85% Say Economy Over Global Warming

[Sinatra]

Looks like this president's priorities remain very much out of the mainstream of the American public. He flies to Copenhagen while jobless claims rose once again for a second straight week.
____

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

Jobless claims rise for second straight week - MarketWatch

 

[rightwinger]

Protecting the environment is not something you can turn off and on based on some whim. It is always cheaper to dump your crap than it is to responsibly dispose of it. We heard the same thing in the 60s and 70s when companies could dump untreated waste into the air and waterways.
To say "we will worry about global warming when we can aford it" is irresponsible. We wasted eight years while George Bush practiced denial. Its time to pay the piper

 

[Sinatra]

Protecting the environment is not something you can turn off and on based on some whim. It is always cheaper to dump your crap than it is to responsibly dispose of it. We heard the same thing in the 60s and 70s when companies could dump untreated waste into the air and waterways.
To say "we will worry about global warming when we can aford it" is irresponsible. We wasted eight years while George Bush practiced denial. Its time to pay the piper

____

It appears you and the other 15% of Americans agree.

...Cap n Trade/Copenhagen is not about the environment.

...and humankind does not control the thermostat. We are simply not that important.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like this president's priorities remain very much out of the mainstream of the American public. He flies to Copenhagen while jobless claims rose once again for a second straight week.
____

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

Jobless claims rise for second straight week - MarketWatch

And yet, according to your own sources, 55% of respondants agree with the President on Global Warming.

Oops.

 

[Sinatra]

Looks like this president's priorities remain very much out of the mainstream of the American public. He flies to Copenhagen while jobless claims rose once again for a second straight week.
____

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

Jobless claims rise for second straight week - MarketWatch

And yet, according to your own sources, 55% of respondants agree with the President on Global Warming.

Oops.

Ah, but therein lies the point. We have a poll indicating Americans want the economy to be the priority over global warming by 7 to 1. That is a HUGE difference - and yet the mainstream media spin titles it as "support" for a climate pact. The support is generalized do goodism, but the reality is that Americans don't really give a shit - they want their president to do something about this economy.

The news article is what we call "headline manipulation". It's been around for ages, and dupes the intellectually lazy - such as yourself?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like this president's priorities remain very much out of the mainstream of the American public. He flies to Copenhagen while jobless claims rose once again for a second straight week.
____

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

Jobless claims rise for second straight week - MarketWatch

And yet, according to your own sources, 55% of respondants agree with the President on Global Warming.

Oops.

Ah, but therein lies the point. We have a poll indicating Americans want the economy to be the priority over global warming by 7 to 1. That is a HUGE difference - and yet the mainstream media spin titles it as "support" for a climate pact. The support is generalized do goodism, but the reality is that Americans don't really give a shit - they want their president to do something about this economy.

The news article is what we call "headline manipulation". It's been around for ages, and dupes the intellectually lazy - such as yourself?

The poll clearly states that 55% of Americans believe that something needs to be done about climate change. Is that "headline manipulation", or acurate answers to a polling question?

One could just as easily say that by leaving out the other poll question, you are "spinning" the data to reflect what you want it to, specifically that Americans hate Obama because he's going to Copenhaagen. There's no data that says that Americans don't support Obama doing something about climate change - in fact, there is data that says exactly the opposite.

So, to sum up:
Your attempt to paint the President in a bad light fails. He's not doing something wrong here - in fact, according to your own sources, he's doing something that 55% of people agree with him on.

 

[Sinatra]

And yet, according to your own sources, 55% of respondants agree with the President on Global Warming.

Oops.

Ah, but therein lies the point. We have a poll indicating Americans want the economy to be the priority over global warming by 7 to 1. That is a HUGE difference - and yet the mainstream media spin titles it as "support" for a climate pact. The support is generalized do goodism, but the reality is that Americans don't really give a shit - they want their president to do something about this economy.

The news article is what we call "headline manipulation". It's been around for ages, and dupes the intellectually lazy - such as yourself?

