding for potential solutions.
“There’s been a dramatic change in world opinion,†Mr. Emalfarb said. “I don’t think anybody’s ignoring climate change and global warming any longer. Everyone’s on board and rowing in the same direction, and accelerating. Hopefully they give us the fuel to feed the oarsmen so we can really speed up the journey.â€
However, Mr. Emalfarb called the conclusions “a little overhyped†because he said new technologies will reduce the effects of global warming.
But others objected to that idea, saying the IPCC is considered a conservative panel.
“A conservative organization has really come up with a conclusion that’s truly sobering, and the fact it’s from a group that avoids trying to be alarmist in any fashion makes it even more impactful,†said Chris Spain, chief executive of water-efficiency company HydroPoint.
“At the same time, it’s what other people have been saying for a long time,†he added. “But it should be a call to action to many people because nobody wins in the future that they’re describing.â€
It Could Be Worse
Robert Wilder, CEO of WilderShares, which manages cleantech indices, said the real consequences of global warming could be much worse. For one thing, the report doesn’t take into account the full effects of melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica .
According to the first volume, the model used 2003 ice flow levels, and any additional flows could add another 10 to 20 centimeters.
“This report is in no way a worst-case scenario,†Mr. Wilder said. “Scientists are by their nature conservative and not prone to wild-eyed hyperbole. In fact, this report has been watered down by those who are the most skeptical because it has already been vetted by countries like Saudi Arabia , the United States , and Australia , which are basically opposed to the notion of global warming. It should be very alarming.â€
The public has been misled to believe the scientists are overstating things, but that’s not the case, he said.
“It’s almost inevitable that the public is more alarmed than the scientists about most problems,†he said. “But with climate change, the scientists are more worried than the public. That is worrisome. To me, global warming is much more alarming even than global terrorism.â€
Even the most conservative scientific journals now are accepting the notion of climate change, and the fact that, at a 2 degree Celsius change, there are tipping points that are irreversible, he said. “Climate’s been called an angry beast, and we’re poking it with sticks,†he said.
Political Climate Change
Still, the report is unlikely to affect people’s day-to-day decisions, because they still are being influenced by messages from fossil fuels industries that downplay the risk, he said.
“The fact is that climate change produces losers, and the most pronounced are the oil and coal industries,†he said. “They’re not about to say, ‘oh, I was wrong.’ But more and more, I think the clean-energy voices will be seen as speaking truth, and there will be lots of winners that aren’t at the table today.â€
Mr. Wilder pointed to news Tuesday that a Union of Concerned Scientists survey of 279 U.S. government climate scientists suggested that Bush administration officials censored scientific papers to soften language about global warming.
According to the survey by the environmental group, which came out at a House panel led by Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, nearly half of the scientists said they had been told to delete references to “global warming†or “climate change,†and two in five said their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning.
The fact that this has come to light is another sign that the political will is changing, and that—along with scientific evidence—could lead to government policies that support clean technologies, he said.
If the public can be convinced that climate change is here, that clean energy actually improves the quality of life and isn’t a sacrifice, and that clean energy is a smart thing to do, it will offer clean energy a huge, stable market, he said.
“Just a few years ago, those of us who spoke up about clean energy had a tiny microphone,†he said. “We’ve seen it grow bigger and bigger, and now I feel as if we’ve been handed a large megaphone. It’s the same message, but the context has changed.â€
Mr. Spain said the key to tackling the problem is to concentrate on making clean technology economical. His company, HydroPoint, said Wednesday it raised $19 million in venture capital funding from RockPort Capital Partners and Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital for its water-saving irrigation technology.
“Instead of saying, ‘You need to use this to solve these big issues,’ we’re saying, ‘Hey corporation, you’re going to save money—and by the way, you’ll also help the environment,’†he said. “That’s where one starts to see a ray of hope in how we can solve this big, exponential problem.â€
February 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pmmichael,
Suppose you were just diagnosed with prostate cancer. Wouldn't you want to hear about the pros and cons of various treatment alternatives (surgery, chemo, etcs) from medical doctors who specialize in those treatments? If you were to ask me about it, I would refer you to them. Would you want me to explain the entire medical literature on the subject to you? Would you want me to substitute my knowledge of prostate cancer for the collective knowledge of the medical community?
I will try this one more time: read what the world's leading experts say.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pmThe earth is 4 billion years old, it has gone through many changes in climate. Durring the first 3/4s of the 20th century the earth was cooling. Now it's warming. So what? No one can prove anything. For god sakes climatoligist can't predict the weather accurately for the next ten days. So why should I believe they can predict the weather 100 years from now. What happens if a huge volcano erupes and spews sulfer dioxide into the stratesphere, the earth will cool. Global warming, is a politiacal agenda. I would love to hear the real scientific evidence. All we know is that there is a theory, now where's the strick science to back it up. I will believe facts not when they can be presented concusively. The bottom line is, no one knows what causes periods of warming or cooling. The sun could be the culprit.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:41 pmAre they nuts?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:43 pmPLEASE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, WAKE UP!!
According to the American media there is a large argument in the scientific world about Global Warming. This is simply not true
It is a FACT that almost EVERY reputable scientist in the world accepts that human-caused global warming is a reality. There is NO argument.
Rather, the big business controlled media promotes this idea of doubt simply to stop people forcing the government to make the changes it should, and therefore those same businesses loosing money.
Every country in the world realised this except you.
(Please note, this isn’t intended to insult Americans or suggest they are stupid or anything, simply that their media has such HUGE sway that it is able to create this effect)
February 5th, 2007 at 8:45 pmDisplay some intelligence about the subject without having to refer to some report or website. It would go a long way in establishing some credibility!
Comment by michael — February 5, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Are you really saying you want people to post without backing up what they say, without, you know, facts?
Let me see if I follow you: If I fail to accurately explain gravity to you, and instead refer you to an authoritative source, you would discount both the source and myself? And will that mean -in your mind- that gravity does not exist?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pmIt's not the other commenter's responsibility to educate you; its yours, and frankly its not that difficult to run a google search for some information. Just try take what you read with a grain of salt, particularly if the source doesn't have the greatest reputation (ala canadafreepress).
February 5th, 2007 at 8:54 pmFor god sakes climatoligist can’t predict the weather accurately for the next ten days.
