Academia, Bizarre, Environment, Media, Politics, Society

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

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”

  1. Byron: “the players also cashed in on the real estate bubble, the Internet bubble and the Tulip bubble.

    Just because they are playing doesn’t mean they think it exists, it just means they believe they can make money on the belief of the existence.”

    Let’s not get metaphysical here. They made money because there was a bubble that was making them rich until it broke.

    Byron: “I have money in green companies as well and I am buying timber rights to use for carbon credits. I think global warming is bogus but I see that a good many people don’t. When the tide turns as it always does the “players” will have sold out and be onto the next great scam er money making opportunity.”

    Okay; I’m not stopping you. I wouldn’t care if you invested in coal and brought back a classic line of steam locomotives and contracted to use Amtrak’s rails.

    But to suggest in any way that the proper ‘conservative’ thing to do is close your eyes and cover your ears and convince yourself that an exploding growth in population & industry combined with an increasing destruction of non-renewable CO scrubbers (forestation) has no effect on the environment?

    And even if you agreed as to the existence of an effect yet differ as to its degree; to assume it’s so minute as to give you sufficient comfort room to laugh off all other claims and arguments smacks of the attitude of the church in the time of Galileo.

    “Watch a school of fish or a flock of birds and you can predict markets and public opinion.”

    Careful they’re not Lemmings.

  2. What I can’t figure out is why these smart people decide to have a meeting or a conference when it’s cold. It’s called the Gore effect. Every time Al goes anywhere to speak an unusual cold spell breaks out.

    Amidst new revelations of data manipulation by scientists hoping to ‘prove’ global warming, the infamous ‘Gore Effect’ has socked Copenhagen. One intrepid warmist reports that temperatures are hovering just above zero.

    It’s so cold that the media center, depicted requires that reporters bundle themselves up while inside.

    “The Gore Effect” has a long and uniquely entertaining history. In simple terms, it strikes the Warmists whenever and wherever they gather as if Mother Nature herself is mocking the UN’s rapidly disintegrating bunko scam.

  3. Bob Esq:

    “Let’s put it this way Byron, for the ‘players’ global warming isn’t a theory; it’s a certainty they intend to cash in on.”

    the players also cashed in on the real estate bubble, the Internet bubble and the Tulip bubble.

    Just because they are playing doesn’t mean they think it exists, it just means they believe they can make money on the belief of the existence.

    I have money in green companies as well and I am buying timber rights to use for carbon credits. I think global warming is bogus but I see that a good many people don’t. When the tide turns as it always does the “players” will have sold out and be onto the next great scam er money making opportunity.

    Watch a school of fish or a flock of birds and you can predict markets and public opinion.

  4. Conservative deny global climate change and man’s contributions SOLELY out of an attempt to protect business, particularly multi-nations. Heaven forbid these polluters would have to invest in anything that doesn’t smell of executive bonuses. It’s pure and simple greed having NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. Trying to debunk the science–and doing a very poor job at that–is only intended to obfuscate their responsibility in creating and solving this issue.

    These are the same folks that said we don’t need seat belts and that no one would ever again be able to afford a car if seat belts were mandated by the government. Cries, make that whines, of undue government intervention were rife during that debate some decades ago. They did the same kind of whining BS over OSHA. After millions of lives have been spared by just these two pieces of legislation and their value thoroughly embraced, why would ANYONE LISTEN TO A CONSERVATIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Or anything else for that matter? SCROOM!

  6. Oh we are, All the hoopla of getting off foreign oil, the Interior Dept. just cleared the way so we can drill in the Artic.
    Hows that for moving towards clean energy.

  9. To me, the issue of climate change is simple: yes, it is POSSIBLE carbon dioxide emissions may cause global warming, climate change, crops yields to plummet, oceans to rise, millions of people to be driven from their homes and affected by drought, famine, and natural disasters–but if you are rich, WHO CARES! You will have the resources to take care of yourself and your family. So GET YOURS NOW, and let the little people fend for themselves!

  10. Again with the one guy thing.

    AMS.

    More eyes and ears to look at the data than the deniers you keep going to for appeals to their authority.

    More review equals better analysis because more permutations of the models get tested and either verified or discarded.

    Go ahead. Find another denier who disagrees with the majority of the scientists reviewing the global data.

