This is really too funny. On Monday, Reuters released the findings of an international ACNielsen Internet poll concerning global warming. As one might imagine, Reuters took the most dire assessments from the study and made them the focus of the piece.
Yet, the most startling conclusions from this survey – that only “50 percent reckoned [global warming] was caused by human activities,” and that “Americans [are] least convinced” about this – were buried deep in the article.
Instead, Reuters led with the following two paragraphs:
Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases, a 46-country survey showed on Monday.
The report, by ACNielsen of more than 25,000 Internet users, showed that 57 percent of people around the world considered global warming a "very serious problem" and a further 34 percent rated it a "serious problem."
However, the really interesting results were held back until the second half of the piece (emphasis mine):
The study also found that 91 percent of people had heard about global warming and 50 percent reckoned it was caused by human activities.
Hmmm. I guess that means that 50 percent don’t reckon it’s caused by human activities. Alas, here was another wonderful result that Reuters held back (emphasis mine):
People in China and Brazil were most convinced of the link to human activities and Americans least convinced.
Hmmm. Now, for those familiar with simple arithmetic principles, if 50 percent believe there is a link between global warming and human activities, but Americans are least convinced, this means that more than 50 percent of Americans aren't buying into Al Gore and the media's nonsense.
So, instead of titling this article “Survey shows 13 pct of Americans never heard of global warming,” why not have a headline, “Americans Aren’t Convinced of Link Between Global Warming and Human Activities?”
Nah. That would be too much like actually reporting the findings of this poll. We certainly couldn't have that.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Americans aren't buying glo
January 30, 2007 - 11:31 ET by happyuscitizenAmericans aren't buying global warming because once you get out of Boston, NYC, LA, DC, & San FranQaeda to the "fly over" states the elitists despise you will find that common sense is essential and regular Joes & Jolenes aren't stupid. Amazing isn't it?
"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby
common on, for years the multitude thought the world was flat
January 30, 2007 - 12:12 ET by cjkinseyJust because some people are not convinced does not make them right. Nor does it make you right to believe something just because a number, even a majority of people, might believe the same thing. Not knowing something doesn't make you stupid. Being shown evidence of something different and still believing in the wrong conclusion is stupid.
Here is the report of a study about majority opinions that I was already looking up, but seems extremely pertinent to this post.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc
Good link. This story demon
January 30, 2007 - 12:19 ET by mattmGood link. This story demonstrates, once again, how the media use polls, not to gauge the opinions or the knowledge level of the public, but to make "news" and to influence opinion. It's a total bastardization of journalism.
As far as Global Warming goes...I'm all for it (during winter, anyway) - I'm freezing!
Matt
January 30, 2007 - 12:36 ET by cjkinseyIt is a poll of the public knowledge/opinions. And the fact that they hold the wrong opinion/knowledge is something newsworthy.
Matt global warming doesn't shut off in the summer, it is excelerated.
My point on the 'good link' w
January 30, 2007 - 12:58 ET by mattmMy point on the 'good link' was to say that it demonstrates how polling is used to influence news.
Facts are not determined by taking polls, right? So when news organizations use (or rather misuse) polls, they are abusing their role as journalists.
"The fact that they hold the 'wrong' opinion..." That is a false statement. It is not a fact that can be proven by a poll...it is an opinion. The idea that there is a "right" or "Wrong" opinion is incorrect - so your conclusion is wrong.
When polls and statistics are misused like this, the facts, the truth and knowledge all suffer, and wrong conclusions are made, and wrong decisions flow from them and do damage to people. - This applies to many things, including the Global Warming Hoax.
Matt
January 30, 2007 - 13:43 ET by cjkinseySorry my friend there are facts, and on facts you can be wrong.
These questions have answers, right and wrong.
Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?
Is it your impression that Iraq did or did not use chemical or biological weapons in the war that just ended?
Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda.
I will spend some time with your warming site and I will put responses on my blog.
If one listens to the MSM, on
January 30, 2007 - 14:04 ET by mattmIf one listens to the MSM, one would conclude that Bush lied about everything that led us to the war in Iraq. But if one looks at documented evidence from a captured Iraqi operative, one would have to conclude that this link was a strong probability.
Here's a little excerpt from the linked article:
"...Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam... One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir...Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists:...appeals from the Iraqi government ...reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein's regime."
What part of violating 17 U.N
January 30, 2007 - 14:11 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhat part of violating 17 U.N. resolutions don't you understand?!
When Saddam violated the first one, we would've been justified to remove him from power. However, our lawmakers wanted to appease him and "international opinion" and giving him the benefit of the doubt, which turned out to be a bad move. As time progressed, he continued to murder and torture his own people. All the al-Qaida and WMD crap is secondary to the breaking of the U.N. resolutions and the crimes against the Iraqi people (and his neighbors). The liberal media and lawmakers have successfully made people think this was all about connections to al-Qaida and WMD and diverted attention away from the fact that Saddam had it coming to him when he broke the first resolution. Pull your head out of the sand!
Put your feet in the shoes of an average Iraqi citizen. Would you be living a happy life in constant fear of your family or yourself (or both) being tortured or killed if you did something Saddam or his cronies didn't agree with? Or would you be happy that in spite of the violence that is currently happening in select areas or Iraq that you at least have a fighting chance to live your life in relative happiness?
Drop the al-Qaida and WMD crap, it's old and worn out and in relation to Saddam breaking 17 U.N. resolutions over the course of the 12 years following Operation Desert Storm, his actions in blocking weapons inspectors and other associations with shady figures made the U.S. and the U.K highly suspicious of his plans and motives. Action was needed and action was taken. Just because we haven't uncovered huge stock-piles of WMD does not mean they don't or didn't exist. Like many, I am willing to bet they were moved to Lebanon and Syria.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Mean Gene, let me say a heart
January 30, 2007 - 22:33 ET by Chicago RepublicanMean Gene, let me say a hearty "amen" to your comment about Saddam's 17 UN resolution violations. Aside from the evidence that there was collaboration between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda (not the same thing as saying Saddam had involvement in 9-11), we have to have a realistic approach to dealing with defiant tyrants in a post-9/11 world. Put another way, in a post-9/11 word, we no longer have the luxury of waiting for despots to live up their obligations to the free world. The President made a very good point before the UN when he said (paraphrasing) "This body (UN) runs the risk of losing all of its credibility in the world unless it enforces its resolutions." Saddam failure was in not disclosing the whereabouts of the weapons he was on record before the UN as having possession of. So, if he no longer had them, why didn't he just disclose the means with which he disposed of them? Further, why did he kick the inspectors out with such frequency if he didn't have them? Further, why did Saddams OWN TROOPS have the Chemical, Biological, Radiological gear if he didn't have these weapons? Didn't these weapons have over a year of goofy posturing by the coalition before the UN for these weapons to disappear from Iraq? What's more, didn't we find circa-1980's mustard gas in Iraq in early Summer 2006 (weapons that Saddam's was supposed to have gotten rid of, but didn't)? In short, it was the fact that Saddam didn't live up to his obligations (after being given MULTIPLE opportunities) that lead to OIF.
Chicago
January 31, 2007 - 22:33 ET by cjkinseyHe may not have completed every obligation, but was effectively neutralized. And he was not an imminent threat to us, so a pre-emptive strike was actually illegal in international law.
Military action should be an absolute last tool in the tool box. Unfortunately it is this president's first.
A full blown case of Bush Derangement Syndrome
January 31, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Free StinkerA full blown case of Bush Derangement Syndrome
You are deliberately ignoring the facts cjkinsey.
January 31, 2007 - 22:41 ET by acaiguanaYou are deliberately ignoring the facts cjkinsey.
I noticed you have some sort of site you reference occasionally. Forgive me if I haven't bothered to jump over to it.