That isn't what climatologists do. They predict weather over much longer length and time scales than meteorologists do. This is actually much easier in some ways than making daily weather forecasts that are both locally and temporally accurate. A simple example of climatology: we know that in mid- and high-latitude regions it will generally be warmer in summer than in winter. We also know that it will warmer at the equator than the poles. These phenomena can easily be predicted by a low-order model of the planetary energy balance.
So why should I believe they can predict the weather 100 years from now.
See my previous comment.
What happens if a huge volcano erupes and spews sulfer dioxide into the stratesphere, the earth will cool.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Volcanic eruptions can lead to depressed temperatures for a few years at most. Indeed, the evidence is strong that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo significantly masked the rate of warming in the early 90's, which contributed to complacency about the global warming issue.
Global warming, is a politiacal agenda. I would love to hear the real scientific evidence. All we know is that there is a theory, now where’s the strick science to back it up.
In the literature, idiot. Try starting with the IPCC report.
I will believe facts not when they can be presented concusively.
Judging from your post, I seriously doubt that you will believe the facts no matter how conclusively presented.
The bottom line is, no one knows what causes periods of warming or cooling.
You must have meant to say that YOU don't know. Which isn't surprising considering that you seem completely unaware of the very existence of climate research.
The sun could be the culprit.
No, the sun could not be the culprit. The effect of solar variability is one of the easiest phenomena to account for in the theory, and it has been shown conclusively that solar variability cannot explain the observations. There you have it, da man: a fact, about global warming, conclusively proven. Now start chewing on that fact, and don't stop until you get it down.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:55 pmGod forbid, you're not a lemming. Oh geesz! (Jesus)
Sorry, I guess I capitolized God.
Lemmings YOU r.
I love this crap!
Who is the Dumbass?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:58 pmVerbalkint
You are wrong, my mind can be changed and I loved your response. As you can tell, I'm not a scientist but I have learned to not just believe what ever anyone says. I still don't know if global warming is going to be all bad. It could be good. If the earth warms we might be better off for 10,000 years. Change is not always bad it's just different. I have a very open mind.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:06 pmDon’t tell me to read the IPCC report. Tell me in your own words? Display some intelligence about the subject without having to refer to some report or website. It would go a long way in establishing some credibility!
PROJECTING AGAIN. Michael I've had farts that have been more useful to me, and been more pleasant to be around.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:17 pmI love how the question is phrased. Believe. Got god and its a fact! Inject science and its believe. So if I pour blue dye into a bucket of water with no color are you (Republicans this is for you kids so pay close attention.) going to believe that its actually red? Seems thats how everything in the world of politics is approached these days.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pmYou are wrong, my mind can be changed and I loved your response.
I am pleased to hear it.
As you can tell, I’m not a scientist but I have learned to not just believe what ever anyone says.
Skepticism is good, but can be carried to unhealthy extremes. I for one would never suggest that you believe whatever anyone says. It would be foolish. But when an issue has been studied with the thoroughness and intensity that scientists have applied to global warming, and when a very strong (in this case virtually unanimous) consensus forms and builds and persists over a period of 20 years, it would be foolish to doubt it.
I still don’t know if global warming is going to be all bad. It could be good. If the earth warms we might be better off for 10,000 years. Change is not always bad it’s just different.
It will probably be mostly bad, and it isn't worth gambling to find out, though I am afraid we are likely to learn the hard way in the coming decades. A very slow warming or cooling probably wouldn't be much of a problem: people, animals, and plants can adapt if given enough time. Rapid change kills, however. It is what causes mass extinctions. Rapid change is exactly what we are facing now with our climate.
I have a very open mind.
An open mind is an excellent complement to a healthy dose of skepticism.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:24 pmVerbalkint
Can you explain the periodic climate shifts that happen over periods of say 500 years? I know you think I'm closed minded and an idiot. Not true. I have just learned that everything is political. The oil companies have an agenda as does he UN. Someone will make lots of money if we create a huge market for trading carbon emissions. So don't be so nieve. Follow the money. Al Gore made lots of money making a movie about global warming. Good for him. You would agree that there are many varibles that go into climate and weather. I'm just not convinced that GW is the most critical thing facing mankind.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:25 pmHey, looks like the whole "Question Authority" thing works!
February 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pmda man,
500 years - goes back to the middle of the Little Ice Age. Then the next ones to look for are a slow warming up the early 20th Century, the 1940-1970 cooling and then back to warming, with an acceleration into the late 80s, 90s and beyond.
From Wikipedia: Crowley and Lowery, 2000 describes the LIA as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C, and says current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries
And the possible causes: attributed to more than average volcanic activity pumping sun reflecting SO2 into the high atmosphere and lower than usual sunspot activity. CO2 levels in 1500 were about 200-250ppm where it had been about 60,000 years (today is around 400ppm).
I don't know how widely held this is in the scientific community but it sure makes sense to me - after Krakatoa in 1880s, the earth suffered a long winter due to stuff in the atmosphere - measureably so.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pmWow, that "Question Authority" thing really works!
February 5th, 2007 at 9:44 pmCan you explain the periodic climate shifts that happen over periods of say 500 years?
No I cannot.
I have just learned that everything is political.
This is what the politicians and corporations want you to believe, but it isn't so. Truth, for example, is not about politics. Science is a search for truth, conducted in the public sphere where anyone can learn about it and participate in it. There is no central authority in science that decides what is true and what is not. Science is a crucible of ideas and observations (theories and data), and sooner or later the truth emerges from this crucible. But there is a nefarious movement afoot among Republican politicians and their corporate patrons to confuse people on this point. This movement is desperately seeking to portray science as just another ideology, to be placed alongside religion as an equal partner in determining the truth. This movement is trying very hard to convince the public that scientists are highly political, highly ideological creatures driven by venality and greed (obviously a lot of projection is involved in this process). But it just isn't true. Greedy, venal people simply don't go into science. Too little money, too little attention, too little social status outside of their peers. Greedy, venal people go into law, business, politics, and even sometimes religion.
The oil companies have an agenda as does he UN. Someone will make lots of money if we create a huge market for trading carbon emissions
But note that the people who will make lots of money won't be scientists, by and large. Large corporations will make the money. Scientists will continue to draw their low six-figures salaries.
So don’t be so nieve. Follow the money.
It isn't hard to follow: $40 billion in profits for Exxon-Mobil in a single year.
