New Poll: 56 Percent of British Aren’t Buying Global Warming Hooey

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 3, 2007 - 08:48 ET

So, the debate’s over?

Well, not so fast, ‘cause I got your consensus right here!

According to a new poll done in England, a majority of British citizens aren’t buying the science is settled nonsense that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry global warming alarmists are peddling from sea to shining sea.

For those with climate change derangement syndrome, that means in England, you’d be in the minority.

As deliciously reported Tuesday by BBC.com (h/t NB member Par for the Course):

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

That’s right, folks. The British seem wise enough to realize that this is all being exaggerated so that people can make money.

Hmmm. Maybe that’s how Gore has made $100 million dollars in the past seven years…yah think?

But, the excruciatingly exquisite punch line was yet to come (emphasis added):

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

Isn’t that spectacular? Brits feel “dog mess” is a larger concern than climate change.

How fitting. After all, what is being peddled by folks like Gore, David, Crow, and DiCaprio is a lot of canine excrement.

Noel Sheppard reporting from Boston.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you do that same study in

July 3, 2007 - 08:57 ET by jpatch

If you do that same study in the U.S., I bet the numbers come out similar.  Even though we have our loudmouth celebs and politicians here, spouting there nonsensical jabber, I'm willing to be that al least 50% of Americans will call B.S. on Al and his giant, greasy dollar bill filled head. 

I still can't believe he named his book "The Assault on Reason" - can we name that as a finalist for the "Hypocrite of the Year Award?" 

JP,I'm quite sure that at lea

July 3, 2007 - 09:23 ET by Full Monte

JP,

I'm quite sure that at least 50% of Americans would raise the BS flag on big Al. However, there is only one major US news source that would find this information newsworthy...

If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking - General George S. Patton

Global Warming

July 3, 2007 - 10:02 ET by Polazerus

I am not sure I agree with that.  America seems to be infected with self loathing.  I work for a Global corporation most of which is in North America that took an internal survey on this topic.  80% thought this was a major problem that we needed to address as a company.  It is very scary seeing as how we are supposed to be leading the industry with our "superior" scientific knowledge.  If you ask me I think they see the dollar signs.  I just wish they would admit that and move on.  

Well, there is no doubt in my

July 3, 2007 - 10:16 ET by jpatch

Well, there is no doubt in my mind that America has a definitive problem with self-loathing...but it mostly comes from the top.  It's the actors, the musicians, the comedians, who have all made preposterous amounts of money largely in part because of how our society is shaped, who do the most admonishing of "our way of life."  Even though the average person from time to time will display some show of apathy or disgust with America, they know that this is the best place in the world to be, and they're happy to be here.  Basically, the real  self-loathers are usually the ones who have extracted the most out of our society, and are shouting these ridiculous claims of corruption, conspiracy and collusion from the roof tops of their mansions and yachts.  The hate themselves because their lives are empty, and so they must displace their inner hatred onto something else.

Honestly, take a look at most successful actors, comedians, musicians...nearly all of them have had serious drug problems, serious criminal problems, and/or serious personal problems, usually stemming from one of the first two issues.  These people, who usually do the loudest squawking about America being so sh*tty, are selfish, narcissistic addicts in their own lives.  That is from where America gets most of its self-loathing attitude, in my opinion.

Brilliant idea: use public

July 3, 2007 - 09:22 ET by steve2007

Brilliant idea: use public opinion surveys to determine scientific truths.

In another poll 43% of Americans believe in Creationism... whew that was a close one!

So you agree then that claimi

July 3, 2007 - 09:29 ET by Hero Squad

So you agree then that claiming "consensus" in scientific terms is also a bunch of hooey?

A poll doesn't prove or disprove scientific theory (or in this case, scientific hypothesis) any more than it can predict an election outcome, if New Coke tastes better or if the Yankees will win the World Series this year. It does suggest that people are more skeptical about the claims of man-made global warming than the Warm-mongers would wish. And the scientific community should always welcome skepticism. It's how theories get tested and proven to be true or false.

