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
Razmataz 1, December 9, 2009 at 10:24 am
Elaine M.,
For the last twelve years, the climate has actually seen a cooling trend. …What has caused this cooling?” …
“Razmataz
When the oceans rise, more surface is exposed for evaporation. Warmer temperatures increase the amount of evaporation. More evaporation causes more rain clouds. More rain clouds causes less sunshine to penetrate. Less sunshine causes the earth to cool.”
——
I have read for more than 5 years that the catastrophic effects of global warming would be: 1)Initial rise in sea levels; 2)Ice age- mini and localized or global, extent not as yet predictable.
What’s the point? If there is ANY contribution that humanity is making to the warming trend then it needs to stop. Just because a negative end is predictable based on entirely natural causes and process’ doesn’t relieve humanity from the responsibility to mitigate any ADDED negative effect our own actions contribute. If there is ANY indication that our practices as a species MAY be a contributing factor then we owe it to posterity to stop those activities LIKELY to be contributory.
I personally believe the conventional scientific wisdom that humanity is a major factor in the warming trend in all of its many and varied manifestations so I’m on board with all changes necessary. That others may believe that changes are happening but hesitate to act because the actual extent of causation by our actions are not fully and exhaustively known and refuse to act to minimize our footprints, carbon and others, seems irresponsible IMO. Any actions that mitigate the magnitude of climate change is a winner in the long run.
Byron,
Can I dump arsenic into the water supply? Why can corporations? This is about property rights – the government is failing to protect the air and water from being poisoned by corporations. Why do you support being poisoned?
No surprise here. Few months back Fox News cited the Enquirer has having accurate reporting. I forget the specific political topic, but the Enquirer certainly has not established itself as a reputable news source, unless your searching for recent alien visitations.
Sorry windchill
Look at this map alot of below zero temps. WOW
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif
Massive storm buries central US in snow
Strong winds created drifts as high as 15 feet (4.6 meters) as the storm dropped as much as four feet of snow (1.2 meters) in some areas, said Pat Slattery, a spokesman for the National Weather Service.
“This has been a really big season opening storm,” Slattery said.
Key word Opening it’s the first week in December and let us not forget Houston got it’s earliest snow ever.
Stop trying to hijack this thread. We are talking Global Warming.
You and Byron should go get your cars and bump into each other to have this conversation.
Just teasin
Byron: “You cannot say with any degree of certainty that human acitivity is the cause. There may be some small component but the earth cools and heats up with or without man.”
As Gyges so astutely pointed out earlier, nature is not industrialized. Nature may be “made possible by a grant from the people at Mobil;” but it’s not industrialized.
And what is industry but a bunch of physio-chemical systems concerned with maintaining a set equilibrium with itself as opposed to nature. Witness the smokestack.
You say human activity has no certain effect on the environment, I say I woke up to a miserable rainy New York morning and had to re-think my day dream of marveling at the ‘distilled’ water falling from the sky as I recalled what those smoke stacks in the rust belt add to said ‘distilled’ rain water.
Essentially Byron, you’re retreating from true conservatism, i.e. the kind that existed before the right allowed that 25% authoritarian mindset/lunatic fringe on the loose during the last century. You’re accusing liberals of politicizing the global warming debate when you know damn well they’re about as organized as a herd of house cats. So, to add to Gyges’ question about what scientific data would you consider objective, I ask what fiber in your conservative being has turned you into a reckless gambler. There’s not take backs here Byron. My conservative (if I am a conservative) point of view is that the root cause of all this CO2 swapping horseshit stems from deforestation; i.e. PERMANENTLY RIDDING THE WORLD OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CO2 SCRUBBERS. Not a conservative move; more like tossing your bankroll down on a roulette table. Yet your pattern of argumentation here places you at that roulette wheel and I’m just wondering why you’re playing this one so fast and loose.
Byron: “If you took all of the people in the world and set them down in Texas each person would have about 1,200 sq. ft. of land to call his own.”
I like the idea of ridding the world of Texas; but I’m not sure what your point is.
“I think I read somewhere once that insects and bacteria give off more CO2 than man and his industries. I just brewed some beer and the amount of CO2 given of by some yeast was tremendous.”
Seriously? Reductio ad absurdum? Please.
Bdaman,
Those are what we’re talking about you twit! That’s why cars are 38% safer today than in 1961.
Slarti:
you think I want bad air and water? I don’t and I don’t think the comparison to global warming is apt.
Lead is a proven deleterious substance, CO2 is not.
If CO2 is proven to be deleterious, I will quit breathing.
Elaine:
you are right and as man becomes more technologically capable and learns new things the water and air will become cleaner and cleaner. I don’t know if you are aware but the old Soviet Union was an environmental nightmare and China is as well.
The capitalist west is clean in relation to these 2 countries.
Byron,
Thank you for the statistics – I’ll admit I expected them to be stronger, but they still show cars being about 38% safer now – and that assumes that the miles per car is the same as it was in 1961. Taking miles driven into account would probably push that 38% up some more (I’m assuming that the average driver drives more now than in 1961, but I could be wrong about that).
Byron what you are not accounting for is the improvement of vehicle safety.
Airbags
Side impact panels
head restraint
Abs brakes
Traction Control
Speed sensors
Folding Crush design
Now get back to GW and thats not George Bush
Slart did you know that by next week they are projecting that
2/3rds of the United States will be covered in snow. Did you see the video of Joe Bastardi from Accuweather linked above. Europe is going to receive a Siberian Blast of cold and snow.
The Lord does work in mysterious ways. Looks like so does mother nature.
Bdaman,
Have you ever heard of the straw that broke the camel’s back? How much damage can we do to the environment before it can’t be fixed?
Slarti:
1961:
183,691,481 people 37.3 million cars
2009:
305,541,491 62,000,000 cars
if you look at deaths per car you get:
1961 – 973 deaths per million cars
2009 – 602 deaths per million cars
Elaine,
I totally agree, I just hope it isn’t already too late. Several times I’ve made the case that reducing pollution is still the correct policy even if the climate change deniers are right. Neither Bdaman or Byron has been willing to touch that argument, presumably because they know it’s correct.
CO2 makes up less than 5% of the earths atmosphere.
How much is man contributing to that amount.
How much are peoples animals/cows contributing to that.
How much do all other animals contribute to that.
How much do insects such as termites contribute to that.
How bout Dolphins and whales they exhale
Anybody want yo add to the list.
Byron—
Man has had a much greater impact on the Earth in the past few hundred years than he did for many millennia before the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Humans have certainly added to the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. I doubt humans had that same kind of impact on the planet previous to the last ice age.
In modern times, people have polluted land, rivers and others waters with toxic waste and pesticides, been responsible for the extinction of some animal species, done clear cutting of forests leading to the erosion of topsoil. We’re not very good caretakers of our planet.
I doubt anything I say would sway you in any way.
I believe in taking preventive measures before it’s too late.
Tootie,
There’s a problem with falsifying science to get more money – other (independent) people will not be able to verify your results and eventually someone will come along and prove you wrong, totally shattering your credibility and reputation (and probably win a Nobel prize for it). A scientist’s reputation is far too valuable a commodity to risk like this.
Bdaman,
Point out one email where something unethical was discussed with someone from a different lab. Until you can do that no one has any reason to take your allegations seriously (and you’ll need to go a long way beyond that to build any credibility considering where you’re starting from.
Your precious emails were amongst people in one lab, not several.
As far as you know they are not done yet.