Al Gore made lots of money making a movie about global warming. Good for him.
Al Gore genuinely cares about global warming and definitely is not in it for the money. He was pushing hard on this issue starting nearly 20 years ago. For most of those years he was just a voice in the wilderness, but he didn't give up. This simply is not the behavior of someone who is in it for the money.
You would agree that there are many varibles that go into climate and weather.
Are you trying to say that climate modeling is complicated? Lots of things are complicated. That is why it takes a long time, a lot of education, and a good mentor to become an accomplished scientist. Complicated isn't a reason to ignore or deny the science.
I’m just not convinced that GW is the most critical thing facing mankind.
It might be. The chaos that ensues when the oil runs out might prove to be the most critical thing, too.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:47 pmWhat about the UN saying cows were more of a threat than humans.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A
Also, did anyone include the effects of water vapor into any of these theories. And that CO2 is good for the environment.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Mars is having it own Warming CYCLE w/o Humans.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
**I have been doing my own personal research for the past year and I still don't believe in it. That is reading information from both sides.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pmthis is also the same party to lets religion dictate policy...for some reason I'm not surprised they don't believe ACTUAL SCIENTISTS when it comes to things like this
February 5th, 2007 at 9:51 pm#139: Don’t tell me to read the IPCC report. . . Display some intelligence about the subject without having to refer to some report or website.
Let me see if I understand the logic of this post. Refusing to read the IPCC report is a sign of "intelligence" about the science of climate change? This sounds a heck of a lot more like willful ignorance than "intelligence."
February 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pmComment by Corey — February 5, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Been reading the publications of the George C. Marshall Institute, Corey? Or do you work there, paid to plant misinformation on the internet?
Yes, methane is an important greenhouse gas, and yes it is part of the puzzle, and yes cows produce a lot of it. What is your point? There are over 1 billion cows that have been bred to unnaturally huge sizes by humans. So I would say that methane production by cows is in fact largely anthropogenic.
Yes, the effects of water vapor is included in the theories. For you to even ask about this belies your claim to have done much personal research (although I suspect that what you call "research" means watching Fox News and reading WSJ editorials and the like). And, before you ask, methane is also included in the models.
If you want to do some real research, start with the latest IPCC report. It is authoritative, unlike the talking heads at Fox News.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pmsubject-verb disagreement in my last post! ick!
February 5th, 2007 at 10:02 pm#165: What about the UN saying cows were more of a threat than humans.
This is not what the IPCC says. This comes from a press release from the office of James Inhofe, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma who claims that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people" and who gets more campaign donations from ExxonMobil than any other Senator. Hardly a reliable or objective source.
Also, did anyone include the effects of water vapor into any of these theories.
Kind of a dumb question, but the answer is unequivocally yes. It's bizarre when lay people imagine they've thought of some factor in the climate system that 2500 of the world's leading scientists have somehow overlooked.
And that CO2 is good for the environment.
Well, it depends on how you look at it, I suppose. It's colorless, odorless, non-toxic, etc. And it's also the single most important factor in influencing global climate change.
Mars is having it own Warming CYCLE w/o Humans.
What, exactly, do you think this proves? No one is saying that the climate can't change without human interference. What scientists are saying is that human activities are in large part responsible for the current warming trend, and that this pattern is likely to get worse in the future if we do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pm#168.
Read IT. Same thing I hear from half of the people I talk to. Yeah, I did online research and I am currently still researching but the information I have received and read I take with an open mind. But I am surprised you didn't say anything about Mars. Plus I having watched Fox News in about 4 months.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:08 pm#170.
"What, exactly, do you think this proves? No one is saying that the climate can’t change without human interference."
Exactly if it is happening to Mars without anyone there then there is more in play of cycles then humans.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:11 pmMy biggest question is, Climate Change aside, why is reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency, raising automobile mileage standards, and cleaning up pollution in a smart economical way, such a bad thing? If we would stop our partisan arguing from BOTH sides, we could together put an economical plan in place that would begin to clean up the air and water, create new jobs, create savings for people from more efficient energy, and secure our country. Maybe I'm too much of a Realist.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:11 pmMars - I know this is a blog and not primary, but I need to get some work done http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
February 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pmWell, it depends on how you look at it, I suppose. It’s colorless, odorless, non-toxic, etc. And it’s also the single most important factor in influencing global climate change.
Comment by Jim — February 5, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Actually, Jim, CO2 is quite toxic at high concentrations. Remember Apollo 13? Just nitpicking, though: toxic effects occur at much higher concentrations than in the atmosphere. Good post, though.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pmExactly if it is happening to Mars without anyone there then there is more in play of cycles then humans.
Comment by Corey — February 5, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Corey, nobody disputes that natural variation in climate occurs over time. It is the rate of change at issue here. The rate of change we are observing now, and forecast by the models for the near future, is extremely rapid compared to natural variations. Furthermore, the amplitude is much greater than can be explained by natural variations.
Did you really believe that the entire scientific community didn't think to include water vapor in the models? Do you really believe that the entire scientific community is unaware of natural variations in climate, or has chosen to completely ignore it? Corey, you claim to have read the IPCC report. I don't believe it. If you had you never would be making these ridiculous suggestions.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:22 pmMy biggest question is, Climate Change aside, why is reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency, raising automobile mileage standards, and cleaning up pollution in a smart economical way, such a bad thing?
Comment by Dave — February 5, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Dave, for you, me, and the rest of mankind, what you propose is a great thing. But at the same time it is very threatening to Exxon-Mobil and its ilk, and when those folks feel threatened, believe you me that a lot of politicians, especially Republicans, also feel threatened.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:24 pm#172: Exactly if it is happening to Mars without anyone there then there is more in play of cycles then humans.
As I said in my earlier post, no one is saying that climate change cannot happen without human interference. That would be idiotic, since we know that climate change has been happening for billions of years. The point is that the current warming trend cannot be explained by natural variation alone. Human interference is the single most important factor in the current trend, as the IPCC, the NAS, and the science academies of the G8 nations have all explained.
#171: I am surprised you didn’t say anything about Mars.
Dude, what's up with your obsession over Mars? If you really want to see global warming as a result of carbon dioxide, you should check out Venus.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:29 pm#173: My biggest question is, Climate Change aside, why is reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency, raising automobile mileage standards, and cleaning up pollution in a smart economical way, such a bad thing?