How in the world can you possibly hold yourself up to the Internet as anything with such a shallow grasp of the issues, the history and the obligations of the UN and the US with respect to Iraq.
Illegal war.
That's cute. Did you come up with that all by yourself or was it a seminar you took?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
I'm sure you're not surprised
February 2, 2007 - 17:40 ET by Chicago RepublicanI'm sure you're not surprised CJ, but I disagree with you. To say that Saddam was neutralized is only half correct. As a conventional military threat, yes, he was essentially neutralized. But, as a point of contact for terrorist organizations (including Al Qaeda, whom its hard to argue he didn't have some relationship with) who would love to get their hands on his WMD's (which he did have, we've even found some degraded but still dangerours WMD) he was without a doubt a threat. GWB laid this out before the UN in great detail, to no avail.
To say that GWB or the US's 19 allies made force their "first tool" used in the toolbox is just not factually correct. As Gene points out, Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions over a course of 12 years flagrantly. At some point, as I say above, the free world HAD to stop huffing and puffing and do the heavy lifting needed. The UN didn't have the guts to do it (naturally, they were on the take from Saddam, many of them), so in a post 9/11 world we had to. We did not rush into this war. We even offered Saddam and his thuggish sons asylum at the 11th hour. they didn't take it.
"I will spend some time
January 30, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Roger the Shrubber"I will spend some time with your warming site and I will put responses on my blog."
Ooooo! Another Left-wing crap blog that says the same thing that X, Y, and Z Left-wing crap blog says!
Your blog is as predictable and laughable as the sites you link from it. Though I admire your "Progressive Missionary Work", you would benefit devoting more of your time creating better-written, less-predictable writings on more original topics than you would coming here thinking you are "re-educating" us dumb Neocons... Go give that community college's associate degree in journalism a better workout in the future, ok?
Roger
January 30, 2007 - 15:35 ET by cjkinseyI am not sure this is worth responding to, but you should try actually reading some, and not just categorically dismissing things.
Yeah, Rog! I mean, come on
January 30, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Uncle JohnYeah, Rog! I mean, come on.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
cjkinsky...from what I unders
January 30, 2007 - 15:48 ET by bassndudecjkinsky...from what I understand, man made co2 is causing all this warming, according to AlEgore and the others. That makes no sence what so ever. 98% of co2 that occurs in the atmosphere is natural, man only accounts for 2%. Water vapor contributes more to warming than co2, but we hear nothing about that. During the ice age, there was a shortage of fresh water. It was all locked up in the ice. It is a known fact that sea levels and fresh water levels rose when the ice melted. Made farming possible in North America. It may be time to raise the water levels again. You blubbering man made global warming foolishness will not change any of that. Consensus science is not science. It is politics. So what you have is a political concensus. Not science. Concensus requires no proof or facts, it just needs two people to agree, and there you have it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I read some of your crap, Spa
January 30, 2007 - 16:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberI read some of your crap, Sparky, else I would not have made the post in the first place. What, are you retarded?
You offer nothing new to the conversation. Nothing but the same, tired, old, Liberal crap. Take that "Gore 2000" bumper sticker off of your Subaru hatchback and try writing something we WOULDN'T see at Huffpo or the DailyKOS.
It's ok. You don'thave to respond. But I know you will.
I readcj
January 30, 2007 - 23:09 ET by SportPoliticsCJ, I read "excelerated". That's when I stopped reading.
I find it difficult to give any weight to your opinions, when I already disagree and you make such obvious spelling errors. I'd much rather change my opinion when someone smarter convinces me.
Which will cause more rain
January 30, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Conservative VoiceWhich will cause more rain and water flow, which will cause more vegetation (not only with trees, your holy symbol, but all the plant life in the ocean, lakes, etc). More vegetation means less CO2, more shade, etc. For those who believe in evolution, why do they try so freakin hard to make the world a static place? The world balances itself out. The sun gets a little hotter, and the earth cools itself by melting the ice...sun gets a little cooler the world keeps itself warm by moving ice to the polars. Much like your own body is able to maintain a healthy temp. Driving a billion cars is insignificant to the climate compared to the rest of nature...but a billion cars may cause smog. And that is where the environmentalists have a real argument. This global warming nonesense is so blown out of proportion.
Conservative voice
January 30, 2007 - 13:49 ET by cjkinseyyour analogies, like all good analogies can only go so far, if there were a cancer in your body, like highly accelerated co2 emissions, your body will die.
It is not just more rain and more water flow, it will also create deeper droughts.
Water and ice also are different states and have different properties. So Water in all its forms are not that same.
Questions
January 30, 2007 - 14:34 ET by UnsaneIf global warming is in fact happening:
1) How come, since I am to assume that it IS a GLOBAL problem, China, India, and Mexico, among others, are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol?
2) Why is an activity (tropical deforestation) that is the cause of 20% of greenhouse gas emissions not addressed anywhere in the Kyoto Protocol?
3) Why don't Leftists support an increased reliance on nuclear power? It works for France, which gets 78.5% of their juice from nukes. And they don't even have what the United States and Finland have: a place to dispose of waste!
4) Perhaps you can explain to me why, 18 years after I first started hearing about this theory, why I spent the middle of January chipping away ice that built up on my truck, SOUTH of 30 degrees North latitude.
5) Or, why it snowed SOUTH of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? Or why it snowed in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Or why it snowed in Johannesburg during their winter in 2006?
Don't worry, I have more...I like to ask questions before an army of guilt-ridden Leftists start demanding we dismantle the world's ultimate success story.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane
January 30, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Dave R1) How come, since I am to assume that it IS a GLOBAL problem, China, India, and Mexico, among others, are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol?
Easy. China, India and Mexico's CO2 emmissions don't cause pollution. Only Evil American conservative CO2 causes pollution! Heck, everybody knows that. Just ask that Algore guy. :-^)
-Sorry Unsane, I just couldn't resist. That is about how rediculous this whole debate has become in my mind.
The wormhole
January 30, 2007 - 15:33 ET by UnsaneDave, you meant to tell me you never heard of the wormhole that takes all of the CO2 emitted by developing nations, all exempt from Kyoto, and sends it all to Venus?
Where have you been???
:^)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane
January 30, 2007 - 16:15 ET by Dave RLOL
Actually, I guess I missed that one.
Given that Venus is no doubt undergoing GW now, do you think said wormhole could suck DimLibs off this planet and send them to, uh, the planet Uranus perhaps?
See what I get for being a smartass? :-)
Global Warming
January 31, 2007 - 11:42 ET by pbanks7No - they send it to Mars. Haven't you heard about the global warming there?
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
wow so many assumptions
January 30, 2007 - 15:50 ET by cjkinsey1-2. So a negotiated contract didn't address all issues? Therefore there isn't global warming? Is that really your argument?
3. Because of the nature of nuclear material and waste that we don't have the answers to. When there are other better alternatives.
4-5. Because they frame of this discussion has been around warming and not the complete climate change it effects.
the world's ultimate success story? I don't really want to step into this.
On Xinhua and other silliness
January 30, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Unsane1) That "negotiated contract" didn't settle a damn thing. China will be the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases in 2015, yet this "contract" (it's a protocol, a type of treaty) does not address this. In case you don't know, the Kyoto Protocol was designed to address GLOBAL warming, yet the only thing it does is punish and steal from successful nations and gives any nation with even a slightly socialistic bent a pass.
If this is a GLOBAL issue, EVERY nation has to contribute, correct? Or, as Dave R suggests, is it that only American CO2 is evil, whereas Chinese or Indian CO2 is in fact beneficial?
That being said, thank you for the Xinhua News Agency point of view.
3. You have a severe problem reading. France gets 78.5% of their juice from nukes, yet they don't even have a permanent storage site for nuclear waste! (They reprocess much of it at Le Havre; so successful is that program, they take in waste from as far away as Japan to reprocess!) So, why can't WE take the same approach?