*****

"I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a clown that gives a damn!" - Sticky the Clown

No, I don't agree with your

July 3, 2007 - 09:46 ET by steve2007

No, I don't agree with your first statement. By polling the general public, you don't learn anything about scientific consensus; for that, you would need to poll scientists.

As an aside, I keep reading here about proving or disproving a scientific theory. Fact is a scientific theory is never proved. You can obtain experimental results which are consistent with your theory, but that only tells you that your model is consistent with the results so far. Continued agreement between theory and experiment leads the theory to become accepted, and gives you confidence that its predictions are valid. On the other hand, a single result which is clearly in contradiction to your theory is sufficient to disprove it.

I have to disagree with your polling statement. Polls can certainly predict election outcomes, or things of that nature, better than the potential validity of a scientific theory. Polls ask the public who they intend to vote for, and on election day, the same people are asked to vote. When it comes to science, the people polled will not be deciding the outcome of an experiment. I agree that a poll can show the public is skeptical about a scientific theory, but I do not see the relevance in the opinion of non-experts.

I think you missed the point.

July 3, 2007 - 10:32 ET by taznar

I think you missed the point. The point is that polling scientists about science matters is not a substitute for scientific research. Nothing is "proven" because most scientists believe its true.

With regard to proving or disproving a theory, you are correct. But something that should be kept in mind is that none of the models used to make predictions about the climate have successfully been tested. Yet these unsuccessful models are the basis upon which this "consensus" was built. As someone a while back pointed out, a "scientific consensus" that is formed before the theory has even been tested, is not scientific at all.

Since we only have one Eart

July 4, 2007 - 01:21 ET by steve2007

Since we only have one Earth, it is obviously difficult to conduct an experiment. However, the basic physics underlying the theory is sound, and scientists are using computer simulations to come as close as possible to actual experiments. It should be kept in mind that this is really the only way to "test" the theory within the confines of a lab.

Moreover, the Earth is now starting to show effects of global warming, confirming predictions. Given the fact that we are limited to simulations, are you suggesting scientists should wait for even more conclusive real world tests to accept the hypothesis?

You mean, like the ones tha

July 4, 2007 - 01:29 ET by sarcasmo

You mean, like the ones that are happening on planets & moons from Mars to Titan? The ones that seem to confirm that it's the Sun rather than mankind doing this?? Computer models depend on me trusting the BS a scientist on the government's payroll -- who presumably wants to stay on said payroll and who knows what results will or won't keep him there. I don't trust 'em, and I don't trust the "Mars wobbles!" excuse either, but I'll admit it's quite creative in its desperation...
JMR

JMR,I think you replied to

July 4, 2007 - 01:37 ET by steve2007

JMR,

I think you replied to the wrong post... I commented on the sun's role a few posts down. I think it answers your questions. Why are not all of the planets heating if the sun is getting brighter? And why can't our satellites see this change in irradiance?

As for your notion of scientists being corrupt, why would drawing conclusions clearly in opposition to the Bush administration's view concerning global warming help them to stay on the government's payroll?

Also, Mars and Titan cannot be treated as controls in an experiment to test global warming. There are far too many differences between them and Earth. To conduct a proper controlled experiment, you would need multiple copies of Earth, and you would vary the amount of CO2 produced on each of them, looking at how temperature varies. This is why we have to turn to simulations.

I don't think computer mode

July 4, 2007 - 01:50 ET by sarcasmo

I don't think computer models are "controls" compared to other planets, and what planets are cooling, anyway?? I'll look for your other post, but so far your side had done 0, that's zero -- gooseegg -- to explain the sun's effect on Mars, and I don't believe the people who program your Earth simulators are unbiased. "Wobbly" won't do it for me, so if that's your excuse for what's happening on Mars, you'll need to get back to the drawing board. I think scientists are "group corrupt" just as your side no-doubt thinks anyone who gets money from Exxon-Mobil is corrupt, and for the same reasons. Finally, why do you concentrate so much on "irradiance" and ignore cycles of Sunspots and other electromagnetic activity outside the IR range? That much energy going into a system like Earth's -- even if it's not infra red -- is likely to have an effect on temperature.
JMR

The point is that other pla

July 4, 2007 - 02:34 ET by steve2007

The point is that other planets are not good controls because they have so many differences compared to Earth. Computer models are not perfect either, but at least there we can play around with the CO2 levels and see what happens.