Word.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pmverbalkint
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. You are obviously very intellegent and I can't spell, but I do have a brain.
I'm more of a freemarketer so I don't care if companies make loads of money unless they are doing is illegally. Corps. are easy to figure out, they need to grow their profits. Guys like George Sorro's scares me more because he makes money betting against countries currencies and he is backing Gobal Warming. So who is he betting against. The USA of course as is Warren Buffet.
There are plenty of science folks making lots of money off their ideas and I like that. You just need to be able to sell them.
This is a good debate and we should have it. I still don't think people with their own agenda's (right or left) should listen to with out a healthy dose of realism.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pm"Words fail me, michael"
OBVIOUSLY!
February 5th, 2007 at 10:37 pm"After your useless Canada Free Press article"
What was useless Terry? Be specific?
February 5th, 2007 at 10:41 pm"Just what is it that you want?
Answers that display a little intelligence?
"The facts have been laid out for you by the scientific community"
I don't want the hear what the general scientific community has to say about global warming, I want to hear what the leading scientists who understand climate changes have to say!
"Now start paying attention and do your own homework"
Uh, read the above?
February 5th, 2007 at 10:47 pm"This isn’t about being liberal or conservative"
Yes it is! It's about hysterical liberals who use a photo of polar bears on a mass of ice to try and convince us that global warming is happening so fast that polar bears are being trapped on ice masses too far from land to swim from. Unbelievable!
February 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pm"When you post some facts, we’ll get back to you"
About what?
February 5th, 2007 at 10:53 pm"Like looking in the mirror isn’t it?"
With an answer like that, I'm ashamed to share the same name as you!
February 5th, 2007 at 10:54 pm#
#173: My biggest question is, Climate Change aside, why is reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency, raising automobile mileage standards, and cleaning up pollution in a smart economical way, such a bad thing?
Word.
Comment by Jim — February 5, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
February 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmI don't disagree with any of your points. I just don't think that we (USA) should be held to standards that China, India and any other developing country won't be help too. These other countries are increasing their CO2 emissions at a faster rate then us. So should we destroy our economy by adopting standards dictated by the UN. I think not.
#183: I don’t want the hear what the general scientific community has to say about global warming, I want to hear what the leading scientists who understand climate changes have to say!
This is very odd coming from someone who refuses to read the IPCC report. Who are you claiming knows more about climate change than the International Panel on Climate Change?
February 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm#187: I just don’t think that we (USA) should be held to standards that China, India and any other developing country won’t be help too.
I agree with this point. I think that China, India, and all the rest should also agree to standards that strictly regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
These other countries are increasing their CO2 emissions at a faster rate then us.
True, but we use far more carbon dioxide per capita than they do.
So should we destroy our economy by adopting standards dictated by the UN.
This is a straw man. Agreeing to strict carbon dioxide emissions standards will not "destroy our economy." We have the strongest economy in the world. Do you actually think our economy is so easily "destroyed"? In truth, the greatest threat to our economy is global warming itself. (Imagine the economic cost if most of South Florida were underwater.) Doing something about the problem now will, if anything, stimulate economic growth by creating markets for alternative energy sources and new technologies.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:27 pmRepublicans believe in a fantasy world which I did not create.
Democrats believe in the real world that I did create.
As always, I leave it up to the people to decide whom you should trust and follow... Free will and all that... Good luck!
February 5th, 2007 at 11:41 pmMichael at post #182
Read post #113, you f***wit.
But then we already know you don't read, you don't present any facts, you don't debate with anything approaching honesty.
Like I said, I've had fartleberries with more to said for them than you.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:48 pm#132 michael
There's a reason that people here just bash you instead of trying to explain things to you. You don't accept science. You think you can go to a site that denies global warming and use that as a reliable source without even realizing that it doesn't present any supporting evidence. It just makes unsubstantiated claims. You think you can just post a link to a paid shill for the petroleum industry who's pretending to be a scientist and that's all it takes to refute claims of manmade global warming. It doesn't even register with you that there's a conflict of interest, that the denier is going to say what pleases the people paying him. The petroleum industry is spending a lot of money trying to discredit global warming, because it doesn't want to lose money and it doesn't want to have to do business a different way. What kind of people would even take a chance on f*cking up the planet to insure their already obscene profits? Sick bastards, that's who.
michael, you don't get scientific explanations from us, because you just don't do science. It's a waste of time for you and it would be a waste of time for us to present you with evidence that you will just continue to ignore. You don't have an argument. All you offer is contradiction.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pm“This isn’t about being liberal or conservativeâ€
Yes it is! It’s about hysterical liberals who use a photo of polar bears on a mass of ice to try and convince us that global warming is happening so fast that polar bears are being trapped on ice masses too far from land to swim from. Unbelievable!
Comment by michael
michael,
February 6th, 2007 at 12:19 amI have read several articles about unprecedented numbers of polar bears drowning in recent years--too many, in fact, to post all the links to them here. Just because you haven't read such articles and scientific reports does not mean they do not exist. Instead of flaunting your ignorance and laziness about learning things that don't interest you, try googling "polar bears drowning," and you'll find plenty of reading matter.
Stupid Poll. Means nothing.
It should have read, "... Earth is warming in part due to man-made problems."
Otherwise, the two sides will never get together.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:27 am"And mindless posts will continue to happen, until you leave, and take your other mindless cons with you"
Do you all see what I mean? Idiotic response to a chance to establish credibility! Thank you!
February 6th, 2007 at 1:10 am"Would you want me to explain the entire medical literature on the subject to you? Would you want me to substitute my knowledge of prostate cancer for the collective knowledge of the medical community?"
No, I would want experts in climate change to explain it to me rather than fools like algore!
February 6th, 2007 at 1:18 am"#
PLEASE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, WAKE UP!!"
Kevin, when you get the time, can you produce some facts?
February 6th, 2007 at 1:20 am"Let me see if I follow you: If I fail to accurately explain gravity to you, and instead refer you to an authoritative source, you would discount both the source and myself? And will that mean -in your mind- that gravity does not exist?"
No, I'm smart enough to know that gravity exists, all I'm saying is, if you want to conduct an intelligent debate, which I never get here, don't refer me to an article or website, be intelligent and informed enough to articulate it yourself. Don't be a dunce like spudge!