And what better alternatives are there? Wind? I'll have to ask Conservative Voice to jump in here and tell us all about the Kamoa Wind Farm. But from my personal experience, I see wind turbines heading out to west TX all the time. I'm sure that is great for the co-ops out there and for supplying the smaller west TX towns; but for powering cities such as Houston or San Antonio, give me coal or nuclear energy any day. Comanche Park and the STNP won't be closing shop anytime soon in spite of these allegedly superior wind mills. Solar? That is still not economical. It is more so, but it still has a LONG way to go.
4-5. Translation: "I-I-I......um...........uh.......................ahhh................uh....................."
Of course you don't want to call the United States the ultmate success story, because you are a whiny Leftist who either is consumed by 1) self loathing and hatred for the nation and system he sucks the tit of greedily every day; 2) guilt, or 3) both.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane
January 31, 2007 - 20:13 ET by cjkinsey1. It is not that they don't polute and shouldn't contribute to reducing emissions. It is that you made this argument against why there isn't such a thing as man made causes to global warming. You are exchangeing a cause with a response.
China is very concerned about their impact, but they also want to quickly get to the same place we are with advances, and coal and oil are easier. What we need to do is lead the way with new alternative solutions.
Wind, Solar, conservation, sugar cane, technology, all play a part. What is really at issue if getting an honest discussion, not that we will solve the issue here.
3. I will take my um uh, ahh's when they are due. I don't have a response to this one and will have to investigate.
4-5. No you said, why it snowed in the south. The effects of the increases in temperature is to throw things out of normal patterns on both extremes.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to say the US is the ultimate success, I just want to know your measures. What you consider? It seems like a grand statement, one for which some evidence should be available.
For the guilt-ridden cjkinsey
January 31, 2007 - 22:32 ET by UnsaneThis nation has the largest, most advanced economy in the world, and has the ability to project power all over the world at a moments if need be.
If you cannot accept that fact as the measure of how successful the United States is, you are beyond help.
I love your constant pleading for all of us to discuss this issue. It, to me, is nothing more than code for beating me and my fellow Rightist travelers to a pulp until we accept that it is OK to pillage and steal from those who are the most successful in order to coddle and babysit others. Instead, I am going to critically think and demand you do the same.
4-5. Your common sense is simply out the window, unless you practice efficient double-think. If temperatures are rising on average around the globe, then I shouldn't be getting ice storms in a place where they don't normally occur. In fact, my first clue would be a longer period of persistent humidity, which hasn't occurred either. Right now the humidity is low in south TX because the Gulf is cooler this time of year. If this changes so that it is unbearably humid throughout the month of January (instead of the one or two days a month where the subtropical jet reigns supreme and imports Pacific moisture to the region), I MIGHT consider the theory of GW; but even then, I must question what is causing it, because unlike you, I love the ever questioning, ever-probing nature of science.
I suggest you demand we lead the way with newer, unproven technologies while being an apologist for the Communist-led PRC because you are consumed with guilt. Hate to say this, but if they are concerned about pollution, they have a very funny way of showing it. Ever visited Beijing? I have. It is easily the most polluted city I have visited, and I can count Los Angeles and Denver among many other cities I have visited.
Also, you seem to love to ignore a technology that has been proven time and time again since December 1942: nuclear power. If it is good enough to provide France 78.5% of its electrical needs, why not us? Why can't we reprocess waste the way they do? Besides, we have something in the United States the French lack: a permanent waste disposal site. Why do you not support this form of electrical power? Could it be because it just might work, it just might be clean, it will reduce our GHG emissions (since you are so concerned about them) AND allow us to keep our standard of living?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane
January 31, 2007 - 22:58 ET by cjkinseyI promised to look it up.
Here is the report from our EIA. I highlighted the conclusion, so you don't have to read the whole think if you don't want to.
Nuclear Energy
When France initiated its nuclear energy program in the early 1970s, environmental protection issues did not generate the concern that they do today in Western countries. Although domestic opposition has been increasing, France has maintained its position that nuclear energy, because it does not pollute the same way that coal, oil, or natural gas do, contributes to the preservation of the environment. Since nuclear energy does not release nitrogen, sulfur, carbon, or dust into the atmosphere, France has argued that nuclear power is one of the best responses to demands for environmental protection.
Between 1980, when nuclear energy provided just 15% of France's electricity, and 2001, when the share of nuclear-generated electricity rose to around 75%, France has recorded sizable reductions in emissions of harmful pollutants from energy generation. During that time period, sulfur dioxide emissions, which to a large degree are responsible for acid rain, decreased by 70%, reductions in nitrous oxides that contribute to smog were 12%, and dust emissions were reduced by 52%. According to the Ministry of Industry, French nuclear power plants prevent the emission of 1.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 890,000 tons of nitrous oxides each year.
Since France has a good nuclear safety record, and since power produced by French nuclear plants is one of the least expensive forms of energy in the EU, nuclear energy is a natural export market for France. However, France's unilateral decision in 1995 to resume nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific - which came despite the condemnation of European ecologists, "green" politicians, and anti-nuclear pressure groups across the globe - angered many of its neighbors who do not share France's commitment to the nuclear option and highlighted France's nuclear energy stance. In addition, recent surveys show weakening support for nuclear power among French citizens themselves, especially as France begins dealing with the problem of long-term storage and disposal of nuclear waste with the planned decommissioning of older nuclear power plants.
I may be reading something be
January 31, 2007 - 23:52 ET by danboI may be reading something between the lines.
Sorry if I type it wrong. My cut and past isn't working correctly here.
"France's unilateral decision in 1995 to resume nuclear weapons testing...despite the condemnation of European ecologist "green" politicians..."
Could this why France is showing signs of beginning to leave the warmer plantation? Naaa. Can't be.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
guilt-ridden cjkinsey
February 1, 2007 - 00:20 ET by UnsaneAgain, read VERY carefully: there are only two nations on earth with sites for the disposal of nuclear waste:
1) the United States and 2) Finland
If there is political opposition to nuclear power in France, it sure as all hell hasn't manifested itself in its politics. Perhaps a minor party has, but I have not heard of a single UMP or Socialist (the two main parties in France with a realistic chance of winning the presidency this year) politician talk about weaning itself off of nuclear power. I can't imagine they will, especially now that Russia is acting strangely with its natural gas and oil pipelines (with Unraine last year and Belarus earlier this month).
Sounds to me like you want to be professionally miserable. I offer a winning, viable alternative, and still you whine, and cry, cry, cry the tears of guilt, all the while sucking the tits of capitalism, free markets, and this great nation.
Do me a favor. Instead of demanding I descend to your personal hell by forcing me to give up all the things I have fought for and earned all my life just to make you FEEL better, YOU take the lead. Run your computer off of hand-crank power. Ride a bike instead of driving a car, EVERYWHERE. And be sure to light plenty of candles. I would suggest burning logs in your fireplace for warmth, but then you would cry about contributing to smog.
In the meantime, I would rather continue living in the 21st Century (even more so than you want to go back to the 16th), in a cutting-edge society that has the largets, most advanced economy in the world, with the ability to project power globally.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
If global warming is caused b
January 30, 2007 - 18:21 ET by MikeBIf global warming is caused by man burning fossil fuels, why is there global warming occuring right now on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Triton, and Pluto? Could the source of all this concurrent global warming on various solar bodies be North American white males maliciously driving SUVs? Hmmmm? Or, just perhaps could solar output be increasing? Apply Occam's razor to the problem.
There are a lot of problems with the methods the AWG panic mongers have used to "prove" their premise. Do you think, just perhaps that what the AWG cultists are measuring is actually Urban Heat Island Effect? In the meantime, stick your head out the window, and tell us how much warmer the globe is, then explain record snowfall in Alaska, record lows in the northeast just weeks after they had some record highs. Explain the Medieval Optimum. Explain the Little Ice Age. Are they all the result of mankind's activity? Provide cites and links.