Irradiance refers to the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area. So that includes all electromagnetic radiation; not just the infrared. Note that at the sun's temperature, the radiation peak is in the visible range (higher frequency than infrared).

The link I provided to the satellite data clearly shows the 11 year solar cycles. However, the global warming we're experiencing is clearly not on an 11 year cycle. Since you accept wikipedia, here is a link to an article on solar cycles.

I can't help you if you are fixed on your view that scientists are corrupt. I have pointed out that they are clearly not trying to appeal to the current government. All I can suggest is that you read some other sites like realclimate.org to get the scientists' point of view on the issue, and either agree with it or try to find legitimate flaws in their arguments.

"Not perfect" doe

July 4, 2007 - 02:44 ET by sarcasmo

"Not perfect" doesn't cover the problems with computer models, and until you can explain the consistent data from other planets they should NOT be ignored. Why did I have to learn about Mars and other bodies warming from a media bias-busting site, instead of the news media's countless articles about AGW?? Could it be that the news media has severe bias issues on this subject??? Might that bias, which we've repeatedly-seen, be hindering doing their job so that blogs like this had to do it for 'em? Seems logical to me. Anyway, what I like about the planets is that political scientists CAN'T "play around" with data as easily as in computer models, which is exactly what you don't-like about them.

As for corruption in science, I think it's pervasive these days, so you can't help me on that, you're right. I find politics in a lot of what's called "science" these days.
JMR

"Moreover, the Earth i

July 4, 2007 - 15:00 ET by ckc1227

"Moreover, the Earth is now starting to show effects of global warming,
confirming predictions."

One, global warming isn't even global, and two, "global warming" ended in 1998.

"Given the fact that we are limited to
simulations, are you suggesting scientists should wait for even more
conclusive real world tests to accept the hypothesis?"

Given the fact that current simulations and computer models can't even accurately predict past events, the answer to your question is yes, we should wait for more conclusive real world events before spending billions on something that may not even be happening, that probably isn't our fault if it is happening, something that we can't stop if it is happening, and something that will be a net gain world wide if it is happening.

It's true that facts aren't d

July 3, 2007 - 10:53 ET by mattm

It's true that facts aren't determined by polls. But, the relevence in this poll is that the opinion of the general public is trending away from APGW and that people will need alot more convincing if they are to buy into Al Gore's scenario. 

Whether this is due to increased public knowledge of the science of climate, or some other reason (like the untrustworthiness of someone who is making millions selling doom), is another question altogether.

As far as the "relevance of the opinion of non-experts" goes. The basics of climate change are not beyond the intellectual capacity of non-experts.  We can look at data and make our own conclusions. (and even turn out to be right about it too)

We can look at, say for one example, a chart (put together by 'experts') showing global temperature fluctuations over the past few millenia, and conclude that global temperatures fluctuate over time regardless of the prevalence of SUVs. 

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

I have seen countless poste

July 4, 2007 - 01:32 ET by steve2007

I have seen countless posters on NB bring up the Vostok charts and misinterpret them, to the point of drawing conclusions such as carbon dioxide not being a greenhouse gas. You're right that the average person should be able to understand the basics of climate change, but I think it's a stretch to expect him or her to be able to thoughtfully analyse the data.

As I have said before, climate scientists have surely studied historical fluctuations in global temperature, and they have come up with theories as to the cause (such as orbital variations). They have also determined that what we are dealing with now is a different situation. A naive examination of historical fluctuations in this case can lead to a false conclusion, which is why the general public is really not qualified to answer these questions.

So you're saying that Jaworos

July 4, 2007 - 06:57 ET by danbo

So you're saying that Jaworoski was lying to congress in 2004 when he said...

 The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B) , and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9].

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases...

But then there are no scientist who disagree with you. Which tells us you give us....