February 6th, 2007 at 1:26 amNo, I would want experts in climate change to explain it to me rather than fools like algore!
Comment by michael — February 6, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Which is why you won't read the IPCC report. Right?
You wouldn't happen to be joeslogic, would you?
February 6th, 2007 at 1:29 ammichael,
February 6th, 2007 at 1:32 amYou very much contradict yourself by writing in #198 "I would want experts in climate change to explain it to me" and then in #200," if you want to conduct an intelligent debate,..... don’t refer me to an article or website, be intelligent and informed enough to articulate it yourself."
How can anyone debate you when you can't even make up your mind whose information you will pay attention to?
Ps. michael,
February 6th, 2007 at 1:34 amLet me that you contradicted yourself or changed your mind on what you want in the space of only 8 minutes (1:18 am to 1:26 am). Nothing like flip-flopping, right?
"It’s not the other commenter’s responsibility to educate you; its yours, and frankly its not that difficult to run a google search for some information"
I'm not looking for an education especially from you fellow travelers. Let me educate you? This blog prints articles? Next, people read them. Then, the comments begin, ok? Liberals make outrageous comments/statements and I challenge them! Of course there are times where I ridicule the article, like the polar bear photo, but most of the time my ridicule is of liberal gullibility! I don't need to do a Google search to discredit your belief, although it would provide much ammo. If you are making a statement in support of the article, any credible person would want to back it up and not copout and say disprove it!
February 6th, 2007 at 1:42 amYou very much contradict yourself by writing in #198 “I would want experts in climate change to explain it to me†and then in #200,†if you want to conduct an intelligent debate,….. don’t refer me to an article or website, be intelligent and informed enough to articulate it yourself.â€
How can anyone debate you when you can’t even make up your mind whose information you will pay attention to?
Comment by Lora — February 6, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Lora, are you just getting into politics, this response suggests that. You global warming alarmists tell us about all the scientific experts who are in your camp. And it is a camp, us against you! What is the ratio of climate scientists in your camp who support your wacky idea of global warming against us moderates?
February 6th, 2007 at 1:53 amI am honestly starting to think that michael might actually believe what he is writing, despite the fact-free sermons, the blatant contradictions, and the sophomoric "I know you are but what am I" structure to most of his comments. I know it seems bizarre, but I have a growing feeling that michael really believes he is "debating" here, the way a four year child might think it was engaging in adult-like behavior while playing dress-up.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:54 am"Which is why you won’t read the IPCC report. Right?
You wouldn’t happen to be joeslogic, would you?
Comment by VerbalKint — February 6, 2007 @ 1:29 am"
And I suppose you are intelligent enough to articulate it without referring me to an article or website?????????????
February 6th, 2007 at 1:56 ammichael,
February 6th, 2007 at 2:02 amYou have accused others of insulting rather than debating. But you yourself have resorted to insults such as referring to my So-called "wacky idea of global warming against us moderates" or calling people like myself "alarmist." Moreover, you have provided absolutely no defense nor explanation for contradicting yourself in the space of only eight minutes, and the only link you provided so far was debunked by several posters here already. You call yourself "moderate?" Don't make me laugh or throw up!
"I am honestly starting to think that michael might actually believe what he is writing, despite the fact-free sermons, the blatant contradictions, and the sophomoric “I know you are but what am I†structure to most of his comments. I know it seems bizarre, but I have a growing feeling that michael really believes he is “debating†here, the way a four year child might think it was engaging in adult-like behavior while playing dress-up."
Verb, I couldn't ask for a better lead in! Read everything you typed above? What does it have to do with global warming? What does it have to do with discrediting anything I have challenged you lefties with? Now I know your impulse is to puff up your chest and come up with the biggest curse word to label me with, but how about trying to be civilized and try to answer my question!
February 6th, 2007 at 2:05 amAnd I suppose you are intelligent enough to articulate it without referring me to an article or website?????????????
Comment by michael — February 6, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Michael's persistence in playing this lame semantic game is impressive, given that he gets shot down every time he does it, often by multiple posters. But I don't think he realizes it is happening. To him it is different every time. He makes what he thinks is a new argument (really, he introduces an obvious semantic trick), gets handily refuted, and then does it again without changing tactics, or even seeming to realize what has happened. When constructing a new comment he can remember at most his most recent comment, and maybe not even that. The world is constantly being recreated for this forgetful child.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:06 ammichael, I am no longer writing to you, I am writing about you to others. Please try to keep up.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:11 amVerbalKint,
February 6th, 2007 at 2:13 amI really don't think we should be wasting any more time with michael. He is either a paid troll or someone with too much time on his hands, as seen by the fact that he constantly contradicts himself by claiming to want one thing and then a few minutes later demanding something else. HIs goal merely seems to be to cause us to waste our tiime on him. I'm sure we both have better things to do.
VerbalKint,
February 6th, 2007 at 2:15 amOur messages seem to have crossed in cyberspace, and you appear to have reached a conclusion similar to mine.
#
michael,
You have accused others of insulting rather than debating. But you yourself have resorted to insults such as referring to my So-called “wacky idea of global warming against us moderates†or calling people like myself “alarmist.†Moreover, you have provided absolutely no defense nor explanation for contradicting yourself in the space of only eight minutes, and the only link you provided so far was debunked by several posters here already. You call yourself “moderate?†Don’t make me laugh or throw up!
Comment by Lora — February 6, 2007 @ 2:02 am
"But you yourself have resorted to insults such as referring to my So-called “wacky idea of global warming
Lora, if you can't take the heat, stay home!
"contradicting yourself in the space of only eight minutes"
Where?
"and the only link you provided so far was debunked by several posters"
Reminder, reminder, you are the one supporting these articles. I'm challenging your ridiculous statements in support, I don't have to produce ANYTHING! I challenge you to back up your stupid liberal beliefs, and the ball is in your court! YOU SUPPORTED THE ARTICLE! THE OWNESS IS ON YOU' NOT ME!
February 6th, 2007 at 2:15 am"given that he gets shot down every time"
Verb, point me to the # where I was shot down?
February 6th, 2007 at 2:20 ammichael,
February 6th, 2007 at 2:26 amThe only question or comment of yours in #214, I will respond to is to repeat my post #202, with the times added:
"michael, You very much contradict yourself by writing in #198 (1:18 am) 'I would want experts in climate change to explain it to me' and then in #200 1:26 am), ' if you want to conduct an intelligent debate,….. don’t refer me to an article or website, be intelligent and informed enough to articulate it yourself.'
