We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
1,528 thoughts on “One Hundred and Twenty Percent of People Can’t Be Wrong: Fox News Shows People Are Dubious About the Accuracy of Global Warming Science With a Poll of 120 Percent of People”
At this time it looks like Drupal is the top blogging platform
out there right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you
are using on your blog?
Was it really Fox News that got the poll numbers wrong or was it Rasmussen? Could go either way given that Rasmussen’s a right-wing propaganda outlet in its own right.
This just in:
Construction Complete On 9/11 Truther Memorial
September 7, 2010
UNDISCLOSED—On a remote patch of Kansas prairie believed to fall outside the range of U.N. spy satellites, construction is finally complete on the long- awaited 9/11 Truther Memorial, sources confirmed Wednesday.
Solemn visitors reflect on what the memorial’s designers call “the greatest lie in American history.”
Funded by donations from dozens of websites and fringe publishers, and dedicated to “the fearless amateur research and bold guesswork” of those seeking to “expose the secret machinations of the world’s true puppet masters,” the 7,000-square-foot monument has already attracted hundreds of visitors.
“It was a long time coming, but at last it’s here,” said Don Gustaf, a blogger who drove from Cincinnati to see the site.
“This will stand forever in tribute to those who lost their lives the day clandestine CIA operatives used advanced wireless technology to electronically hijack a pair of 767s and remotely fly them into the World Trade Center.”
More at eleven
In Re: your post of May 30, 2010 at 6:52 am
Once again you argue from ignorance since you never bothered to read the paper regarding the active thermitic materials found with in the WTC Dust. If you had read the paper, you wouldn’t have asked questions that were answered within or made nonsensical sarcastic remarks about problems that only would exist in the mind of someone who hadn’t read the paper. Every comment of yours regarding positions taken by Greening et. al. are inapplicable–WHY? Because NONE of those comments address the paper from April of 2009; i.e. the one showing REAL EVIDENCE OF NANO-THERMITE.
Nonetheless, as Buddha alluded to earlier, your tirade befitting that of a six year old, to wit:
“Since I’m only concerned with the scientific evidence and couldn’t care less about the legal rules of evidence in regard to this case, I’ll ignore your first post and let Buddha respond if he cares to…”
has done more than tarnish your credibility as a debater.
Ya see, since argumentation is concerned with winning the assent of an audience, and said audience awarded you buku points for raising a LEGAL ARGUMENT regarding chain of custody, sampling and putting the character of Dr. Jones in question, your blanket refusal to consider any rebuttal on the same grounds stands as your epitaph.
It doesn’t matter that I showed you the law stating why your argument fails, or further evidence in light of said law that shows further why your argument fails. After all, you’ll have none of that ‘legaleze’ unless it supports your position. What matters is that you’ve confessed to having no further interest in this matter than a childish narcissist obsessed with assuaging his own ego; further evidenced by your over-indulgence in ad hominem and rabid chest beating.
In a word Kevin, anyone who makes an argument on one front and then has the nerve to say he’s not listening to any counter-arguments on the same front is not engaged in argumentation. He’s ranting like a five year old. For this reason, as Buddha alluded to earlier, all your best laid plans and ‘theories’ you’ve set out earlier would fall on deaf ears in a court room because no judge in this world would ever take them seriously in light of your complete lack of deference for the art of argumentation; much less your childish conduct. Only a child would have the temerity to attack evidence he’s clearly never examined; e.g. attacking a paper he’s never read — evidenced by use of references to comments made years before the paper was written.
You claim I never explained the problems with “holes in the radar” well, that’s because such discussion would require ‘LISTENING’ on your part; something, as explained above, you’re not in the mindset for.
Here’s the raw data
See: Surveillance Implications of 9/11 (pg. 6 of the pdf)
Go ahead Kevin, got a good navigational chart board? Then chart the flight paths yourself. AAL 11 turned off its transponder at 8:21; where? And Flight 93 was where when it turned off its transponder? The other two are a bit more technical, but as one radar operator who saw it happen in real time said to me “They weren’t good; they weren’t great; THEY WERE PERFECT.”
But alas, I’m sure you have some cute retort befitting a five year old as to why such information is irrelevant; seeing how much of a maven you are on the topic of LEGAL EVIDENCE.
“Still recused for causes stated.”
Okay, I will respect that. You may assume that any of my comments on this thread are not directed at you with the specific exception of the response to your previous post which I have promised. Even that should be taken as nothing more than a sign that I am willing to engage on issues which I find interesting if you care to discuss them.
Your objection to my use of Wikipeida would be far more credible if you had at any point challenged a single thing that I quoted (with some kind of supporting reference of your own, of course). I am (and have always been) willing to produce additional supporting references and argument in support of anything I have quoted from Wikipedia or anywhere else (or concede that it is invalid in the unlikely event that you make an argument that I can’t refute). I wont, however, discontinue using a convenient source based on your generic objection to its possible lack of accuracy. Especially since a good portion of the passages I have quoted from Wikipedia were about things that I could verify from other sources or personal knowledge. You have continually tried to hold me to a standard that you obviously have no intention of trying to meet yourself and that is hypocritical, sir. You may call what I’m doing ‘chest beating’, but I call it refuting your misinformation and slander (with some humor at your expense ;-)). I have no need of defending my ego or engaging in your legalese, but I will continue to respond to any comments you have about the facts or the science and any attacks you make against me personally. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for you to point out the holes in the primary radar data and explain their significance, admit that your argument about equivalent airspeed was invalid due to your (or more accurately Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s) inappropriate calculation, put forward a complete scientific theory of the collapse which requires controlled demolition, or address any of the other issues that I’ve raised regarding the evidence or the science. As before, I’m not holding my breath…
With all due respect, I humbly apologize for referring to my opponent as ‘Wiki-boy’; the suffix ‘boy’ being inaccurate and apparently insulting. Had I referred to him as ‘Wiki-man’ it would have been accurate and without malice; since the truth, as we all know, is that Slarti depends far too much on a source open to editing by the public at large–making it, how shall we say, less than reliable.
That aside, I’m sure your Honor can recognize a notice of appeal when he sees one; as I was appealing from the original judgment of dismissal as based on the Court’s view of opponent’s alleged attack on the real evidence.
(Actually, since I’m appealing to the same judge, I suppose this would fall into the category of a Writ of Coram Nobis.)
Finally, if I may remind the Court, arguments are meant to win the assent of an audience; and since my opponent has shown that he is more interested in beating his chest and proclaiming victory for sake of preserving his ego than arriving at anything resembling a consensus or truth, your Honor happens to be the last audience standing.
Comments are closed.