You know, I've asked these questions with the links about 5 or 6 times now here on NB, and not one single AGW true believer has ever bothered to answer the question. So, cj, how about you? Why don't you answer: why the global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Triton, and Pluto if global warming is caused by Man? Are we that powerful?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
On mars it is caused by the t
January 30, 2007 - 20:03 ET by florida_chadOn mars it is caused by the two little cars :}
Are you saying that even th
January 30, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Conservative VoiceAre you saying that even though we have had a number of global coolings and warmings, this current form of warming is akin to CANCER? Nevermind the fact that more plants will consume the CO2, nevermind the fact more plants cool the earth due to shade, nevermind the fact that more water in the ecosystem due to the ice melting means more rain and therefore more plants --- and more clouds which leads to shade and therefore more cooling? Nevermind the fact that the amount of CO2 man has produced is insignificant, that the only thing that we do create is smog and acid rain. You would have a stronger argument if you kept with just the "lets clean the air/water argument", but no you have to send Al Gore to scare people in thinking that global warming will destroy the earth and its all due to man. You have to make it into a religion in order to convince people government has to take rights away in order to save the planet.
conservative
January 30, 2007 - 15:43 ET by cjkinseyThere are so many good arguments. But more water is not a premise I can buy, and more water is not a good thing in terms of the global tempature, vs H2O in ice form.
what? what do you mean mor
January 30, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Conservative Voicewhat? what do you mean more water is not a premise you can buy? It seems to contradict your next statement that water (ice) does effect global warming. (You ignore that the southern polar region is growing in its ice btw) If the ice melts it creates more water in liquid and gas form. That is science and is not something you can make a case against. With more water more plants and more clouds. Hence shade and more consumption of CO2. More CO2 is consumed by the ocean than all the forests combined...because of the plant life in the ocean. This is also fact. Stop teaching your religion and just discuss the facts!
CV, also, assuming the ice ca
January 30, 2007 - 18:27 ET by MikeBCV, also, assuming the ice caps melt and the sea level rises, that would mean there would be more ocean surface area. Most of the CO2 to Oxygen cycle occurs by plankton respiration. Therefore, if global warming melts the icecaps, there would be a much larger area available for plankton to photosynthesize and remove carbon from the atmosphere, resulting in global cooling, which would lock water up in polar ice caps causing a fall in sea level, resulting in a much smaller surface area for plankton to photosynthesize, allowing a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere....and so on. This presupposes that CO2 leads temperature rises instead of lagging. There is evidence that carbondioxide levels actually lag rising temperatures.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
which is why I don't think
January 30, 2007 - 19:57 ET by Conservative Voicewhich is why I don't think CO2 is a factor in global warming, the earth does a fantastic job regulating CO2 levels. However, without the CO2 argument their claim that we caused it is thrown out...which is why they hang on to it with such religious fervor.
what? what do you mean m
January 30, 2007 - 20:13 ET by Jack Bauerwhat? what do you mean more water is not a premise you can buy?
It means he is way past his comprehension level which currently rests on "Duh"
Jack
January 31, 2007 - 20:22 ET by cjkinseyThis had to do with an arugment for increased rains. I should have been more clear. I agree.
I'll ask you againSeeing
January 30, 2007 - 20:09 ET by Jack BauerI'll ask you again
Seeing you know so much about CO2, perhaps you could tell me...
#1. What percentage of all the Carbon Dioxide released into the atmophere annually is "man-made"?
#2.
How much Carbon Dioxide did the British goverment recently trumpet that
they "saved" in 2004. Despite the fact that they still failed to "save"
what they agreed to "save" under the Kyoto agreement which the British
parliament ratified.
Jack
January 31, 2007 - 20:18 ET by cjkinseyI could look these up, but what is your point?
Is he suggesting you are actu
January 31, 2007 - 20:23 ET by NL207Is he suggesting you are actually ignorant of the facts?
How could he be so rude!
Seeing you know so much a
January 30, 2007 - 14:40 ET by Jack BauerSeeing you know so much about CO2, perhaps you could tell me...
#1. What percentage of all the Carbon Dioxide released into the atmophere annually is "man-made"?
#2. How much Carbon Dioxide did the British goverment recently trumpet that they "saved" in 2004. Despite the fact that they still failed to "save" what they agreed to "save" under the Kyoto agreement which the British parliament ratified.
Surely you also realize that
January 30, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveSurely you also realize that when people disagree with your views, they may not be wrong as well?
There are so many unknown variables that affect/cause weather and climate change it is pretty ridiculous to try passing off anthropogenic global warming as scientific fact, when it's mostly made up of interpolated circumstantial evidence and conjecture buttressed by media "polls" that are written and designed to show the desired outcome and to shape public opinion by fooling people that can't think for themselves that mankind ("evil" Americans specifically) is cooking the earth with CO2 and other pollutants.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Mean Gene
January 30, 2007 - 12:43 ET by cjkinseyAbsolutely agree, I don't think things are clearly decided in terms of how exactly we got here or even that the answer or response is clear. But this is clearly an attempt to support not believing, by the bandwagon/mass numbers claim. If discussions were taken in depth and with thought and support, I would have no issue. In fact would gladly participate in the discussion on this and other topics.
This is not an attempt to sup
January 30, 2007 - 13:12 ET by mattmThis is not an attempt to support not believing (in global warming) by the bandwagon/mass numbers claim, it's an attempt to show how the media use polls to push an agenda by burying (or not reporting) items in the polls they cite which contradict the agenda they're trying to push.
matt exactly
January 30, 2007 - 13:58 ET by cjkinseyAnd there is nothing in the poll that is contradictory. It is not contradictory to have people not believe/know something. It only shows what they know.
Whatever... The point is, Noe
January 30, 2007 - 14:08 ET by mattmWhatever...
The point is, Noel's post demonstrates media bias in the way polls are abused.
cjkinsey
January 30, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Noel SheppardCJ,
I actually believe this is extremely pertinent, but likely not for the reasons you are intimating. What the above link proves is that there is indeed bias in reporting, and that people's views are impacted by said bias.
For instance, we could look at another event in 2003, gauge the reporting of that event by the same news organizations that this WPO piece used, and come to the same conclusion, except in this case the left would find it quite distasteful.
If we looked at the reports surrounding the president's proposed tax cuts that year, we would likely find that folks who predominantly got their news from NPR and PBS would have expected a recession to follow said cuts. By contrast, those who predominantly used FNC as their news source likely would have anticipated a strong economic recovery subsequent to said cuts.
As we have now had 21 consecutive quarters of economic growth, and 39 straight months of non-farm payroll gains, who would be right? ns
noel
January 30, 2007 - 13:56 ET by cjkinseyUnfortunately, your comments depend upon the economic principle of "Ceteris Paribus." Which means all things remain constant, and unfortunately the world doesn't work that way. There were another of other factors that we must take into consideration. Namely the debt and the deficit.
Also this is something that is very complex and not a right and a wrong. Compared with this historical data, on questions that are right and wrong, and have some historical basis.
All things being equal
January 30, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Uncle Johnyour comments depend upon the economic principle of "Ceteris Paribus"
I bet you spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
ROTFLMAO!!!!Gun Safety Tip #8
January 30, 2007 - 14:13 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveROTFLMAO!!!!
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
CJ
January 30, 2007 - 14:31 ET by Noel SheppardCJ,
Forgive me, and with all potentially due respect -- the jury is still out on that -- your answer is an absurdity. If we measure a good economy exclusively by declining federal debt, our nation has been in recession since 1960: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm. Furthermore, there have only been eight years in the last 75 that our government operated without an "on-budget" deficit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf.