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

But, the relevance of polli

July 3, 2007 - 12:20 ET by azholmes

But, the relevance of polling the general public (GP) is that they will vote for or against the governments proposed solution. The "scientists" will be a small percentage of the GP making the decision.

Besides that, according to "warm-mongers" (I like that!) the GP are both the cause of and the solution to "Global Warming".

Steve

July 3, 2007 - 09:49 ET by Noel Sheppard

Steve,

Yes, polls are similar to flatulence: people only like the ones that support their views. Alas, I imagine if this poll identified that 90 percent of Brits believed in AGW, you'd feel differently about such surveys.

For instance, the majority of Americans think Geoge W. Bush is not doing a good job as president. Think that means he's not doing a good job?

BTW: We're all still waiting for a link to your bio and papers that you've had published concerning AGW. Is that forthcoming, or doesn't it exist?   ns

Noel,I've told you I am not

July 3, 2007 - 09:54 ET by steve2007

Noel,

I've told you I am not a climate scientist, so I have not published any papers about AGW. Have you?

My arguments should be taken as arguments; not the word of a climate scientist. They are either based on general principles or I try to provide references to back them up.

I take it as a compliment that you had me confused for a climate scientist, however. Thanks!

Steve, why are other planets

July 3, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Newsbusterbrown

Steve, why are other planets in our solar system warming up, too? When you can figure out a connection to man-made global warming, please let us know,

If you are implying that th

July 4, 2007 - 01:04 ET by steve2007

If you are implying that the other planets are warming because the sun is becoming brighter, then shouldn't all the planets be experiencing warming? That does not seem to be the case. Warming can also be explained on planets by variations in their orbits, known as Milankovitch cycles, or other mechanisms. This would seem more plausible, as warming is only seen on some planets. See here for a more detailed explanation.

More importantly, we've been measuring the irradiance of the sun with satellites, and haven't seen a sharp increase recently to correspond to our measured temperature increase on Earth.

Most importantly, however, do you actually think that scientists who study global warming would be so oblivious as to not consider increasing solar irradiance as a possible factor in warming the Earth? After completing college, graduate school, several postdocs and finally becoming professors, all of them could just miss that? And then, when it is brought to their attention by the global warming skeptics, they will consciously choose to continue to ignore it? Doubtful.

Your "detailed explana

July 4, 2007 - 02:00 ET by sarcasmo

Your "detailed explanation" is a political blog post, not proof. This guy accuses the other side of cherry picking, but fortunately he left comments on, and got this accusation of cherry picking right back. Pot, meet kettle.
JMR

The blog i referred to is a

July 4, 2007 - 02:17 ET by steve2007

The blog i referred to is about astronomy; not politics. Other posts refer to the big bang, telescopes, and the sun. The claim that the sun's brightness is changing and therefore heating planets is a question pertaining to astronomy. He explained why the claim does not work. You cannot just assume based on his conclusions that he is being political and therefore his arguments are without merit, for then there would be nothing that could ever change your mind. Just read what he has to say and either be convinced or find the flaw in his argument.

As for the hockey stick, that's still being debated, and requires a complicated analysis. In any case, you're changing the topic: we were talking about the sun's role in global warming.

It sure seemed political to

July 4, 2007 - 02:24 ET by sarcasmo

It sure seemed political to me...
JMR

Then as far as I know. the on

July 3, 2007 - 15:08 ET by danbo

Then as far as I know. the only so called research that indicates a consensus is Oreskes. Which flunked my own personel peer review. And in light of other studies as Benny Peiser's is questionable at best.

And we've brought the names of many scientist who have serious questions on AGW to this group.

Seems you have a concensus in neither place. But it does mean a lot of people know BS when they see it. 