The poll clearly states that 55% of Americans believe that something needs to be done about climate change. Is that "headline manipulation", or acurate answers to a polling question?

One could just as easily say that by leaving out the other poll question, you are "spinning" the data to reflect what you want it to, specifically that Americans hate Obama because he's going to Copenhaagen. There's no data that says that Americans don't support Obama doing something about climate change - in fact, there is data that says exactly the opposite.

So, to sum up:
Your attempt to paint the President in a bad light fails. He's not doing something wrong here - in fact, according to your own sources, he's doing something that 55% of people agree with him on.

Sorry - but 85% is a far more significant number than 55%. The media in this case made the larger number the backdrop story, and headlined the lesser poll. That's headline manipulation. I know it well - I do it all the time...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ah, but therein lies the point. We have a poll indicating Americans want the economy to be the priority over global warming by 7 to 1. That is a HUGE difference - and yet the mainstream media spin titles it as "support" for a climate pact. The support is generalized do goodism, but the reality is that Americans don't really give a shit - they want their president to do something about this economy.

The news article is what we call "headline manipulation". It's been around for ages, and dupes the intellectually lazy - such as yourself?

The poll clearly states that 55% of Americans believe that something needs to be done about climate change. Is that "headline manipulation", or acurate answers to a polling question?

One could just as easily say that by leaving out the other poll question, you are "spinning" the data to reflect what you want it to, specifically that Americans hate Obama because he's going to Copenhaagen. There's no data that says that Americans don't support Obama doing something about climate change - in fact, there is data that says exactly the opposite.

So, to sum up:
Your attempt to paint the President in a bad light fails. He's not doing something wrong here - in fact, according to your own sources, he's doing something that 55% of people agree with him on.

Sorry - but 85% is a far more significant number than 55%. The media in this case made the larger number the backdrop story, and headlined the lesser poll. That's headline manipulation. I know it well - I do it all the time...

But what you're missing is that the second number doesn't matter, without knowlege of what the White House is actually making a prioriety. A trip to Copenhaagen doesn't mean that the White House isn't putting enough effort into the economy.

Now, if you had a poll that asked if people approved of the President's trip, then we'd actually have some relevant data. But without that, your point is lost.

 

[keee keee]

Global warming and cap and trade are both just another money tax grabbing scheem to fleece us citizens out of more of our money. remember Y2k scam this is just a new version the Dems are trying to spin!!!!

 

[Navy1960]

I wonder if the poll added this question " Define Climate Change" How many different answers you would get. Even though I'm somewhat of a skeptic of the conslusions of the IPCC if the generic question of " Should something be done about climate change?" be presented to me, my answer would be of course it should. However, I suspect that if you were to present the question in a manner such as in the form of energy needs and as a by-product of that being good stewards of the envornment you would get many people to be very supportive of that. If however you were to present it as it is being proposed where legislation will have no impact on the environment because of the non participation of nations such China and India and would eventually make this nation economically bankrupt , you might not have so many that would agree with that. The best approach is rather than to spend 100 billion dollars a year to help other nations conform to a singular set of conclusions, if we plan on spending that kind of money to invest it in our own energy future. The thread authors point is correct Americas have little interest in "Global Warming" as a national priority and I dare say you might have many Americans agree with the President on his stance on the BCC , however that does not mean it is a national priority.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Looks like this president's priorities remain very much out of the mainstream of the American public. He flies to Copenhagen while jobless claims rose once again for a second straight week.
____

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

Jobless claims rise for second straight week - MarketWatch

i say that with the respect you deserve, you tireless shill:


FUCK OFF ****

 

[keee keee]

If global warming is so real please explain the last five known iceages and what caused them.

