green hoax

[skookerasbil]

The miserable fcukks of the world want worldwide redistribution of wealth.........thats all this green shit has ever been. And they were making mega-headway until about 3 or 4 yers ago when the effort came to a screeching halt.

 

[Foxfyre]

The link was at the top of the page.

The link was not to the Pew report but to ClimateProgress who has used 'strange' (to be polite) data before and accredited it to somebody who never said it.

I can find a plethora of stuff like that on a plethora of leftwing environmental wacko sites. But when you go looking for a more universally accepted credible source for some kind of backup or agreement with the data, you can't find it.

Which is why I doubt the facts as ClimateProgress present them are from Pew, or if they are, I suspect ClimateProgress has presented them dishonestly.

I respect those who really do believe humankind is causing dangerous global warming so long as they use REAL numbers and analysis to support their findings. But I respect most those who look at ALL the data instead of cherry picking what is convenient to their theorie and ignoring or dismissing the rest.

 

[skookerasbil]

The link was at the top of the page.

The link was not to the Pew report but to ClimateProgress who has used 'strange' (to be polite) data before and accredited it to somebody who never said it.

I can find a plethora of stuff like that on a plethora of leftwing environmental wacko sites. But when you go looking for a more universally accepted credible source for some kind of backup or agreement with the data, you can't find it.

Which is why I doubt the facts as ClimateProgress present them are from Pew, or if they are, I suspect ClimateProgress has presented them dishonestly.

I respect those who really do believe humankind is causing dangerous global warming so long as they use REAL numbers and analysis to support their findings. But I respect most those who look at ALL the data instead of cherry picking what is convenient to their theorie and ignoring or dismissing the rest.

Virtually ALL of Old Rocks links are supported on fringe left websites like Alternet, Common Dreams, Planet Out, MoveOn.org, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, DemocracyNow..............all frequented by Maoists, Marxists and hard left liberals.


And interstingly enough..............all the "real scientists" frequent these sites too.!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

The link was at the top of the page.

The link was not to the Pew report but to ClimateProgress who has used 'strange' (to be polite) data before and accredited it to somebody who never said it.

I can find a plethora of stuff like that on a plethora of leftwing environmental wacko sites. But when you go looking for a more universally accepted credible source for some kind of backup or agreement with the data, you can't find it.

Which is why I doubt the facts as ClimateProgress present them are from Pew, or if they are, I suspect ClimateProgress has presented them dishonestly.

I respect those who really do believe humankind is causing dangerous global warming so long as they use REAL numbers and analysis to support their findings. But I respect most those who look at ALL the data instead of cherry picking what is convenient to their theorie and ignoring or dismissing the rest.

Virtually ALL of Old Rocks links are supported on fringe left websites like Alternet, Common Dreams, Planet Out, MoveOn.org, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, DemocracyNow..............all frequented by Maoists, Marxists and hard left liberals.


And interstingly enough..............all the "real scientists" frequent these sites too.!!!

That's my major peeve re this whole AGW thing. Those who want the truth will look at scientific analysis, theory, opinion from ALL qualified sources rather than just those that are promoting a particular theory in a particular way.

And the scientific opinion I trust is that which is up front and honest about all the research including conflicting information and is explicit about what we cannot know and don't know. The questionable science is much more specific, absolute, and while not coming out and actually saying it, words reports to create an illusion of 'settled science' that simply does not exist on this topic.

In that Pew article it is suggested that a high percentage of people want to protect the environment whatever it takes. I can believe that. What honorable person doesn't care about the environment? But what does the answer mean?

1. That we do what is necessary to keep the air, water, soil clean and protect the aesthetic beauty of the Earth and creatures on it? I've been in that camp most of my life.

or does it mean. . . .

2. That we buy into this AGW stuff hook, line, and sinker and hand over our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities to governments that don't like us very much and won't have our best interests at heart?

The article doesn't specify.

I'm guessing most had #1 in mind when they answered that question though.

 

[konradv]

Just today I read an article in Wired magazine where some Solar farm was having problems because the environmentalists said it would destroy the desert....

WTF? Destroy the desert? But they want green energy?

green is a hoax --- when i was a kid - in the 50s the word was that half of north u.s. was going to be under 10ft. of ice and snow - good thing i did not buy 12 mush dogs

If that was the word in the 50s, I'd be thinking, "what made scientists change their minds so fast?" Don't know what your anecdote has to do with the "green" part of the OP, but it does tell me there just might be something to AGW theory.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just today I read an article in Wired magazine where some Solar farm was having problems because the environmentalists said it would destroy the desert....

WTF? Destroy the desert? But they want green energy?

green is a hoax --- when i was a kid - in the 50s the word was that half of north u.s. was going to be under 10ft. of ice and snow - good thing i did not buy 12 mush dogs

If that was the word in the 50s, I'd be thinking, "what made scientists change their minds so fast?" Don't know what your anecdote has to do with the "green" part of the OP, but it does tell me there just might be something to AGW theory.

It really amazes me that the more scientific theories are proved flawed, false, and/or debunked re climate change, the more the AGW religionists hold on to ANY opinion that supports the AGW religion.

My question is why? Why do they do that? Why is it so damn important to them that AGW be proved valid?

 

[dilloduck]

green is a hoax --- when i was a kid - in the 50s the word was that half of north u.s. was going to be under 10ft. of ice and snow - good thing i did not buy 12 mush dogs

If that was the word in the 50s, I'd be thinking, "what made scientists change their minds so fast?" Don't know what your anecdote has to do with the "green" part of the OP, but it does tell me there just might be something to AGW theory.