In other words, I already pointed out "where" you contradicted yourself Your reading comprehension apparently isn't very good. And before you go complaining again about being insulted, I will quote your own advice:"if you can’t take the heat, stay home!"
I'm not wasting any more time on a hypocrtical troll like you. I would now like to say "Good night," but those words are too good for you.
Do you mean 'onus'? You are a pretty excitable little dork.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:28 amMichael,
February 6th, 2007 at 2:37 amit's hopeless what you are doing. Ten thousand lemmings cannot be wrong.
#217 Paul T
February 6th, 2007 at 2:50 amYet michael has repeatedly boasted on various threads about the "superiority" of his private school education!
What is the ratio of climate scientists in your camp who support your wacky idea of global warming against us moderates?
Comment by michael — February 6, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Er, there is consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real...
Plus, you first post this:
No, I would want experts in climate change to explain it to me rather than fools like algore!
Comment by michael — February 6, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Followed by this:
if you want to conduct an intelligent debate, which I never get here, don’t refer me to an article or website, be intelligent and informed enough to articulate it yourself.
Comment by michael — February 6, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Followed by this:
If you are making a statement in support of the article, any credible person would want to back it up and not copout and say disprove it!
Comment by michael — February 6, 2007 @ 1:42 am
So, do you want me to explain global warming to you, or do you want the experts to do that?
Do you want people to back up their statements with a link to what the experts say, or don't you?
You do realise that the best way to back up one's statement is with a link to an authoritative source, don't you? Or how exactly do you expect to elucidate what is right from what is not? Are you a climate scientist?
February 6th, 2007 at 3:16 amGregor,
February 6th, 2007 at 6:26 amIt has hit me the reason why michael can't make up his mind whether he wants to read the explanations of the posters here or the scientific literature by experts is that he doesn't have much of a mind to make up.
En tant que canadien, ce fait m'inquiète au plus haut point. J'espère que mes frère américains se délivreront de leurs dictateurs ignorants au plus vite afin qu'on sauve notre avenir sur cette Terre.
Good luck
February 6th, 2007 at 7:36 amIt's all a money making hoax...the "french fry oil" lobby and the powerful "solor panel" lobby has paid millions to get Gore elected...(again). Maybe Inhofe can force a vote to get Exxon another tax break or land lease waiver to boost their petty thirty nine thousand million dollar profit. I mean how are they going to maintain their petty cash drawer so they can send out faxes and make copies at the local "Staples"
February 6th, 2007 at 8:40 am“french fry oil†lobby and the powerful “solor panel†lobby
Don't care who you are, that's funny right there...
February 6th, 2007 at 8:55 amPretty funny, former Helm's employee....
February 6th, 2007 at 9:10 amI am a member of the Methane Producers Union.
The reason that most Republicans don't accept global warming is because a large part of the world's green movements are made up of current and ex-communists/socialists who share a common global world view and a common hatred for capitalism. This is not a rant, but is simple political history. After the Berlin wall fell, members in the communist parties migrated to the green parties.
Even so, we could get a deal if Democrats really wanted to fight global warming, but they don't, they just want the issue, because they see political advantage in keeping the issue alive.
If Democrats really wanted to do something about global warming, they would accept nuclear power as a partial solution to the current problem, but they won't even put that option on the table.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:51 am#210: The world is constantly being recreated for this forgetful child.
Yes, it's a bit like debating a goldfish.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:10 amHoly Crap....95% of the democrats believe that the sky is falling. You can fool these fools on anything.....pretty scary to think of them running the government.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:54 am#228: 95% of the democrats believe that the sky is falling.
Actually, 95% of them believe in following the recommendations of the world's leading scientists. What the other 5% believe, I couldn't say.
You can fool these fools on anything…..pretty scary to think of them running the government.
So, apparently you'd rather have the government run by people with nothing but contempt for the scientific process? You think you're showing your sophistication, but really you're showing your spectacular ignorance.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:01 amIf you want to play the game that Republicans and scientists are on opposing sides, here are a few examples of how liberals have been on the opposite side of scientists:
Liberals hate pesticide use. Most scientists do not. Pesticides may have issues, but they also make our food much cheaper.
In particular, liberals effectively banned all use DDT for decades. Millions of deaths to malaria later, scientists are now urging DDT to be used in smaller quantities to fight malaria. Despite the many deaths, Rachel Carson is still a hero to environmentalists.
Liberals oppose biotech crops. Most scientists do not. Biotech crops also makes our food much cheaper.
Liberals have continued to fight against meat irradiation. Most scientists do not. It makes our our food safer.
Liberals will immediately call you a sexist/racist if IQ, race and sex in the same sentence or liberals will call you a racist and/or sexist.
Liberals are unwilling to even consider nuclear fission as a potential energy source.
Plenty of elected liberals support corn ethanol production, which does nothing to increase air quality and only serves to drive up the corn.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:30 amDid I miss it???
No mention of Senator Inhofe from the Great State of Denial (AKA Oklahoma, USA).
We have been having weather extremes, lately, but the trend is still towards warmer. But when your summers are usually 99-105 a little extra is not noticed.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pmDon’t tell me to read the IPCC report. Tell me in your own words? Display some intelligence about the subject without having to refer to some report or website. It would go a long way in establishing some credibility
comment by michael
Wasn't one of your initial posts a link to a website? You couldn't have let us know in your own words how much credility you put in Michael Crichton's "science?"
Stop being such a hypocrite.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pmIt's tough deciding which is the worse possibility; that there really are people out there like michael that are so obtuse about science, reference to recognized authority, and practical debate, or that there are people like him that really just want to waste their's and others' time simply being immature argumentative pricks. In reality the first scenario is worse, I suppose, because in their stupidity they actually do or don't do things that significantly negatively impact the lives of the others on this planet, whereas in the second case they are simply annoying. Being open-minded and granting latitude to such apparent ignorance must only go so far.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#230, John
Do you seriously consider such pointless generalizations to be a productive form of argument? Just wondering. You don't own a passport, do you? Just a guess.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm228 - I'd bet it's more likely the sky falls than it is that an Iraqi will chop my head off at the grocery store - yet that's what the rightie chicken littles want us all to believe - still can't compare pots and kettles, can ya?