 

[keee keee]

Where are all the news reports about homeless people, or are these only reported during republican presidencies? Or is it all Bush's fault,

 

[rightwinger]

I wonder if the poll added this question " Define Climate Change" How many different answers you would get. Even though I'm somewhat of a skeptic of the conslusions of the IPCC if the generic question of " Should something be done about climate change?" be presented to me, my answer would be of course it should. However, I suspect that if you were to present the question in a manner such as in the form of energy needs and as a by-product of that being good stewards of the envornment you would get many people to be very supportive of that. If however you were to present it as it is being proposed where legislation will have no impact on the environment because of the non participation of nations such China and India and would eventually make this nation economically bankrupt , you might not have so many that would agree with that. The best approach is rather than to spend 100 billion dollars a year to help other nations conform to a singular set of conclusions, if we plan on spending that kind of money to invest it in our own energy future. The thread authors point is correct Americas have little interest in "Global Warming" as a national priority and I dare say you might have many Americans agree with the President on his stance on the BCC , however that does not mean it is a national priority.

I think the question should be "are we better off pursuing alternative sources of energy" Whether global warming is 100% mans fault, 50% mans fault or 0% mans fault...dumping your shit into the air is not good. Moving to non fossil fuels and making America 100% energy independent should be our objective. If helping global warming is a byproduct it is a win-win

 

[Navy1960]

See not that far apart after all, it's my opinion that too much focus is put on the cause and very little effort is made on this nations future solutions. Right-winger you know of course as we have debated this issue many times that as far as solutions go, most Americans seem to be a little closer than some are willing to admit. I for one think that to explore every technology to rid our nation of its need to finance middle eastern and south american tin pots can not happen soon enough. However in my opnion to spend billions of taxpayer money to help other nations conform to a set of standards based on IPCC conclusions is not taking this nations best interest at heart.

 

[keee keee]

in the mean while, while waiting for all these make believe green jobs to be invented or created we should start building nukes and drilling all the god given oil that is here in our territory and land. I would rather employ American workers to drill, refine, and sell us our oil instead of giving our enemies all our money for middle east oil!!! they could put a small tax on all American oil and energy which could help fund green jobs and energy.

 

[rightwinger]

See not that far apart after all, it's my opinion that too much focus is put on the cause and very little effort is made on this nations future solutions. Right-winger you know of course as we have debated this issue many times that as far as solutions go, most Americans seem to be a little closer than some are willing to admit. I for one think that to explore every technology to rid our nation of its need to finance middle eastern and south american tin pots can not happen soon enough. However in my opnion to spend billions of taxpayer money to help other nations conform to a set of standards based on IPCC conclusions is not taking this nations best interest at heart.

Navy I agree with you. But it is worth the effort to recruit other nations in the effort to control what goes into the air.

Otherwise it is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool

 

[Navy1960]

It is worth the effort , however it makes little sense to act as the funding agent for that when your own nation is as dependent on foreign energy as any other. It reminds me a little of the China situation, China was upset because the United States would not provide them more funding to help them comply with any standards to come out of Denmark. You do understand how crazy that is, considering that our biggest debtor is China. So basically this 100 Billion we promised to other nations we are going to borrow from another nation to build other nations infrastructures and our citizens will be responsible for paying it back. If we were in the black this sort of thing would not be such an issue but as our nation is deep in debt, borrowing money for any purpose should at least be used for our citizens if we are responsible for paying it back.

 

[keee keee]

Then outlaw CO2

 

[Sinatra]

See not that far apart after all, it's my opinion that too much focus is put on the cause and very little effort is made on this nations future solutions. Right-winger you know of course as we have debated this issue many times that as far as solutions go, most Americans seem to be a little closer than some are willing to admit. I for one think that to explore every technology to rid our nation of its need to finance middle eastern and south american tin pots can not happen soon enough. However in my opnion to spend billions of taxpayer money to help other nations conform to a set of standards based on IPCC conclusions is not taking this nations best interest at heart.

____

You are quite correct - greater expansion of natural gas, nuclear, and cleaner-coal energy alone would greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil - and yet through restrictive regulation and crippling tax structure, these industries are always fighting for survival.

Natural gas in particular is a great option - we could run vehicles as well as heat homes with it. (the latter of course being done already) It burns more cleanly than coal, or wood, we have huge reserves of it, and the use-technology is already there.

And yet this current president and the Democrat leadership rarely mentions it.

Why?????