In your view, has the economy been receding for 67 of the last 75 years?
Be advised, if this is going to be the nature of discussions with you, I shall pass. ns
Noel
January 30, 2007 - 14:47 ET by cjkinseyIf what is going to be the nature of my discussion, based on complexity. Yes I am afraid that it is not so simple to say we decreased taxes and the economy did well.
I am not saying that the debt or the deficit is the only measure, but I meantioned those as other factors to consider in your analysis. I know you are thoughtful, I just wanted to add some factors to your analysis.
How long will it be before th
January 30, 2007 - 12:26 ET by Mica the MagnificentHow long will it be before the libs in congress begin buzzing about giving cash to the 'poor' in this country because they do not contribute to global warming?
Impose an extra tax on the middle class (and of course, the rich) who drive SUV's and have to heat homes over 1500 sq. ft. because they are responsible for a large carbon footprint gassing up the world.
Give the cash to the 'poor' as sort of a 'thank you' for their tiny carbon footprint and for not contributing to the end of the world.
The 'rich' will have a new definition when the new minimum wage of $7.25 is passed into law. That will be the 'living wage' and anyone who earns more than 'the living wage' will be considered 'rich.' - The soon to be announced 'fairness in taxation' bill
Mica
January 30, 2007 - 12:46 ET by cjkinseySo are you saying the evidence is wrong because of the potential response to the information?
You are trying to avoid one question, by raising another.
What we are saying is that gi
January 30, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhat we are saying is that given all of the unknowns in climate change, we don't have ENOUGH evidence to make policies that tree-huggers "think" might reverse climate change (which would still be climate change, wouldn't it?).
Is it a good idea to recycle? Certainly.
Is it a good idea to convert to energy sources that have zero emissions (like nuclear power)? Absolutely.
Is it a good idea to walk to the corner store, or other nearby places instead of driving? Of course it is.
However, we shouldn't be forced to do these things by the government through taxation or otherwise, especially when some of the very people that are advocating government mandated environmentalism happen to be some of the worst offenders (i.e. Gore flying EVERYWHERE rather than making conference calls, or visiting selected places and maintaining multiple (and very large) households).
I'm not saying the evidence is necessarily wrong, it is just very far from complete or definitive.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Mean Gene
January 30, 2007 - 14:51 ET by cjkinseyAgain I think this is reasonable, but the tone of this article. the comments and dicussion has been one of supporting a position of knowledge against the theory and not one of searching for answers.
We can always find points of criticism, but what would be better is to find where we agree and how we can work together. Because in the end I do think our goals are the same.
dear cj
January 31, 2007 - 01:18 ET by SportPoliticsDear cj, whining about getting along doesn't go over to well when you're a global warming left wing wacko, who can't answer anything straight.
I see MikeB has again been left hanging, as well as others. I have nothing good to say to you, other than you're an insane left wing wacko, and it shows. The solution is you swallowing your pride, and admitting the left is on a lying crusade, for the very reasons all the conservatives outlined here.
I wouldn't have this opinion, except that you have completely failed to answer at all on many occassions in this very thread alone, and when you do answer, it amounts to more whining and avoidance of any of the points and facts cited. I've seen this a dozen other times here, by dozens of insane left wing wackos like yourself.
Start with the warming planets listed, and explain just that to me. Sorry to say that alone blows the GW Bush oil psychotic freak binge out of the water, and into outer space.
You people make being a fool a profession. Maybe your dark forces of world equality at the expense of the USA can threaten the scientists who post that other planets warming data, and have it removed from the internet, and stricken from all available government documents. Good luck, you da***d kookballs. When you people actually answer any questions, the world will explode.
CJ
January 30, 2007 - 13:22 ET by Jimbo"You are trying to avoid one question, by raising another"
CJ – you can’t be serious. If I thought it would amount to a hill of beans in terms of being able to draw you away from the dark side, I would go back through your posts and remind you that doing what you are describing is your method of operation! Thanks for the laugh though!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Read it, know it, live it.
January 30, 2007 - 13:27 ET by Uncle JohnRead it, know it, live it.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
John
January 30, 2007 - 14:12 ET by cjkinseyWhat is it that you want known and lived? That the world is more complex than portayed. Absolutely. Far more complex than good and evil.
This is an excellent start to an article and discussion, but then the ending is an extrapolation on statistics. And this is where it breaks down. And it supports ignoring what we do know with high probablities, because of some combination of things we can't say.
What I know is that there are some real questions to be asked and discussed and that they frequently are not the ones we spend our time on.
Read it, know it, live it.
January 30, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Uncle JohnRead it, know it, live it.
Um, that would be what one might call a "figure of speech".
I don't know you from Adam, and I don't particularly care to, but I certainly know obfuscatory, posturing, and possibly disingenuous BS when I see it.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make by posting on this topic? That global warming is a "fact" and it's your mission to try to gadfly us into realizing just how wrong we are if we don't buy into that particular interpretation, based on an infinitesimal amount of data gathered by a young and still relatively unsophisticated science? Or are you trying to show off how smart you think you are in a feeble attempt to get more traffic on your "imnotsosureiknowwhatimtalkingabout" blog?
Either way, I'm not buying what you appear to be selling. Next.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
A Respone to Mr. Kinsey et al (with a nod to Mean Gene)
January 30, 2007 - 13:51 ET by PSPCplMr. Kinsey, most of us here agree that there is such a thing as global warming. we know from the evidence that the earth has experienced at least six Ice Ages. Anyone with a lick of sense can see that for there to be successive ice ages means that there had to be successive warming ages. The issues that I have deal are as follows.
1) The scientists have no yardstick to measure the effects of man's activities on the climate in a FACTUAL way. Their OPINIONS are based on climate models that in turn are based on data that is far from complete. The climate models themsleves are suspect in that they have been simplified because they cannot handle all of the variables involved. This leads one to question which variables were deemed more important than others and who made those determinations.
2) Climate modeling is much like economic forcasting: the models can be made to do anything you want depending on how you play with the variables involved, i.e., you can make a model do what ever you want it to by fudging with the variables. Again, who is doing the fudging? Why is no one admitting that a model can be fooled with and does not represent truth?
3) Why is it that no one has looked at or taken into account the effects that a cycling Sun has on the climate. How can anyone not think that the Sun does not have a cycle that it goes through as it radiates energy out into space? Yet, we have no definitve data sets that deal with this nor has anyone I have listened to had anything to say about this. All they talk about is what man is doing to the climate. I think we can safely assume that the Sun's output of energy is cyclic in nature and not constant.
4) Given the monumental forces involved, how arrogant is it that we think that we can do anything to maintain the climate at a constant on this planet? Our climate is cyclic: any idiot who can read and see the evidence of six ice ages can see this. What can do to stopper a massive volcano (let alone be able to predict when one will go off)? What can we do to prevent a massive asteroid from striking the earth? What can we do to maintain a constant flow of energy from the sun? It is the height of scientific and political arrogance to think we can do anything to affect these cylces.
5) When I see a "Dr. Smith" with a Ph.D in SOCIOLOGY signing onto the debate on climatology using his title to add weight to his views, I have a deep reluctance to accept anything he has to say about climatology (which is something we here have noticed about a great number of the so-called scientists weighing in on the debate).
6) Whenever I see that anyone wants to use some issue to deprive me of my freedom in any way in order to make "us" more secure from something, I have grave doubts that he cares for my "security". This is a person(s) who are more interested in forcing me to live my life according to their rules. This is a person(s) who have the megolomania necessary to think that they know what is right for me and that I must live my life accordingly.
Accordingly, Sir, there is no reason to debate what changes must be made in order to "save the earth". What must occur first is that the scientific community must agree with more certainty than I see currently that there is a problem, that the problem can be solved, and what can be done to solve the problem. At that point we can begin debating what to do if anything to solve it.