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

I know you all hate wikiped

July 4, 2007 - 01:10 ET by steve2007

I know you all hate wikipedia, but they have compiled a list of scientific bodies which have taken a position on global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Conservatives here bitch a

July 4, 2007 - 01:23 ET by sarcasmo

Conservatives here bitch a bit about Wiki, but I don't think they all "hate" it. Some conservatives even did the right thing with their objection, and formed a conservative version via that rare 4 letter word nobody actually seems to want to do -- work. Anyway, I've ALWAYS liked and defended Wikipedia here despite its political biases, because I've always thought it a cool and useful tool that's worth the money I've spent on it. One would THINK conservatives would appreciate the wild and free creation of a homeschooling fan of Hayek, but then, one would THINK conservatives would be "for" actually-smaller government these days rather than bigger government in many cases...Having said that, climate change is a political-enough issue that Wikipedia alone can NOT be trusted, and for the whole story their competition's view must also be considered.
JMR

It is good to see that not

July 4, 2007 - 02:04 ET by steve2007

It is good to see that not all conservatives hate wikipedia. You must agree though, that conservapedia's note about consensus is not really much competition for the wikipedia one. It consists of one quotation from Lindzen from 1992, followed by two paragraphs of the author's thoughts on the matter. The wikipedia article is just a cited list of the views of major scientific organizations.

Lindzen's 1992 quote refers to a survey of American Geological Society and American Geophysical Union members. Meanwhile, a decade later, these organizations have taken official positions. As cited on wikipedia, the AGU says

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

I'm not a conservative. I m

July 4, 2007 - 02:29 ET by sarcasmo

I'm not a conservative. I make them just as angry as I make the lefties, because I'm a libertarian. The vast majority of people who call themselves "conservative" tend to be fiscally quite liberal in my opinion. And I admit nothing about either conservapedia or wikipedia on this debate, except that conservapedia didn't evolve in a political vacuum, and that means there's clearly some substantial political agenda -- almost certainly of the far left-wing sort -- on wikipedia, just as there is (but at least it's labelled) on conservapedia.
JMR

In short. You still don't hav

July 4, 2007 - 06:07 ET by danbo

In short. You still don't have a concensus. And of course there are those that imply that all of the AAS is on your side. Which is a neat trick as Richard Lindzen and Christy are on the AAS. How many ways do you want to twist this.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

"I know you all hate

July 4, 2007 - 14:46 ET by ckc1227


"I know you all hate wikipedia, but they have compiled a list of scientific bodies which have taken a position on global warming."

We don't hate wikipedia, we just know it isn't a reliable source of information. How can it be when anyone can go there and post whatever they like?

Steve,I don't believe that th

July 3, 2007 - 09:58 ET by jpatch

Steve,

I don't believe that the objective of this poll was to determine any scientific truths.  It's purpose was to measure the degree at which citizens have bought into the AGW hysteria.  The poll reflects a general level of skepticism amongst the populous, aka the people in Britain, and I'm guessing much like here in America, aren't ready or willing to drastically alter their lifestyles because of what Al Gore says.  They, and we, want more information before we're ready to throw down the gauntlet against CO2.

I mean, didn't we just see yesterday that NewsWeek has already declared that the sun is a non-factor in GW?  I mean, if you're a lawyer, you could see that this fits the argument, because they're talking about anthropomorphized GW, so naturally, the sun would be excluded in that argument.  But in reality, we don't know how the sun exactly fits into climate change, so dismissing it from the get go is completely contrary to the scientific method.

Bottom line, people aren't sold on AGW, and we're not ready to change our lives because of it.  That's what this poll reflects.

Did Al demand the poll be re-

July 3, 2007 - 09:27 ET by mattm

Did Al demand the poll be re-taken?

al gore rejects the poll, as

July 3, 2007 - 09:50 ET by vrwc13

al gore rejects the poll, as the debate is over.

Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore

No, it just gives him some ta

July 3, 2007 - 10:29 ET by seldumonde

No, it just gives him some targets for his "mass persuasion campaign."  Obviously there are some "climate deniers" that haven't yet heard from his secret police force.  No matter, these people will be taken care of.

Hmmm, I wonder what kind of a

July 3, 2007 - 09:31 ET by Hero Squad

Hmmm, I wonder what kind of an impact the peddling of canine excrement is having on global warming.

