The Government funded report shows 19 per cent of people are climate change disbelievers - up from just four per cent in 2005 - while nine per cent did not know.
The report comes as climate change scientists working on a landmark UN report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.
Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report shows scientists are being forced to "recognise reality".Express
The Global Warming Scam
57 comments:
I believe that you can't tell, and you won't be able to tell.
Everything can always be part of a cycle, as far as the data goes.
A cycle can't be man-caused.
Years ago a stock broker cold-called and asked if I thought the market was going to go up.
No, I said.
Then, he said, you must believe that it's going to go down.
No, I said.
click
Maybe I'm a little naive, but I don't think the question scientists should be pursuing is "Where is our face-saving theory?"
I wonder what we do if the temperature starts going down? Open coal plants and subsidize the purchase of huge cadillacs? Maybe pet cows in every yard? Because you know, we have to do something!
I have no idea how to punctuate what I wrote above. I'm completely lost, but I can say it perfectly if you want to come by for coffee.
Call Al "The Crazy Sex Poodle" Gore.
I have no idea if this chart is accurate:
ice age chart
How soon are we due for the next one?
bago:
"Because you know, we have to do something!"
Well sometimes we do. Like how filthy would the country be now if we hadn't done something about industrial pollution, etc.
All along I've felt it possible that the global warming craze was actually a covert way to get us to reduce pollution.
I think we should reduce pollution. I'm even FOR sun and wind energy. Sadly, sun and wind can only go so far, do so much.
Oil and gas - natural products from mother earth - get the job done more efficiently.
We should do all we can to create a balance.
I do get pissed off at the oil and gas industry and their spills.
Right now gallons of oil are pouring into the ST Vrain and South Platte rivers.
A few days ago, a spokesperson for the oil and gas industry arrogantly stated with a straight face that - "nothing is wrong."
Want to give the green-fascists ammunition? That's how you do it.
Agreed, April.
People who are against oil and gas should stop using.
Wealthy celebs who jet around the globe darting between global warming conferences - should take their billions and fuel their jets with wind or sunshine.
What kind of scientist has to be "forced to recognize reality?"
If you travel through Southern Utah you will see some of the most breathtaking scenery in the US. The Canyons in this arid area are layered w/ different color strata of rock formations. The formations show that @ one time this area was ocean, jungle, desert, ice, and semi arid. You see, this globe IS CONSTANTLY WARMING AND COOLING!!!!
Ricpic, A political scientist.
A cycle can't be man-caused
Are you certain of that?
That is my position too, and I also believe it arrogant to assume man is so influential a force as the sun.
And then I viewed nations one at a time, recently as a project, alphabetically as we have together, through Google Earth. In Africa, all over the place, it appears an isolated compound is linked by dirt roads to remote isolated compounds. The dirt from above looks like a geodesic dome with compounds at the nodes.
And country by country a-z you see that and a similar pattens, bizarre patterns too, terraforming all over the place, paths become roads become highways become spaghetti bowls all over the globe and at length mankind takes on the aspect of infection.
A very serious skin infection that is completely insidiously taking over the entire surface, long stretches of hinterland notwithstanding.
A situation not so different as when microorganism produced oxygen sufficient to make life possible for those organisms (us) to evolve and affect that impressive infection, quite an achievement from one end to the other, and also add industrial CO2 to the atmosphere in so doing.
Am I so sure humans are not unlike the plants that changed the atmosphere of Earth and made life possible for us, so that they can and did do something that we cannot? It is no longer arrogance to think otherwise, that man is not just a part of a huge cycle but actually inextricably altering it by force of our infecting the entire surface, visibly, and that is not hyperbole, that is looking at the surface of nations one by one.
Just a thought. Google Earth makes me question my premises.
I'm clinging to what I learned very early in 3rd grade science class because everything else hangs on that. Life started in the ocean and was not possible on land until plants produced CO2 in sufficient amount for aerobic life to develop. Everyone agrees with that no? And CO2 is not an evil poison, plants breathe that, no? That cycle is a back and forth deal undisrupted by increased CO2, in fact helped. I add CO2 to the aquarium and the fish are unaffected, they're breathing oxygen and the CO2 does not crowd it out, but that has nothing to do with climate, just stating CO2 is not the toxin its made out to be.