I nod to you in return
January 30, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWell put. Thanks.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
PSCPcl
January 30, 2007 - 14:28 ET by cjkinseyVery thoughtful and well delineated. I think you are right that there is incredible complexity here and the nature of the model and its assumptions in crucial.
1. and 2. Agree there is some flexibility here in the model and what is measured. There are some features that can certainly be pointed to in support of some of those measures, however this is clearly a reasonable debate. I give you all the props on this.
3. I think you are right with this question, I don't have the answer on the measurements of these cycles. I would suggest that since we don't have any way of effecting the output of the sun, we are not focusing our energies there, but instead on the activities that we do have control over.
4. OK, there is some arrogance, but then there is no reason to put our minds and our efforts to effecting what we can. I think we are at least responsible to our future generations, to not determine for them what they can do with their lives. And to do our best to ensure they get that life. Rights are important, but we have precedents for not allowing certain activites. A discussion of rights would take much longer. I am open to it, we can find a location.
5. agreed, but my interest is not based on Dr. Smith.
6. see 4
"I would suggest that si
January 30, 2007 - 14:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"I would suggest that since we don't have any way of effecting the output of the sun, we are not focusing our energies there, but instead on the activities that we do have control over."
One of my debates to your comment is: What if it is ALL the sun (as it has been in past global warming periods)? Then nothing we try will make any difference. Do we REALLY have control over those things that you think we do?
Like I said earlier about recycling, clean energy, and less energy consumption, we should be doing those things because it is good sense and economical, not because we think it will reverse or slow climate trends. It truly is arrogant to think that humans can solve everything that we think is a problem. Could global warming be nature's (or God's) way of keeping the world's population under control as so many in the GW crowd also believe the earth is overpopulated? The GW crowd is usually firm believers in evolution, and worrying about GW seems contradictory to me if natural selection, adaptability and survival of the fittest are true and is constantly happening. Is the GW crowd fearful that they might not survive GW? Isn't that what evolution is all about? Only the organisms that deserve to exist continue to exist?
I think it would be more productive for us to actually do something about things we can control like abolishing the IRS and re-vamping the tax code to a flat or consumption tax. Those things we definitely can change if we put enough effort and pressure on our lawmakers.
We can change the welfare system to lead people into productive lives rather than breeding welfare dependencies.
We can privatize social security so I can take care of myself in retirement instead of hoping the government will give me a fraction of what I paid into the system.
We can build more (and extremely safe) nuclear power plants (which would reduce air pollution significantly in the U.S.) to provide clean and affordable energy (which BTW can easily be exported to Canada and Mexico).
There are hundreds of things we can control and change...let's focus on those rather than the Chicken Little pipe-dreams.
As for the climate, there just isn't enough unbiased and credible evidence to know if there is anything we can do to change it.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
In your response to number 4
January 30, 2007 - 15:40 ET by danboIn your response to number 4 you state there is no reason to effecting what we can. For our children.
I beg to differ. We once ran off half cocked over DDT. Some of the science we were told; has proven to be false. Millions died because of that. That may well be a down payment for what we pay over a poorly thought out "theory" of anthropogenic global warming. Which igniores natural cycles, the sun, water vapor and the oceanic oscillations. (Some of the gorillas in the room.)
Of course if we don't care that people died due to the disuse of DDT. We won't care if people die to control CO2..
We can say we saved the future. While standing on the graves of those we killed.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Did you support the Iraq invasion?
January 30, 2007 - 15:55 ET by cjkinseyDid you support the Iraq invasion? Are you really purporting an argument about people being killed?
Don't know a way to fight a w
January 30, 2007 - 17:05 ET by danboDon't know a way to fight a war without people dying. Like wise if you sit back and did nothing as we did in Nanking and Rwanda, and as Saddam killed his own people. People died.
People died at the holy grail of the environmentalist before. DDT. And will die again at their holy grail of the CO2 molecule. While ignoring a lot of scientific minds. Just as they ignored the science that disagreed with them over DDT.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Danbo again smears all enviro
February 1, 2007 - 22:07 ET byDanbo again smears all enviromentalists. But DDT was never banned for insect control. It was banned for agricultural use. Because widespread agro spraying of DDT created resistence in mosquitos, the agro DDT ban saved lives by ensuring DDT's efficacy would last longer.
But a lie and a smear counts for more than the truth.
CJ - I really do appreciate t
January 30, 2007 - 22:54 ET by Chicago RepublicanCJ - I really do appreciate the calm, reasoned approach you take to debating on this site. That is a refreshing change to what we are used to here.
The difference between the Iraq invasion and the removal of DDT is the historical precedent. Appeasing tyrants always leads to more war and oppression. That's why we removed Saddam. Lamenting the removal of DDT and the death that it has lead to is something quite different.
The problem cjkinsey, is that no Liberal cared about Iraqis
January 30, 2007 - 23:06 ET by acaiguanaThe problem cjkinsey, is that no Liberal cared about Iraqis before we 'invaded'.
See?
Now they 'lamant' the deaths. What's that all about?
It is about US domestic politics and the attempt to shape a 'herd mentality' that the US is such a big bad guy. Liberals turn everything into a struggle for power inside the United States for total control of the government.
That's what it is about.
To try to obfuscate the real goal of the War in Iraq by detaching it from the War on Terror is disingenous at best and a deliberate attempt to distract from the milestone events that are occuring on a global scale against Islamic Terrorists. Those are the enemy.
Whether people die in Iraq today (as opposed to the great numbers dying under Saddam) is really not the big question here. The big question here is whether the US will prevail in a war against a rather ragtag group of people who are trying to disrupt the Iraqi fledgling government in order to encourage the American Public from supporting this war against them.
The enemy is being beaten. They know this. They cannot sustain any type of long-term effort and get weaker daily. The longer we press the advantage against them the stronger the government of Iraq becomes and as it learns to be a multi-political democracy (get it, learn?) it will more and more be able to deal with threats from both within and without.
But to expect the Iraqis to go from chaos imposed by Saddam's 'death or my way' type rule to a free society overnight is not only unrealistic but unfair to the Iraqi people themselves.
:-)
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Please
January 30, 2007 - 23:17 ET by SportPoliticsThe word to be used is "affecting". I see everyone repeated your mistake. Thanks.
About them fires - forest fires, that is...
January 30, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Gary HallNASA - Interesting tid-bit..... (my bold for emphasis)
"The scientists also determined almost all the increased levels of carbon dioxide and methane measured during 1997 and 1998 could be attributed to the worldwide fires at the time, underscoring the impact El Nino has on greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon is stored in vegetation, and when the vegetation burns, the carbon returns to the atmosphere."
A fascinating view of US pollution (oops, wait, it's not us so much!)
Yeah, so? Americans aren't co
January 30, 2007 - 14:22 ET by Agnostic frontYeah, so? Americans aren't convinced by evolution either. Dumb sh*ts.
I'm pretty sure you're a
January 30, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Jack BauerI'm pretty sure you're a 1st generation chimp descendant.
Geez, Jack.Here we go again..
January 30, 2007 - 14:27 ET by BlondeGeez, Jack.
Here we go again....
BlondeThat's it for me. I
January 30, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Jack BauerBlonde
That's it for me. I think we can all laugh at him now!
Agreed. At least the big ch
January 30, 2007 - 14:33 ET by BlondeAgreed. At least the big chimp from yesterday was somewhat amusing.
I consider it sad. "The
January 30, 2007 - 16:09 ET by danboI consider it sad.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Absolutely. Me and the Comman
January 30, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Agnostic frontAbsolutely. Me and the Commander-in-Chimp.
You should be writing mat
January 30, 2007 - 14:42 ET by Jack BauerYou should be writing material for Kerry. You're that good.