*****

"I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a clown that gives a damn!" - Sticky the Clown

Onion editors "hack&qu

July 3, 2007 - 09:32 ET by sarcasmo

Onion editors "hack" foreign newspaper site?
JMR

It's gotta be that. Or someon

July 3, 2007 - 09:38 ET by Hero Squad

It's gotta be that. Or someone looking to start an Onion rival.

The only think it lacked were suggestions on how we can use less sun.

  • Stop tanning, except in sun-friendly tanning salons
  • Remove sun-killing solar panels from your home
  • Keep pets outside longer to allow them more time to soak in their share of the sun's rays
  • Swim, mow the lawn and garden at night.

Even Global Warmists are saying that's nuts.

*****

"I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a clown that gives a damn!" - Sticky the Clown

Well, that site's no start-

July 3, 2007 - 09:45 ET by sarcasmo

Well, that site's no start-up, so I'm with the crack-theory!! :) I kept looking for a sign of deliberate humor -- like an April 1 dateline, but nothing...Of course, as we've just seen here on NB, the best humor ain't always deliberate! ;)
JMR

wear tin foil hats to reflect

July 3, 2007 - 09:48 ET by vrwc13
  • wear tin foil hats to reflect the sun away from yourself
  • paint your car white, especially if its black

Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore

Pundit Review Radio intervi

July 3, 2007 - 09:59 ET by Bacchus

Pundit Review Radio interviewed Chris Horner Sunday night and I'd say it's a must listen. This guy knows the subject frontwards and backwards. The audio is linked below.

Chris Horner, author of the fantastic book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming joined us for the first two hours of the show. We really dug into the most common claims of the Gorebots.

LINK: http://www.punditrev...

Set aside about 80 minutes to listen to it all (in two parts). Riveting.

So this is where they keep the "cave dwellers"

July 3, 2007 - 10:10 ET by Com_n_sense

That's right, it's all a hoax. Forget the science. Forget the pictures of the ice caps melting. Forget the fact that climate change is happening at a faster rate than many species can keep up with, including humans. Forget what you can see with your own eyes. For unless you've been living in a mall (cave) all your life you can not tell us you haven't seen the change with your own eyes.

Yeah, just forget all that. Hop into your SUV and go for a joy ride. And make sure to try to run over as many animals as you can along the way.

Where do you people come from? By what right do you dispute science? Do you think scientists from around the world are somehow colluding to scare us? For what reason? Do you think there's money enough in the "global warming hoax industry" to warrant people putting their professional lives on the line to warrant this? Are you daft?

Not so com_n_sense, btw comm

July 3, 2007 - 10:17 ET by vrwc13

Not so com_n_sense, btw common sense is not so common anymore...you are proof...try this one out.

And since you appear to be new here, let me guess...

  • you are young
  • you were raised in daycare and the public school system
  • you reject fundemental Christianity
  • you do not own a hand gun

Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore

You forgot the poor Polar Bears

July 3, 2007 - 10:37 ET by RJ

Hey "common(emotional)sense"....you forgot the poor Polar Bears....and the attack of the Poison Ivy.....and the...and the....OMIGAWD!  WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

KUDZU!!!

July 3, 2007 - 10:40 ET by vrwc13

KUDZU!!!

Reason: government money. A

July 3, 2007 - 10:18 ET by sarcasmo

Reason: government money. And yes, there's way more than enough of it compared to the pittances supporters of free markets must spend after being taxed to finance the other side of the debate.
JMR

So, are we to understand that

July 3, 2007 - 10:21 ET by HelenS

So, are we to understand that global warming is a fact because dead animals in the wake of out-of-control SUVs is the proof?

Interesting...

And ohbytheway?  The only "proof" I've ever seen of this so-called catastrophic global warming is on the internet but I guess if it's on the internet, it must be true!

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

al gore invented the internet

July 3, 2007 - 10:28 ET by vrwc13

al gore invented the internet, now he has invented GW.  Let's guess what dr-to-be will invent next...I go first...