Here is my beef: Anyone in disagreement with policy is a climate denier.
!
Sorry. I don't accept the terms.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY denies climate, so that term is sophistry from the start intended to warp the discussion and my response to that is "fuck you," and stay fucked until you grow up enough to talk without thinking up names for opposition, because if that's the way it is, then it will not be possible for Flat Earthers to converse with Bleeding Hearts, hearts that bleed and drip sanctimony.
The conformist arrogance on display from the scientific-political community pushing global warming alarmism pisses people off.
The global warmers collectively refer those of us who have even a drop of skepticism as "Denialists".
To which I reply - *F you*.
Warmist Alamists deserve nothing but our scorn.
nd cracks the code. These are not scientists, they are political scientists. Also known as frauds.
Obama looking skyward at Bryce and Zion National Parks: Uhhh....you didn't build that!
Here is my fear: the ice sheets melting and ocean currents and winds stopping.
How long can we expect the all the ice sheets to last? Talk me down.
The problem I note, because I live in an uber-progressive town and am surrounded by uber-progressive thoughts:
Leftists really think life should be perfect. Perfect weather, perfect drugs, perfect jobs, no work, all play, have fun, free shit, perfect everything, perfect government, perfect everything- perfect perfect just for them.
They cannot handle a hurricane or a typhoon or even an earthquake. That's why idiot celebrities like Kanye West blame hurricanes on political leaders or political parties,.
They have to blame terrible disasters on someone or something.
Of course Dick Cheney is to blame for all earthquakes. His pool needs re-filling.
Deborah - It seems to me the ice sheets melt and re-form.
Look at the link!
"Am I so sure humans are not unlike the plants that changed the atmosphere of Earth and made life possible for us, so that they can and did do something that we cannot? It is no longer arrogance to think otherwise, that man is not just a part of a huge cycle but actually inextricably altering it by force of our infecting the entire surface, visibly, and that is not hyperbole, that is looking at the surface of nations one by one."
But, April, as Chip said above, that's not to say it's impossible we'll never have an overall impact. But I tend to think that science and Western Civilization will intervene and we'll non-breed ourselves into ennui-ed oblivion. I'm a bundle of joy today.
Deborah - I look at it as two separate issues. The global warming alarmists are so ideologically corrupt, they stifle the conversation by calling everyone "denialists".
We cannot have a logical conversation about pollution, emissions, human impact. Not allowed. Warming/climate change and nothing else is all. I have yet to see them change their behavior while they dictate I change mine.
I absolutely think humans - huge massive billions of humans impact the earth - almost as great as the sun! But I'd like to talk about it in honest terms and not be told by some asshole with a political agenda that I'm a "denialist" no different than a holocaust denier.
The global warming alarmist community has poisoned the well. if they want to fix it - they are welcome to do so.
Just a passingthought cuz I'm running out the door.
I also think conservatives should be on board with renewable energy technology. We should just demand that it be transparent and not a tax-payer funded Solyndra fraud sinkhole.
Menustral cycles are man made.
So are winstral cycles of roids.
tits.
I've always been an environmentalist, and agree that reducing pollution was an imperative in the 70s, and it will always be a challenge we continually face, but at that time the problem was clear, obvious, and unassailable. Nobody wants to live in toxic waste. It's one of the few thing the left pushed that turned out good for a while, but they never stop, because the goalpost just gets moved until the cost/benefit ratio gets reversed. Thus we have CO2 now as a pollutant.
It was pretty clear that burning rivers or smog filled skies were unhealthy, and not natural cycles. There wasn't much scientific dispute about that, and they were within our ability to reverse without harming mankind more than we helped. None of that is true of AGW.
It doesn't seem very scientific at all since 1)the possibility of it being a false hypothesis is taboo, and 2) possible solutions offered rarely cover anything outside of wealth transfer to the government, subsidizing pet technologies, or donning hair shirts. Very little discussion of planning to adapt to it, nor is there much talk of the benefits of warming. That smacks of politics more than science. Both the planet's and our species's most productive times have been during periods warmer than now, so the idea that the temperature in the last century was perfection is silly, and the idea that any temperature is the one we can or even should maintain is tilting at windmills in addition to being unscientific.
Lets say that we invent cold fusion and through that completely eliminate any increase in greenhouse gasses produced by mankind.