Anything you say, General, Si
January 30, 2007 - 14:44 ET by Agnostic frontAnything you say, General, Sir.
jack and Blonde
January 30, 2007 - 14:55 ET by cjkinseyWhat about actually trying to provide some evidence towards anything you believe in/ or think you know. It is easy to call someone names.
Agnostic, don't get sucked into the name calling. Just lay out the evidence.
well put, CJ.
January 30, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Chicago Republicanwell put, CJ.
See? If only you spent your t
January 30, 2007 - 14:46 ET by Roger the ShrubberSee? If only you spent your time more judiciously, even a poo-flinging, termite-eating, tree-humping chimp like you can become president!
So, science is a popularity c
January 30, 2007 - 14:38 ET by UnsaneSo, science is a popularity contest?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
If it was, we'd be teaching c
January 30, 2007 - 14:39 ET by Agnostic frontIf it was, we'd be teaching creationism in school right along side actual science.
On science
January 30, 2007 - 14:47 ET by UnsaneIn some states, perhaps. But Leftists truly believe that science is either 1) a popularity contest or 2) extremely dogmatic, with severe penalties in store for those who dare speak out against the accepted orthodoxy.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
we do teach religion in sch
January 30, 2007 - 14:49 ET by Conservative Voicewe do teach religion in school as science...i.e. global warming. Here is what would be correct in school.
Fact, as we see with these models we can come to these conclusions. But here are the assumptions we are making. But the reality is they show Al Gore's film as fact in science.
Conservative voice
January 30, 2007 - 14:57 ET by cjkinseyBelief in something is not the same as religion. Religion is based on faith, in other words regardless of evidence. A belief can be based on evidence, support and reasoning.
definitions
January 30, 2007 - 15:01 ET by misterbillreligion:
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Hmmmmmm???!!!!
be·lief –noun 1.somethin
January 30, 2007 - 20:15 ET by Roger the Shrubberbe·lief –noun 1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
re·li·gion –noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Try again, Sparky.
James 1:27 Pure religion and
January 30, 2007 - 20:28 ET by Eric TurnerJames 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Seen and Unseen, Agnostic and CJ
January 31, 2007 - 14:43 ET by PSPCplFaith is based to some extent on belief without evidence, but not entirely so. Any intelligent believer will tell you that they require some evidence to base their faith upon. Given some of the THEORIES in science today (Darwin's Theory, The Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc), it takes a lot of faith to take these THEORIES and treat them as facts and laws. The probelm I have is the hypocracy of the scientific set that disavows that they have faith and that science does not require or act on faith. If they didn't, we would have never made it past the hunter/gather phase and would still be living in the trees yes, I happen to believe in evolution, but view it as part of God's plan).
PSP - evolution
January 31, 2007 - 14:51 ET by misterbill"yes, I happen to believe in evolution, but view it as part of God's plan."
I am in agreement. I see no reason why His plan would not include evolution. Perhaps I am oversimplifying my faith, but I don't understand why it has to be "either or" in the answer.
I'm right there with you on t
January 31, 2007 - 15:31 ET by Uncle JohnI'm right there with you on this, and it's not oversimplifying anything to hold that opinion.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
misterbill...about Jesus (and anyone else)
January 31, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasFirst question: Do you believe in the Jesus of the Bible, specifically that he was real?
Second question: If you do believe in the Jesus of the Bible and that he was real then obviously you believe the account of his birth which includes his genealogy.
So at what point, if evolution is figurative, analogous or for literarary purposes and not intended to communicate a factual account of the creation or coming into existence of mankind...at what point did these figurative people suddenly become real and have non-figurative offspring...i.e. literal human beings.
After all, Dr. Luke does us the favor of providing the lineage of from Adam to Christ. If Christ is real and this is his genealogy, then his forefathers can't be figurative characters who magically produce a literal being. Of course if one conveniently claims the genealogy if flawed then the account of Christ is flawed and why would one believe in Christ ever living per the Bible with such grand flaws. It is self-defeating if you ask me.
So to anyone, go to Luke and start with the Jesus you believe in and work backwards and each time say yes, I believe he was real, yes, him to...and so on and so on...until you come to the figurative person you don't believe is real and explain how he managed to produce the decendant before him you believe was real.
But just a question that remains reasonably answered.
P.S. For the record I believe in the genesis account of creation, a young humanity but an old earth based on a careful exegesis of Genesis 1.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Your not, they have nothing to do with each other
January 31, 2007 - 22:20 ET by cjkinseyProof of evolution would say nothing about a creator?
Proof of the big bang theory would say nothing about a creator?
In fact proof of the big bang, would neither prove or disprove evolution.
Whether your more convinced by the big bang or evolution, there still had to be the origin of the material in the first place.
I have believed for a long time that people have purported evolution simply because they thought it provided them some reason to no believe in a creator.
Absolutely. It takes BLIND
January 31, 2007 - 14:56 ET by JerryAbsolutely. It takes BLIND faith to believe that life just came into being on it's own.
It takes blind faith to believe that "information" came out of thin air. What is DNA? A complicated code, information in it's most complex form.
It takes blind faith to believe that this simple single cell somehow mutated into the billions of life forms that populate our planet, despite the fact that "mutations" are caused by a loss of genetic information, resulting in flaws and deformities.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
You have to admit there some
January 30, 2007 - 15:02 ET by Agnostic frontYou have to admit there some scientific evidence to support the proposition that there is a causal connection between humans and global warming. Even if you believe that we are not the main cause. There is no scientific evidence which supports creationism. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No one has ever seen the "Creator." Unless the creator is Dick Cheney. Then everything I said is wrong.
We don't know
January 30, 2007 - 15:07 ET by UnsaneMy take is that we simply don't know if we are causing, well, anything on a GLOBAL scale. But what do you suggest we do to alleviate this horrible catastrophe? Stop farming?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Two suggestions: (1) Signific
January 30, 2007 - 15:18 ET by Agnostic frontTwo suggestions:
(1) Significantly raise the C.A.F.E. standards; and
(2) Replace coal-burning power plants with a combination of nuclear, solar and wind energy plants.
Lots of other measures we can take, but we're too god*amn lazy and/or stubborn.
Another point, you stated that global warming as caused by humans was not science and should therefore not be taught in school as an argument that, apparently, creationism should be taught? Confused logic.
Many of the ideas you have su
January 30, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Roger the ShrubberMany of the ideas you have suggested are not feasible financially yet. When they are, the free market will embrace it. However, there are some ideas that the Left doesn't seem to want to embrace, like clean-burning coal. You say "we" are too stubborn and/or lazy. I say we are being trying to balance flipping out over a THEORY of global warming with not ruining our economy.
Many of the your suggestions are held back by BOTH sides of the aisle. You want to wag your finger at all of us dumb neo-cons, but it is people like Teddy Kennedy who would not allow wind power to ruin his view of Nantucket Sound..
As for Man causing Global Warming (what is this week's catch-phrase?), sure, Man affects the climate, in small ways. The main beef that many "Global Deniers" have is that the goal of the majority of the Global-Warmingistas is to punish the United States financially. The "experts" agree that the Kyoto Protocol is just an attempt to extort cash from the USA, using "American Guilt" to procure money, and the net result will be dropping the temperature a miniscule amount.
Finally, man, you are fixated on "creationism". Move on, will you? It is just like abortion. You will not win a debate with someone diametrically opposed to you, so why waste your time? You do not come off sound mentally or morally superior over the Creationists here at NB; you just come off sounding like a whiny little punk looking for a fight.
Point taken with the Creation
January 30, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Agnostic frontPoint taken with the Creationist, It just sticks in my craw, as they say.
I am not necessarily blaming neo-cons for not wanting to improve the environment or lessen our dependence on foreign energy supplies. I think both parties are too comfortable in where they are. Liberals are absolutely against any thought of building new nuke plants. I really think they could be a viable alternative.