  • a new voting machine that even illegal aliens can operate
  • an over-the-counter pill that causes an abortion...oops that one may already be taken
  • tin-foil hats to reflect sun-hogging humans rays to their pets

Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore

Hop into your SUV and go fo

July 3, 2007 - 10:24 ET by Dave in Texas

Hop into your SUV and go for a joy ride. And make sure to try to run over as many animals as you can along the way.

No problem. But it wasn't an SUV, it was actually a Honda Civic. But I drove really fast and had the air conditioning on the whole way, so I'm sure my mileage suffered significantly. Do bugs count as animals? Cause I took out about 50,000 of them.

The thing is, you can't prove

July 3, 2007 - 10:27 ET by jpatch

The thing is, you can't prove a darn thing when it comes to climatology.  You see "record hot temperatures" across the screen, and what comes to your mind?  Oh, AGW.

You hear about a wicked hurricane?  AGW.

Lightening storm?  AGW.

Flooding in the breadbasket?  AGW.

Drought in Australia?  AGW.

None of us want to destroy the earth...we love the earth, and we know how much it provided for us.  I mean, come on, we all know that mother earth is our real mother...we would not be here if it were not for her.  BUT...we also live in the United States of America.  We are a unified, self-governed republic, with BOARDERS (eh hem...).  We have to protect ourselves, and we need to ensure our continued existence into the future.  Completely collapsing our economy based upon Al Gore's MOVIE and subsequent Power Point presentation is something that most intelligent Americans are not lining up to do.

It's not that we're trying to dismiss AGW, it's just that we need to have a REAL DEBATE AND DISCUSSION about this matter...we don't need Hot Air Al to be ramming this down our throats as if he's some God and we're his underlings.  Screaming at people until you're blue, and then dismissing skeptics as "deniers" is NOT a good way to get INTELLIGENT people to listen.  Just my opinion.

Forget the pictures of the ice caps melting.

July 3, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Free Stinker

Forget the pictures of the ice caps melting.

That's easy to forget after reading the following about GROWING ice:

  1. Greenland's Ice is Growing: CO2 Science - Greenland Ice Sheet: Going, Going ... Growing!
  2. Antarctic Ice Growing: USA Today - Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening (2002)
  3. Antarctic Ice Growing: National Post - Polar scientists on thin ice

Pesky thing, those facts.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.

Pesky thing, those facts.Yeah

July 3, 2007 - 10:37 ET by vrwc13

Pesky thing, those facts.

Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – al gore

"I'll take those facts!" - hillary

Forget the pictures of the ic

July 3, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Jack Bauer

Forget the pictures of the ice caps melting

Ha ha. That's funny dude. What a maroon. You really believe that manure you just spouted.

Anti-scientific gibberish. Where the frack DO YOU come from.

You've seen the spoof. Now see the spoof of the spoof on YouTube: The Clintpranos: Bada Bong

So much ignorance is such a s

July 3, 2007 - 10:53 ET by taznar

So much ignorance is such a small space!

By what right do you dispute science?

It is a right, if not duty, of every sentient being to dispute and question science. After all, people couldn't feel the earth moving and "could see with their own eyes" that it was flat, so who would have the audacity to dispute the scientific consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and flat?

"To truly know something with absolute certainty is to have a closed mind." (Don't remember source)... and is antithetical to science.

Com_n_sense..your post is e

July 3, 2007 - 10:54 ET by acadia1755

Com_n_sense..your post is exactly what is the problem...EMOTIONS Nothing Else.

"Forget the pictures of the ice caps melting." ..There are no such pictures so nothing to forget.If you are talking about glaciers calving? Well advancing glaciers are the one breaking off the ice shelves..Retreating glaciers do not.

"Forget the fact that climate change is happening at a faster rate than
many species can keep up with".. OH! OH ! this must be them poor polar bear bs again!

Since the Polar Bears population is on the increase you must be talking about the Male bear not being able to keep up?:-)

"Forget what you can see with your own eyes." LiKe what?

"Where do you people come from? By what right do you dispute science? Do
you think scientists from around the world are somehow colluding to
scare us? For what reason? Do you think there's money enough in the
"global warming hoax industry" to warrant people putting their
professional lives on the line to warrant this? "

"By what right do you dispute science?"