I'm sick of these guys, can we have our own civil war????
February 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pmclarkslick, generalizations are seldom pointless. Can I make a suggestion, though, that you direct specific your thoughts towards the logic of my arguments rather than just throwing out ad hominem attacks.
Here are my 2 main points:
1) Those on the right simply don't trust the green community leaders. There reason why so many of the GOP have trouble with the theory of global warming has as much to do with who is making the argument as it does the actual science.
The green community is generally (not all) made up of people on the far left who aren't just anti-global warming, but are also anti-capitalism and anti-religion (in particular, Christianity).
Before becoming the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader made his entire career out of railing against capitalism and he spent hours talking about how evil it was that cereal makers were defrauding people by making their boxes too big.
2) Scientific Denial is not just a trait of the right. The left has just as many scientific deniers, but on different subjects, such as genetically modified crops.
February 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm#234: There reason why so many of the GOP have trouble with the theory of global warming has as much to do with who is making the argument as it does the actual science.
I accept that Republicans won't accept arguments from Al Gore, no matter how accurate and logical those arguments are. But shouldn't people on the right take responsibility for finding out the truth about climate change for themselves, rather than blindly shooting the messenger? You seem to be blaming so-called ex-communists for the fact that conservatives have their heads up their asses. This sounds to me like pathetic excuse-making of the very worst kind. Not exactly the logic of self-responsibility.
The green community is generally (not all) made up of people on the far left who aren’t just anti-global warming, but are also anti-capitalism and anti-religion (in particular, Christianity).
Even if this were true (which it isn't), how exactly does this discredit the science of global warming?
[Ralph Nader] spent hours talking about how evil it was that cereal makers were defrauding people by making their boxes too big.
What do you think this proves?
Scientific Denial is not just a trait of the right. The left has just as many scientific deniers, but on different subjects, such as genetically modified crops.
If this were true (which it isn't), again: how would this disprove the science of global climate change?
On the issue of genetically modified crops (for example): scientists aren't nearly as universally pro-GMO as you suggest. Genetic modification can be great in certain ways: for example, herbicide-resistant and frost-resistant crops. But GMO's can also negatively affect local environments, food webs, and human health. Because many of the health effects of GMO's are still unknown, I prefer to eat organic. This view is not anti-science; it's logical.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:00 pmYou have kids ? You want them to grow up in a like the Chinese, where they barely see the sun on a sunny day ? Where the cancer rate is so high that the military is burning bodies out in the countryside? Its crap to say that the green movement is a bunch of commies. What, are you living in the 50's man ? We are in species survival mode, you ass. Know that the 1% do - not - give - a - shit - about - the - other 99%. They will keep their kids in the fewer and fewer clean places on the planet even if it means that others suffer as if they were in some kind of sci fi pollution film. Look at the Walton family. What a greedy subspecies they are. The only hope the planet has are groups who have the balls to fight it all like Greenpeace. You have got to praise them for making a diligent effort to try and save the planet from the greedy pieces of shit that are trying so hard to take it down just so they can buy another condo on some ocean liner. And nuclear power ? Sure, it works just OK in places like Switzerland (they are not in any obscenely dumb oil wars, or any wars for that matter... mmm) where they have a good control over each and every plant. Here in the US, places like Plymouth and dozens of others are fuming cancer, disasters just waiting to happen. Plymouth (MA) has a huge open pool of waste that no one knows what the hell to do with it except keep it going - put the problem off for a few more years. Our system simply does not work. There are too many greedy, powerful people who will not be living anywhere near any new nuke plant and way too many dumb people who live near dangerous, cancer spewing older ones. I"ll be on board when they build a new one on Nantucket. (Oh yea, that will be soon.) Kyoto is indeed a disaster because the Chinese and Indians were not in it. Why the hell not ? But that is what we should have been leading the world on changing, not dismissing it all together, because it would damage the propects for the next election. That is so crap. Gore was right, we could be selling the technology for the clean conversion. The answer to it all now is taking 1/2 of our defense budget (yea, the one that after having run up a tab of trillions since the end of WW2 allowed a bunch of scraggly Arabs to easily kick are ass on "the day") and put it into renewable fuel tax incentives. Make it very profitable to put up solar panels, geothermal heating and wind farms all over the country. Its already happening in CA but needs to happen a hell of a lot faster. Convert the car fleet to hybrid in a few years. Sustainable. Non polluting technologies. No need to fight anyone for it (We need to stop the oil wars by eradicating the need for oil. Those people are all friggin nuts over there, and everyone knows it so why the hell are we giving them billions each year in oil revenues ? Now we have Chavez taking over the south ? Gee, ain't it time for an oil reality check people ? ) Then as a species we will need to deal with pollution and keeping a sustainable population.
Of course, none of this will ever happen, so write this off as a rant. I give us all about 10 years (too much damage done in the past 6 years and the coming 2 to recover from) and if anyone can make a good case otherwise, I'd enjoy the read..
February 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pm#234 - That wasn't an ad hominem attack, that was a legitimate question that relates to the perspective of your arguments. Your language is so couched in American political terms, and I am curious as to whether many GW-deniers realize that this is truly a GLOBAL situation. We're not talking about only American liberals suggesting these ideas, but most of the rest of the world and its scientific community, with nearly exclusively American Republicans arguing against them. Do you really think it's such a matter of the right not "trusting" the green community as it is them doing what they can to maximize their profits in their commercial ventures or political connections?
#235 effectively dealt with your points. The only thing further I have to mention is to wonder if you were surprised to hear that some of America's largest corporations are starting to pursue their own major green developments, without pressure from the Government. I wouldn't exactly call that anti-capitalism. How behind does the Bush government have to be for that to happen?
February 7th, 2007 at 10:42 amExcuse me, but without a full polling of all members of Congress, how can we trust this sample as an accurate indication of differences between the parties?
I am appalled that any member would let their beliefs get in the way of the evidence of global warming, but I'm also appalled that we're letting this sample of Congressional members serve as full evidence of some dramatic difference between the parties.
Yeah, and I have a Republican congressman that still isn't convinced...
February 7th, 2007 at 11:49 amI got this email from. I think it’s what we need in greenhouse-sceptic times. A good idea for one of Europe’s legitimate core issues: renewable energy! Perhaps the US will join us?