It really amazes me that the more scientific theories are proved flawed, false, and/or debunked re climate change, the more the AGW religionists hold on to ANY opinion that supports the AGW religion.

My question is why? Why do they do that? Why is it so damn important to them that AGW be proved valid?

It's a religion to them.

 

[Foxfyre]

If that was the word in the 50s, I'd be thinking, "what made scientists change their minds so fast?" Don't know what your anecdote has to do with the "green" part of the OP, but it does tell me there just might be something to AGW theory.

It really amazes me that the more scientific theories are proved flawed, false, and/or debunked re climate change, the more the AGW religionists hold on to ANY opinion that supports the AGW religion.

My question is why? Why do they do that? Why is it so damn important to them that AGW be proved valid?

It's a religion to them.

But how did it get to be that way? Given lack of compelling evidence or experience, why would anybody embrace a religion that takes away personal freedoms, choices, options, opportunities; that raises costs of living and taxes for everybody; that hands over power to governments that don't like us very much and certainly don't have our best interests at heart. And also that is likely to doom more generations of millions of people to crushing poverty?

 

[Meister]

Seems the vast majority of Americans do care.

Pew: 71% of Americans say “This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.” « Climate Progress

Pew: 71% of Americans say “This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.”Public support for alternative energy transcends political barriers
May 9, 2011
A new Pew Poll “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology” finds strong support for the environment and clean energy. The PDF is here and the summary with charts is here.

Pew buried the lede. The most interesting finding to me is that 71% of Americans believe “This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.” And 59% believe that “strongly.”

CAP polling expert Ruy Teixeira has some background on the poll, along with a chart with the results of the energy question:


The Pew Research Center has just released a very interesting study, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology.” It segments the public into nine groups: eight politically active groups and one inactive group (bystanders) composed entirely of nonvoters. Of the eight active groups, two are described as “mostly Republican” (staunch conservatives and Main Street Republicans), three as “mostly Democratic” (new coalition Democrats, hard-pressed Democrats, and solid liberals), and three as “mostly independent” (libertarians, disaffecteds, and postmoderns). In reality, however, postmoderns lean strongly Democratic, while libertarians and disaffecteds lean strongly Republican. So there are really four active Democratic and four active Republican groups.

I didn't see anything in the Pew Report that stated, "This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment", Roxie. I did see it stated in "Climate Progress" edited by Joe Romm. Also found in "Center for American Progress".
I even looked at the Pew Research Center and couldn't find anything that would back your claim.
I tried to get educated, but...I fell flat on my face with what you gave us to work with, Roxie.

 

[Meister]

Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Can you cut and paste from your source to back your claim. I'm looking and not seeing it, Rocks.

Here's the PewResearch Center link....can you find it here for us?
Pew Research Center

 

[lehr]

For Release: March 20, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or [email protected]

Americans Cool to Global Warming Action, New Poll Finds

Nearly Half Wouldn't Be Willing to Pay Even a Penny More for Gasoline; Opposition to Taxes Especially Strong Among Minorities


Washington, D.C.: Forty-eight percent of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll found just 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse emissions. U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has called for a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, transportation accounts for 33% of the U.S.'s man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Over 60% of these emissions - or about 20% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions - result from burning gasoline in personal automobiles.

"With one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions coming from light trucks and cars, any serious effort to significantly reduce U.S. emissions would have to encourage fuel conservation in personal automobiles," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "But almost half of all Americans oppose spending more for gasoline, despite polls indicating wide public concern over global warming. These results suggest Americans' concern may not be as deep as we've been led to believe."


Opposition to increased gasoline taxes was especially strong among minorities, with 53% of African-Americans indicating they are unwilling to pay higher gas taxes in any amount. Eighty-four percent of blacks and 78% of Hispanics opposed paying an additional 50 cents or more for their gasoline.

Americans Cool to Global Warming Action, New Poll Finds




As usual.........the k00ks are big on theory, hopes and dreams, but never want you top know about the public apathy related to spending $$ to combat "man-made" climate change.



More Oooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks!!!!!!!


Only One in Four Americans Are Anxious About the Environment
Most favor moderate approach to environmental protection
by Riley E. Dunlap and Lydia SaadPage: 12 GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Sunday, April 22 marks the 31st anniversary of the first Earth Day, and organizers of this year's activities in the United States are calling for April 19 to be a "car-free day." However, according to Gallup's recent annual update of environmental attitudes, it would be difficult to mobilize Americans around such a boycott of fossil-fuel consumption. The poll shows that most Americans are sympathetic toward the environmental movement, but lack the ominous view about environmental conditions that might be needed to spur major action.

A variety of results from Gallup's Earth Day poll, conducted March 5-7 with 1,060 national adults, suggest that only a quarter or so of Americans are highly troubled about environmental conditions. About half that number could be described as complacent, while the remaining majority is concerned about the environment, but only moderately so.

Only One in Four Americans Are Anxious About the Environment

makes no diff what we want - komrade obama and his communist czars are going to give us green

 

[Old Rocks]

Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Can you cut and paste from your source to back your claim. I'm looking and not seeing it, Rocks.

Here's the PewResearch Center link....can you find it here for us?
Pew Research Center

http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/Beyond-Red-vs-Blue-The-Political-Typology.pdf