What science my friend what science?

Yes! there is so much money to be made that these Charlatans will lie and depend on good people like you to follow the herd without verifying if it is true or not.

See...

On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific
method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but…. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as
well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in
this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support,
to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary
scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of
any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest. Steven Schneider.

Here's where I come from ...

July 3, 2007 - 10:55 ET by EllisWyatt

"Forget the science. Forget the pictures of the ice caps melting. Forget the fact that climate change is happening at a faster rate than many species can keep up with, including humans."

And forget the fact that Mars and Neptune are also showing signs of global warming.  I guess you think the Industrial Revolution has spread to other planets?

"Forget what you can see with your own eyes."

Are you really seeing these things through your own eyes, or are you seeing just the things the media wants you to see?

"By what right do you dispute science? Do you think scientists from around the world are somehow colluding to scare us?

Is it "science" or is it "groupthink"?  Have you even heard about the research that disputes the findings that have been so heavily promoted by the media and the entertainment industry?  I'll bet you haven't.  Besides, a true scientist isn't afraid of other people questioning and scutinizing his or her work.  The fact that these "scientists" get so upset about people like us questioning them makes me have serious doubts about their findings and their credibility.

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

U_B_Tarded be right! The Deba

July 3, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Roger the Shrubber

U_B_Tarded be right! The Debate is over! There is a consensus!

We know one person who will be in the bunker with AlGore in the final days.

"Do you think scientis

July 3, 2007 - 14:56 ET by ckc1227

"Do you think scientists from around the world are somehow colluding to
scare us? For what reason? Do you think there's money enough in the
"global warming hoax industry" to warrant people putting their
professional lives on the line to warrant this? Are you daft?"

You're right, we're wrong. By the way, what did you do to survive the ice age that was predicted about 20 years ago, and the population bomb that was supposed to overflow the planet, and the global food shortage that was supposed to cause massive starvation all across the planet, and Y2K that was supposed to take us back to the dark ages?

Many of the same people making those claims are the same ones preaching about the coming global warming catastrophe. I'm sure they're right this time though.

No-Com-n-sense. Excuse me.  

July 3, 2007 - 15:31 ET by danbo

No-Com-n-sense. Excuse me.  May I ask your credentials to lecture everyone on science? You seem to be lecturing everyone.

I'll give you mine. As an undergrad I studied archaeology. And saw 1st hand evidence of changing climate. Contrary to Mann's BS. We've been studying climate for a very long time.

In graduate school, though I changed areas of concentration. I was inducted to the research society based on the quality of my research.

Among my other professional duties I was a representative to the state epedemiology commitee. I've seen bad research. I've seen what happens when federal money becomes available. And the people chasing the money arrive.

I've been in a position where I had raw data. And had to wonder where the hell CDC was getting their data. It sure didn't match what i had or anyone else I knew.  And they just brush you off when you bring this up.

Anyone who claims they know and have all the facts are either stupid or lying. May I ask. Which is it for you. 

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

"Royal Society vice-pr

July 3, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Dave in Texas

"Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said:
"People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of
the issue, ..."

Well gee Sir David, don't the poll results kind of mean that's exactly what's happening?

"...try to run over as many a

July 3, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Evoke

"...try to run over as many animals as you can"

LOL...Thanks for the chuckle, I needed that.

I'm going to be heading off e

July 3, 2007 - 19:00 ET by danbo

I'm going to be heading off early tomorrow to Blonde land.(A Tiger in Gator country.) So before I forget. Let me me wish everyone a great 4th.

Take a moment to remember what freedom is. Why it's great to be an American. Toss the Patriot or A Band of Brothers on the dvd.

Start up the BBQ and toss some meat on it. Add a little of that wonderful CO2 to the air for the plants. And even a mug of anthropogenic global warming inducing adult beverage (beer.).

Have a great day.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Have a good one Danbo, i watc

July 3, 2007 - 19:06 ET by botg

Have a good one Danbo, i watched the Patriot on Memorial Day so this time might be Saving Pvt Ryan.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts