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
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, â€