BTW, maybe I am a whiny little punk. What's it to you?
Haha. You just don't intimida
January 30, 2007 - 16:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberHaha. You just don't intimidate anybody when you bitch about creationism. I mean, what tough guy debates creationism? What's next, arguing over the best "Sex in the City" episode?
I agree with you about comfort. Neither side wants to budge on oil drilling, nukes, etc..
When I think of Global Warming (which IS the new religion of the Left), I chuckle at the thought that Man can affect the climate in such a drastic way. All this hand-wringing and kvetching over reducing our "carbon footprint" would be completely wiped out with one eruption of a volcano in Monsterat or Indonesia. I find it rather arrogant.
Two suggestions: (1) Signific
January 30, 2007 - 15:18 ET by Agnostic frontFreddie "The Rake" Sanchez rips a double.
On glorious markets and evolution
January 30, 2007 - 15:28 ET by UnsaneLeave the CAFE standards the hell alone and let the markets take care of it. For instance:
It seems that there is something of a building boom deep inside Loop 610 in Houston. The reason? People are starting to get sick of driving 50-60 miles round trip; so they are beginning to drift closer to where they work. Which means less driving, which means more conservation. All that being done because the market is making life in suburbia a little unpleasant.
Your silly attempt to force people to do what you want will only result in long unemployment lines and untold misery for many others. But then, what Leftist doesn't want to control every aspect of life?
If anyone has the confused logic, it is the Left. I believe that evolution is the best possible explanation currently available, but I am open to scientific evidence to prove otherwise. As I am open to the idea that global warming might be influenced in some small way by man. I am open to the possibilities because that is what science dictates. You would rather force everyone to believe as you believe. Do you advocate that, say, a middle school student who asks any questions about either evolution or global warming should be severely beaten by either the teacher or the principal in full view of the class as an example to others?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
The ole "let the markets
January 30, 2007 - 15:44 ET by Agnostic frontThe ole "let the markets take care of it." If the government didn't regulate business, Wal-Mart would soon be the sole provider of all goods in the U.S. Sherman Act, anyone? As for global warming, I am open to the possibility that we do not affect the environment as much as I currently believe we are. As for evolution, however, there is not one credible shred of evidence that demonstrates any other viable theory. In fact, the more scientists learn about it, the more evolution is reinforced.
What is wrong with Wal-Mart o
January 30, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhat is wrong with Wal-Mart or any company being a sole provider? My father was the sole provider in our household. He isn't perfect, but he did it well, in fact he did it better than any of my brothers and my mother could--even if we combined our efforts. Was that unfair to my mother and brothers and me? I didn't mind not having to work 10+ hours a day as a child and I could pursue my own interests.
The fact is that Wal-Mart's growth creates jobs. They provide invaluable service to millions of people world-wide. There will always be niche companies that do some things better than Wal-Mart can such as product knowledge, specialized products, and more personal customer service. Wal-Mart only puts other businesses out of business because the smaller business cannot do what Wal-Mart can do with equal efficiency/they fail to adapt to their customer's needs, so they lose their customers to Wal-Mart, not because Wal-Mart is evil, but because the smaller company failed their customers.
If government regulates businesses as much as you would like, the ultimately the government becomes the sole provider. I'd much rather see Wal-Mart the sole provider than the government on any given day.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
On capitalism
January 30, 2007 - 16:23 ET by UnsaneThe ole "let the markets take care of it" always works. Or course, you want to change the subject and cry about how evil and unfair Wal-Mart is, when they employ thousands of people and allow me and others the opportunity to buy products there cheaper.
Just because of crybabies like you who hate capitalism, I do what I can to spend MORE money at Wal-Mart, because they are a great American success story. I suggest if you hate them so much, you have few options:
Instead of plotting on how to get the government to do what you lack the guts to do yourself (steal from them), do this:
1) Don't f*!#ing shop there,
2) Create a retailer that can compete against them and can deliver the goods better,
or 3) buy enough stock in the company to change it from within.
Funny how you worship government, an entity that has killed more people than a single corporation can manage to in a 100 years, like a panacea.
Anyways, you don't have to believe me, but I suggest you fly to Houston sometime and walk around its mid-town section. People really don't like spending entire paychecks on the drive, or having to put up with endless construction (like the Katy Freeway), tolls, or just having a mind-numbing commute every day. Just those factors alone are causing a boom inside Loop 610 (the heart of Houston for those not in the know). Benign market factors are making this happen. Of course, you would rather round up everyone at the point of a gun and FORCE them to make that decision, and exterminate those who disagree with Agnostic Front.
But I like what the market is doing so much better.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
How do you expect someone to
January 30, 2007 - 15:17 ET by mattmHow do you expect someone to agree that there is some evidence supporting human-caused global warming when you won't admit that there is at least some evidence that supports creationism?
Genetics, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, polonium radiohalos, probability, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and on and on and on.... There is MORE evidence for divine creation than for the philosophy of evolution ...that is if you care to educate yourself about it.
Evolution was not postulated because scientific evidence compelled it, it was postulated because of the philosophical problem of how to account for the existence of the universe outside the existence of a supernatural creator... i.e. Evolution is a religious concept, not a scientific one.
a good indication of someth
January 30, 2007 - 15:46 ET by Conservative Voicea good indication of something to be a religion is when you have zealots. Environmental whackos are as crazy as the taliban. I can see no difference in the amount of passion and emotion between the two.
Wow. Care to explain, as I kn
January 30, 2007 - 15:59 ET by Agnostic frontWow. Care to explain, as I know you can, how genetics backs up the myth of creationsim?
Your existence lends credence
January 30, 2007 - 16:05 ET by kathleenirishYour existence lends credence to the concept of life crawling out of the swamp, that's for sure.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
I don't have time to get into
January 30, 2007 - 18:41 ET by mattmI don't have time to get into an in depth discussion with someone as obviously as arrogant and closed-minded as you.
Suffice it to say, there has never been an observed mutation that wasn't either harmful or fatal to the individual who developed or acquired it...and I'm not talking about bacterial resistence to antibiotics and the like, because those aren't real mutations, they are merely the sorting of populations...
Can you show me how genetics proves evolution? Didn't think so... bye now.
OK, AF, you've really piqued
January 30, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Chicago RepublicanOK, AF, you've really piqued my curiousity. How is the field of genetics incompatible with Creationism?
AF - there is a completely di
January 30, 2007 - 23:01 ET by Chicago RepublicanAF - there is a completely different standard for proving Creationism. Creationism is a tenant of Scripture, which is scrutinized by historical rather than scientific evaluation. You can only say that Creationism is incompatible with science by proving specifically that Creationism conflicts with a proven law of science.
Being by undergraduate degree
January 30, 2007 - 16:05 ET by danboBeing by undergraduate degree was in anthropology, I feel I must speak out this issure as this smoke screen keeps getting thrown out. The slurs over evolution.
I'm secure in the evidence on evolution. And have no problems with people disagreeing with me. Seems you do. And would like to silence them. Does the dumb sh*ts tell me about the shallowness of your ability to argue the science? Bigotry?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
The biggest greenhouse gas is
January 30, 2007 - 17:16 ET by upcountrywaterThe biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor. The suns energy has increased .05% per decade over several decades. ( space.com). Humans energy output in 2004 was 15 TW . The sun's energy that whacks this puny planet is 174,000 TW. Multiply that by .05% and one gets 87 TW. The earth itself radiates 44 TW. Just maybe we Americans know the truth, this is a good thing :)
Up Country
January 31, 2007 - 14:53 ET by PSPCplThanks for the information. I wonder why no one in the media has advertised this information (sarcasm, heavy sarcasm)? I need to send it to my daughter's science teacher who somehow decided that she needed to show al-Gore's film to her class as some kind of teaching device (and not the good one, i.e, showing all viewpoints). I will look forward to her response.