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”

  2. Pingback: Tackle Box

  3. 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.

  4. 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.”

    Read on

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/construction-complete-on-911-truther-memorial,18034/

    More at eleven

  5. Bob posted:

    Kevin,

    I’d appreciate it if you would refer to me as Slartibartfast in this venue.

    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.

    Once again you have ignored a request to provide a link to that paper. You wont even cite the paper properly – how do you expect me to read it?

    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.

    Dr. Greening’s arguments are either scientifically valid or not and you have provided nothing that refutes them. Even if Dr. Jones has shown ‘real evidence of nano-thermite’ (which I doubt), that does not imply controlled demolition (you need a complete theory which accounts for all of the facts and requires deliberately placed charges for that).

    Nonetheless, as Buddha alluded to earlier, your tirade befitting that of a six year old, to wit:

    Buddha has said his piece and asked to be left out of it, I’m respecting that.

    [Me]: “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.

    Everyone gets to decide that for themselves. This whole time I’ve been making a scientific argument, not a legal one – saying that I don’t care about the legal rules of evidence is just reiterating what I’ve been saying all along.

    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

    Sorry, not true. Chain of custody is important to the scientific argument as well as the legal one (for pretty much the same reason). I called the scientific validity of the conclusions made by Dr. Jones into question because of the chain of custody issues, not it’s validity as evidence in a court of law. Nice try at shifting the argument into an area where you have an advantage, though.

    …and putting the character of Dr. Jones in question, your blanket refusal to consider any rebuttal on the same grounds stands as your epitaph.

    I called Dr. Jones’ ethics into question (based on his statements and actions regarding the Journal of 9/11 Studies and his paper published therein – once again, an issue which is relevant to the credibility of his research (the ethical circumstances under which it was published makes the claim that it was ‘peer-reviewed’ dubious at best) and I’ve attacked the reputation of the journal in which the other paper which he claimed was peer-reviewed was published it (you know, the one where the editor resigned when she found out that his paper had been published without her knowledge). I have also attacked his science on the merits. Outside of questioning his scientific ethics, I haven’t attacked Dr. Jones’ character at all whereas your entire criticism of Dr. Greening is based on an irrelevant (to the scientific validity of his articles) email exchange and you have offered no scientific rebuttal to the arguments in his articles.

    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.

    As I’ve been making a scientific argument, not a legal one the only ‘laws’ that would make my argument fail are natural laws and you’re the one that’s been arguing in violation of natural laws, not me.

    After all, you’ll have none of that ‘legaleze’ unless it supports your position.

    I support my position with science, not legalese.

    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.

    I’ve stated that my interest in this matter is just to avoid letting your misinformation and hypocrisy go unanswered. Throughout this entire argument you’ve continually disrespected me, repeatedly and falsely accused me of intellectual dishonesty and accused me of logical fallacies that you yourself were guilty of (and I wasn’t). If you want to re-write history in your mind and say that all I’ve done is over-indulge in ad hominem and rabid chest beating, that’s fine. Again, I’ll let everyone else make up their own minds…

    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.

    I’ve repeatedly invited you to make a scientific argument or to give a scientific refutation to any of my reasoning. You’ve completely refused to engage on the front in which I was making my argument – but I guess this is just another of your double standards…

    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.

    Once again Bob, I haven’t been arguing a legal case – I’ve been arguing a scientific one. And any scientist reading this would see that you haven’t made any kind of scientific case for your point of view (unless they laughed themselves silly at your ideas about conservation of energy and tracing heat backwards…). And as for referencing comments made years before – a scientific argument stands or falls on its merits, not its age or who made it. Newer evidence can increase the context in which we decide its accuracy, but unimpeachable evidence of nano-thermite wouldn’t change the validity of Dr. Greening’s arguments about reactions which were likely to occur in the impact zone and the rubble or what the sources of sulphur were available (for example). I’ve already impeached Dr. Jones’ claims that he’s published peer-reviewed papers and quite frankly don’t feel the need to do any more since you wont even provide a link to the paper you refer to (I’ve found several bad links to it – such as in the interview with one of it’s authors which you quoted but failed to link…).

    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.

    It’s reading comprehension, not ‘listening’, Bob. (I know, it’s not your strong suit.) You seem to want to throw out some anonymous quotes and a few unsupported assertions and call that a theory of some sort, but you clearly either don’t know what you’re talking about or you are utterly failing to explain it. I’ll illustrate:

    Here’s the raw data

    This is a figure in a presentation, not raw data.

    http://i-cns.org/media/icns/2002/11/Session_E2-4_Bussolari.pdf

    (I changed the link to go directly to the pdf that Bob is referencing.)

    See: Surveillance Implications of 9/11 (pg. 6 of the pdf)

    First off, you could have just linked the pdf. (You seem to have a habit of trying to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to verify your sources. Just sayin’.) For anyone who didn’t care to track down the page Bob was referring to, it’s a slide titled ‘NORAD Radar Network With Additional 51 Interior ATC Radars’ which shows a map of the US with the areas of radar coverage for what I presume are the primary radars. The thing is, if we look at the NTSB flight path study for AA 11:

    http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA11.pdf

    on page 3 we see the flight path. At the point labeled ‘D’ (in the NW corner of MA just east of the NY border at 8:21 am) the legend says:

    Radar stations stop receiving transponder returns from AA 11.
    Primary radar indicates climb to 30,400 feet.

    This seems to clearly indicate that the plane was in the primary radar coverage at that time. Looking at the figure you linked, the flight path of AA 11 seems to be entirely inside the coverage of the primary radar for the entire duration of the flight – but we don’t need to guess, we can just look at page 4 of the NTSB flight path. This figure shows the altitude profile of the flight. Prior to the transponder being turned off, the altitude is given by solid dots corresponding to ‘Mode C Returns’. This would be information from the plane’s transponder. After the transponder was turned off, the plane’s approximate altitude is given by open triangles which are labeled ‘Primary Returns Height Measurement’. As you can clearly see from this figure, AA 11 was, in fact, inside the coverage of the primary radars from the point at which the transponder was turned off until it hit the north tower. There are no ‘gaps’ in the primary radar data – the plane is painted by radar regularly for this entire time.

    Go ahead Kevin, got a good navigational chart board?

    I don’t need one, I have the flight path determined by the NTSB from the primary radar data.

    Then chart the flight paths yourself. AAL 11 turned off its transponder at 8:21; where?

    As I said, in northwest MA just east of the NY border.

    And Flight 93 was where when it turned off its transponder?

    Not really relevant to our discussion, but if you’d like to know you can look at the NTSB flight path report for that flight.

    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.”

    In what way were they perfect? Clearly they didn’t evade the radar (most likely they didn’t even try). Your anonymous quote is meaningless. If you’d care to explain the significance, go for it. But so far you’ve just wasted my time with meaningless, unsupported assertions.

    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.

    It’s not irrelevant, IT’S MEANINGLESS. If you’ve got some kind of argument, please explain it – what did the hijackers do that was so extraordinary? What does that imply about the hijackers? The nearest hole in the primary radar in the figure that you linked is in NH and VT – the planes were never over these states. If you’ve got something to say, then say it but so far you’re acting like we should be able to build a working warp drive because you’ve spouted a couple of lines of technobabble – talk about childish…

  6. Kevin,

    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

    http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/icnsconf/y2002/

    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.

  7. Buddha said:

    “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.

    Bob,

    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…

  8. Your Honor,

    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.

    Respectfully submitted.

Comments are closed.