That will eliminate one small possibility out of many for the climate changing. Regardless, it will change, no matter what we do, and we have no idea which way or when. We can be certain that another ice age will come, and that it will get warmer than now at some point as well. Figuring out how we can adapt to it regardless of cause is the intelligent path to me.
I get your points completely, bago.
Now this Counter Punch article is terrifying. About Fukushima. Is it over the top, or is it fear-mongering:
Fukushima
And April.
" Is it over the top, or is it fear-mongering"
Who knows? I guess we'll find out soon. I take comfort from knowing it's not something you or I can do anything about. We're off the hook. I'm more worried about my dog killing the neighbor's cat. Nobody else is gonna take that one. It's all on me.
I'm all for new technology, but solar and wind are not new. They are ancient, too dispersed, clumsy, ugly, delicate, and politicized. We can do a lot better. I think we are diverting too many resources to these weak ideas.
If the President just asks me, I'll get to work on it right away, but I have my pride. He needs to have a beer with me first, and play me one-on-one hoops. I'll kick his ass.
I find it quite revealing the article doesn't include the actual poll question. A standard activist tactic is to ask a question with intepretive or investigative language, but then report the answers as definitive. This both (a) greatly increases the percentage giving the "wrong" answers and (b) misstates what those respondents actually believe. Both advance the political interests of the alarmist groups.
Given the obvious political nature of this article [in advance of a climate alarmist rivival] this reads like a press release masquerading as reporting.
Funny how word gets out.
Next thing you know, people will be wising up to the homosexual agenda.
A good deal of the pollution reduction here and in Europe has happened because of the transfer of manufacturing to places like China, where anti-pollution laws are lax.
And Deborah, don't worry about running out of ice sheets. Between the great current isolating Antarctica and the Indian subcontinent, we're not going to run out of ice anytime soon.
Next thing you know, people will be wising up to the homosexual agenda.
Everybody has. The penalties and abuse for saying so in public just make it unwise to say anything about it.
Excellent point, Icepick. China doesn't have that much water, and what they do have is shallow in the ground, and the rivers filthy. And the air. Man.
Bago, I once had a dog I fostered returned for killing chickens. Ended up keeping her, natch.
The penalties and abuse for saying so in public just make it unwise to say anything about it.
And yet none of you ever stop talking about it. Funny, that!
And yet none of you ever stop talking about it. Funny, that!
You are being intentionally obtuse.
I'm talking about speaking in the realm of public life. In case you haven't noticed, it is possible (for the moment) to conceal your identity on the internet.
Are you aware that the propaganda movie "And the Band Played On" is being shown in medical education programs all over the country?
This movie asserts that President Reagan and Republicans deliberately let gays die of AIDS when they could have, I guess, poured every resource of the Fed into developing a vaccine which would have wiped out the diseases.
40 years later, no vaccine exists, a fact that dramatically demonstrates how silly that movie was. Students in medical programs across the country continue to sit through that propaganda crap.
I'm retired from working in pharma. Actually challenging this type of bald propaganda in the workplace would have cost me my job.
Pollution stops when the standard of living rises.
The benefits of pollution go to the consumer. Stuff is cheaper to buy.
The manufacturer only benefits if he's the only one doing it. Otherwise it just drops the price.
When society gets wealthier, it starts buying clean water and air with the extra money.
In some ways that conservative backlash against global warming is as knee-jerk and tribal as that of environmentalists.
Like it or not, there is good science behind global warming. The greenhouse effect is real and was first theorized around 1900 by Arrhenius. The earth has warmed since industrialization began increasing the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's something worth studying and monitoring.
That said, the earth's climate is an enormously complex system with feedbacks that keep climate within certain ranges otherwise life would have been wiped out long ago. So the simple model of "CO2 up / temperature up" is not adequate, as we are currently seeing.
The problem is that scientists don't fully understand how climate works. And neither do conservative naysayers to climate change.
"When society gets wealthier, it starts buying clean water and air with the extra money.".
True, and I think it's mostly a good deal once you have the money, but I'm not interested in giving my money to anyone selling "climate stability". I don't care how many unicorns are in every bottle.