--------------------------------------
Dear Citizen,
Join thousands of European citizens and politicians in a true European policy for renewable enery!
please sign on:
http://www.eurenew.eu
thanks!
Boris van der Ham, MP, the Netherlands
February 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pmHermann Scheer, MP, Germany
Geert Lambert, MP, Belgium
Norman Baker, MP, UK
And many others…
#238: I am appalled that any member would let their beliefs get in the way of the evidence of global warming, but I’m also appalled that we’re letting this sample of Congressional members serve as full evidence of some dramatic difference between the parties.
Dude, if you don't think there's a dramatic difference between Republicans and Democrats, you really need to get out more.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:40 pmWhy can’t either side of this debate–which it is still a debate–be heard without the media, politicians or other outside influences interfering? I’m really sick and tired of people in the Clinton camp forcing global warming down my throat, and I’m sick and tired of the Bush camp saying it’s not true. Is there any scientist who isn’t paid to say one thing or the other on either side willing to debate this thing on live public TV? Isn’t this topic worthy of a clear unbiased debate on public television? Don’t we owe it to our children and their children?
February 9th, 2007 at 9:44 amEven as we make a big deal about the upcoming 1 Billion Dollar presidential election no one seems to be aware of the fact that tax free foundations are pumping $30 billion per year and more into environmental activist groups and about the only thing they have to push these days is the "human caused global warming" nonsense... no wonder it's always on the front burner.. money talks and honest science walks... it's always been this way, always will be...
The first step toward understanding any current political issue is to "follow the money"... once you've done that, the rest is usually pretty easy....
a good place to go to check out the way foundation trustees hand out the bucks is
http://www.bullitt.org
they are only about a $6 million per annum part of the problem, but the page is still instructive...
February 9th, 2007 at 11:13 pm[...] turns out some members of Congress would beg to differ…87% of Congressional Republicans to be exact. One of those global warming deniers is our very own wingnut, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [...]
February 13th, 2007 at 1:03 am[...] most Americans believe this. Yet in Congress it is a partisan debate. In a recent poll 13% of the Republicans say that global warming was caused by man, compared to 95% on the Democratic [...]
February 14th, 2007 at 10:26 am[...] caught up to itself weather-wise and if anyone out there still seems to think that there’s nothing wrong, Great Uncle Leonard says that the last time we had to wait till February for snow was in the [...]
February 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pmMore contridicting info from an expert.
Contact: David Bromwich
Bromwich.1@osu.edu
614-292-6692
Ohio State University
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.
In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.
"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.
"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.
"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."
Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."
That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.
"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."
Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
###
February 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pmContact: David Bromwich (614) 292-6692; Bromwich.1@osu.edu
[...] then there’s this: Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans see global warming as a human-caused issue, compared to 95 percent of Dems. That’s right, [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmI'm not a scientist. And, yes, science has been wrong in the past. So there is a possibility the Republicans are right. That the warming occuring today is natural, not manmade. And whatever we do it is irreversible.
But that chance is a fool's chance. Let's not forget the original arguments which were presented against manmade global warming. Decades ago. (They have become far more refined today.) They originally reflected back upon those industries which didn't want to abide by environmental standards which would cut into profit. After all, it can be expensive to clean up a river and find new ways of disposing of waste.
You don't need to be a scientist to understand the self serving b.s. which protects profits.
The older arguments against manmade global warming have been around so long they are well established in our culture. And upon that basis they have been expanded on and refined in recent years. They are still b.s.. A form of self deception. Reputable science says we are destroying the environment. We lay people should heed. Even if science may be wrong the issue is important enough to take seriously. For what if the scientists are not wrong?
And what makes us think we have a right, anyway, to use the world, our home and nest, as a huge garbage dump? That we have a right to despoil our environment on the basis of convenience and greed? That we shouldn't at least try to clean up if only because it is the right thiing to do?
March 9th, 2007 at 7:08 pmits rediculous that this day in age the government of the united states cares more about the money in their pockets than their children and their future
March 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pmDear sir/madam,
Global warming to put it simply is down to displacement. Two objects can not occupy the same place at any one time.
Regards Roger
March 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am#38 Besides, the Vikings were too stubborn to change their habits to their new surroundings. The Inuit thrived in northern Greenland just fine over much of that same period, but they had adapted hunting techniques that fit the climate. The Vikings were stubborn and refused to change and eventually died out — just like Republicans today.
I'm sorry, but please think about your statement for a second? The Vikings didn't die out - What do you think modern day Norewegians, Swedes, Danes and even some celtic lines come from. Way to discredit yourself.
As for the rest - You all need to learn to cry more...really! Yes! Oh god all the money we Republicans got from the "Bush War." If you truly believe the world is out to get you, then it is. You tell me how many years these scientists have actually been studying this and then apply that information to how long one of these weather cycles could be...I'm sorry but it is far too early to be able to say yes or no. (Oh and for the guy that claims all us Replublicans only have Marketing degrees - well maybe if liberals studied something other than fine arts - they would understand how to reason when it came to scientific information)
March 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pm[...] on the right-wing (whether it be politicians, pundits or bloggers) for distorting the science and claiming to know better that the worlds top climatologists. The right has spent it’s energies distorting and even [...]
April 14th, 2007 at 12:55 am[...] credit: what percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators when polled earlier this year answered yes to this question: “Do you think it’s been proven [...]
April 14th, 2007 at 3:21 amAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm80's fashion
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pmNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 10:54 pmAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:57 amBusiness Mentor
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I'm sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/santorum-wmd/ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/ [...]
March 16th, 2008 at 9:38 pmcurrencies
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:05 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 2:26 amKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 5:22 amYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 6:27 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 5:53 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 12:25 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 12:53 amJessie
Thanks for your insightful Post. Keep Up the Great Work.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:08 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:24 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 9:25 amFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend's Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 10:55 pmProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:43 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:53 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:13 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:25 pmBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:41 amBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 2:32 amMilf Milf Ass Lesbian Milf
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pmpretty woman the movie photo
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pmYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 pmAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 4:50 am1 free background check
I'm with the earlier poster, this seems like a good idea.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:16 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 2:05 pmWeight Loss Pill Identifier Pills
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pmbusiness government grant startup
Hey. I just dropped by. I've gotta say, you have kewl website. You should check out my government business grants for woman site sometime.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:46 am