    It’s still the same error. bdacherrypicker.

    And since you seem to choose a guy who discounts modeling? How about giving up your car. It was modeled a dozen different ways in a computer before a single part was manufactured. Don’t watch the weather on the news and don’t listen to stock analysis. Don’t drive either as traffic patterns are modeled to control traffic flows. Don’t buy food either. The logistics of delivery are modeled before the product shipped.

    You’re guy is pissed because he’s supposedly the expert and the majority of the other scientists don’t agree that any discovery regarding the ocean he should get credit for. Your Swedish doctor sounds less like a scientist and more like a guy offended he’s not deferred to by default. Boo hoo because he didn’t get his way. Well . . . no wonder you like him! You’re recycling your birther strategy again. That’s twice you’ve gone green in your trolling and good for you!

    I’ll stick with the AMS assessment.

  11. Correction–I should have written four-five centuries in my previous comment. I wouldn’t want to be accused of “fudging” numbers.

  12. IPCC says sea level rise 17 inches Gore says twenty feet.

    OH NOOOOOOOOOOO

    Who do we trust, say it ain’t so Joe, YOU LIE!!!!!!

  15. This discussion gets me to thinking back five-six centuries to the days of Galileo Galilei when the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and others considered it heresy to promote the Copernican theory that the sun is the center of our solar system. Galileo was interrogated by the Holy Office of the Inquisition–and eventually put under house arrest. Can’t have people going around claiming that the Earth revolves around the sun–or things that go against your belief system. No, it was to remain an Earth-centric system in the eyes of those who closed their minds to new ideas in science.

  16. Byron,

    Just a quick couple of thoughts on your examples of individuals overturning popular consensus.

    Science makes those individuals who go contrary to popular opinion heroes, with one caveat: They have do be able to prove that they are right.

    The reason you can create a list of individuals like that is the same reason you can create a list of movies that Kubrick directed. They are the exception, not the rule. We remember the anomalies, not the thousands of faceless\nameless that contribute evidence that helps solidify and tweak existing theories. Do you know the name of the people who wrote papers establishing the presence of a “red shift” in observable galaxies?

  17. Yes.

    Corporations do stand to profit.

    That legal fiction that sociopaths and the generally amoral have used to usurp our political processes and institute a de facto fascist police state. The fiction that is currently without supervision because they have purchased both political parties via K St. graft.

    Corporations. As in corporatism. As in Mussolini’s preferred term for fascism.

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

    Corporations and their resultant corrupting influence are at the root of all our governmental problems – from the illegal invasion of a country that didn’t attack us to the rewarding of Wall St. criminals who broke the system by selling their made up horseshit shellgame CDS nonsense.

  18. Byron,

    I didn’t provide you with a link, I provided you with a cluster of hits on Google (a broad stroke if you will).

    Further, I didn’t know or care about the race to map out new shipping lanes and claim resources until a charter pilot I know, who flies one of the ‘players’ so to speak, brought it up in conversation a few years ago.

    Let’s put it this way Byron, for the ‘players’ global warming isn’t a theory; it’s a certainty they intend to cash in on.

  19. This new “green” technology (solar, wind, etc); who is going to profit from that? I heard a rumor that it was “corporations”.

  20. Of course. Displacing millions of low land and coastal inhabitants and destroying the weather patterns – and thus disrupting our ability to grow food predictably – is all a plan to cut shipping by sea costs.

    This points directly to the fundamental problem with unrestrained capitalism just like the switch to using one drug for executions in Ohio does. You may be joking, but you point to a serious flaw when you show that both ends play against the middle. Rational and rationale are two different words. And rationale, usually ex post facto, is the word of choice for capitalism. Some clouds don’t have a silver lining. You can put lipstick on this pig, but it’s still a Palin.

    Shortsighted.

    There was a report on CBS News yesterday about how global warming was benefiting the economy of Greenland. At the end of the piece, the narration was talking about a dog musher who was “looking forward to exciting times on the edge of civilization.”

    The edge of civilization always gets exciting when rats start fleeing the sinking ship. I’m sure that the people living on the borders of the Roman Empire and the Germanic hordes found it an “exciting time” too. Exciting can and usually includes the effect “interesting”. There is a reason the Chinese curse is “May you live in interesting times.”

Comments are closed.