Along with what rh said, there's a Soc 101 theory I recall that was something about workers being expendable for the greater good of society. I think China will eventually expand into eastern Russia and SE Asia for women and water.
deborah: I looked at the Fukushima article. It sounded pretty hysterical, per usual for the source.
I'm sure that Fukushima has already contributed some cancers to the world and will contribute more if those fuel rods are exposed, but I flat don't believe such releases "could destroy the world environment and civilization," as former ambassador Murata says. He seems to have watched too many Japanese horror movies.
Radiation is nasty but not as much as it's cracked up to be. People thought that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be poisoned for decades and the survivors were doomed to slow horrible deaths, but no. The environment bounced back quickly and the people who didn't die in the first few years, were only in danger from their self-destructive behavior based on their belief that they were doomed.
Beliefs make for great facts.
This movie asserts that President Reagan and Republicans deliberately let gays die of AIDS when they could have, I guess, poured every resource of the Fed into developing a vaccine which would have wiped out the diseases.
40 years later, no vaccine exists, a fact that dramatically demonstrates how silly that movie was.
Talk about intentionally obtuse. You probably don't even know who Anthony Fauci is. Read what he's said about the lag to catch up on working to do anything about AIDS. No vaccine exists? That sucks. In the meantime, a nearly certain death sentence was made eminently survivable thanks to a hell of a lot of hard work and the advent of dozens of drugs, many moreso than nearly any other infectious disease, if not almost any other non-cardiovascular disease generally. It's a good thing you're retired from pharma (lemme guess, data entry prole?). You seem to know nothing about it.
And no, most people don't think what you do about gays. Leave the "silent majority" crap to Tricky Dick Nixon.
It's one of the few thing the left pushed that turned out good for a while, but they never stop, because the goalpost just gets moved until the cost/benefit ratio gets reversed. Thus we have CO2 now as a pollutant.
At anywhere from 1 to 5% atmospheric concentration you suffocate, dingbat. Ever hear of "respiration"?
We're a ways away from that. But this whole campaign to classify CO2 as "absolutely benign" just shows how deeply ingrained the ignorance has set in.
Fukushima may not be a Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but let's be glad it's not a Chernobyl, either.
And CO2 is not an evil poison, plants breathe that, no?
And, as we should expect, Good Ole Chip the semi-scientist jumps in with another chestnut that presumes we might as well be photosynthetic, as well. Plants breathe it, therefore our bodies shouldn't give it off as a toxic by-product. I suggest Chip visit the kids in the iron lung or long-time emphysema sufferers and let them know that the CO2 building up in their bodies are good for them. After all, plants don't need lungs or anything.
"At anywhere from 1 to 5% atmospheric concentration you suffocate, dingbat. Ever hear of "respiration"? "
So you think we're gonna suffocate from CO2? Did you read that in a book, or is that one of your own? I bet Pelosi would say you're brilliant.
Wow, you really shamed me with that one.
It's a good thing you're retired from pharma (lemme guess, data entry prole?). You seem to know nothing about it.
You're too damed stupid to breathe, Ritmo.
My actual job was project manager for clinical trials, a job which included programming some of the original learning management systems in C++ and later in Java, not to mention audio and video development for the purpose of developing in-house instructional material for the various audiences that participate in clinical trials.
Your notion that I have any attitude towards gays is just another of your asshole fantasies.
I've forgotten more about pharma than you will ever know, shithead, since my employer put me through rigorous training in A&P and Physiology.
You never stop being a piece of shit, do you?
And, now I'm off to play a festival with the Old Dawgz, Ritmo.
Eat your heart out, kid.
I have always left lowlife shit like you in the dust and I always will.
Ever notice how the air in the US is pretty clean, but everywhere else - it'd downright filthy?
China, India, Malaysia, South America - the sky is not blue.
China is a toxic waste dump - flowing in the ocean that we all share.
"asshole fantasies"? My, my. One wonders what sort of thoughts went into that one.
It's not just me. I want to know if you still think you know more than Anthony Fauci.
So you think we're gonna suffocate from CO2?
Not if we keep the concentrations below 1%, which seems less likely the more you push against the development of non-carbon energy. I just want to know if you believe that it's a physiologically benign substance.
Ritmo is almost as predictable as the fact that the earth's climate is constantly changing.
May I never surprise you by failing to demand that some actual thought go into the discussions behind these big decisions.
Post a Comment