Only 34% believe Global Warming Caused by Humans

[KittenKoder]

Wasteful spending --> Global warming.

If you disagree with global warming, expect funding to be cut. What happens when your boss tells you: "You better believe in the boogieman because he is out to get you...or else you are out of a job. So you want your job, better believe of the boogieman. If you don't, here's your pink slip."

The funny thing is that under Bush the exact opposite happened, those that agreed that global warming is real and at least in part caused by human activity were ignored, over turned, or even fired.

Repubs always accusing everyone of what they know they would be doing if they were in power.

Um ... head in the clouds too long? Bush increased spending for the environut scientists and pushed for some of the products they endorse to be forced onto people. Yeah ...

 

[Sinatra]

Wasteful spending --> Global warming.

If you disagree with global warming, expect funding to be cut. What happens when your boss tells you: "You better believe in the boogieman because he is out to get you...or else you are out of a job. So you want your job, better believe of the boogieman. If you don't, here's your pink slip."

The funny thing is that under Bush the exact opposite happened, those that agreed that global warming is real and at least in part caused by human activity were ignored, over turned, or even fired.

Repubs always accusing everyone of what they know they would be doing if they were in power.

Care to show proof of this generalized charge? Please list for me the academics who were fired for supporting the theory of man-made global warming?

 

[KittenKoder]

Wasteful spending --> Global warming.

If you disagree with global warming, expect funding to be cut. What happens when your boss tells you: "You better believe in the boogieman because he is out to get you...or else you are out of a job. So you want your job, better believe of the boogieman. If you don't, here's your pink slip."

The funny thing is that under Bush the exact opposite happened, those that agreed that global warming is real and at least in part caused by human activity were ignored, over turned, or even fired.

Repubs always accusing everyone of what they know they would be doing if they were in power.

Care to show proof of this generalized charge? Please list for me the academics who were fired for supporting the theory of man-made global warming?

As a matter of fact, didn't Bush get one of the scientists who spoke up against global warming banned from that "inner circle" while he was in office?

 

[Old Rocks]

Wasteful spending --> Global warming.

If you disagree with global warming, expect funding to be cut. What happens when your boss tells you: "You better believe in the boogieman because he is out to get you...or else you are out of a job. So you want your job, better believe of the boogieman. If you don't, here's your pink slip."

The funny thing is that under Bush the exact opposite happened, those that agreed that global warming is real and at least in part caused by human activity were ignored, over turned, or even fired.

Repubs always accusing everyone of what they know they would be doing if they were in power.

Care to show proof of this generalized charge? Please list for me the academics who were fired for supporting the theory of man-made global warming?

Bush Administration Will Ignore Its Own Notice on CO2 Emissions

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency finally released its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking for public comment on the issue of greenhouse gas emission regulation. The notice — which is not a formal policy proposal but merely a suggested framework for future action — is accompanied by statements from senior officials from across the Bush administration that disavow the document's substance.

Susan Dudley, head of the White House's regulatory clearinghouse, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the policy "cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration."

Other letters of disapproval came from the heads of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Transportation, the White House Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Bush Administration Will Ignore Its Own Notice on CO2 Emissions | OMB Watch

 

[Old Rocks]

Wasteful spending --> Global warming.

If you disagree with global warming, expect funding to be cut. What happens when your boss tells you: "You better believe in the boogieman because he is out to get you...or else you are out of a job. So you want your job, better believe of the boogieman. If you don't, here's your pink slip."

The funny thing is that under Bush the exact opposite happened, those that agreed that global warming is real and at least in part caused by human activity were ignored, over turned, or even fired.

Repubs always accusing everyone of what they know they would be doing if they were in power.

Care to show proof of this generalized charge? Please list for me the academics who were fired for supporting the theory of man-made global warming?

Word of the White House censoring federal climate scientists on global warming began leaking out to the press early in George W. Bush’s first term in office, but only in the last few years have a few federal employees themselves been willing to go on record with such accusations.

Federal Employees Report Climate Science Censorship
A report titled “Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research”, released last January by two leading nonprofits, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to “global warming” or “climate change” from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited.

“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,” says UCS’s Francesca Grifo. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”

The issue first bubbled to the surface when Rick Piltz, who worked for a decade coordinating federal research on global warming as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program—first under President Clinton and then Bush—quit in mid-2005 alleging that his superiors were misusing and abusing the scientific information he was providing.




Climate Science Censorship - Federal Scientists Accuse Bush of Climate Science Censorship

 

[code1211]

Why do some find it necessary to argue the causes of global warming?

What is in it for their children if they are wrong?

How do they account for the changes in weather and the melting glaciers?

If the majority of scientists agree global warming is real, why ask the average citizen? Do you use them for medical advice as well?

Even if global arming is natural why not keep the planet clean? Those of us old enough remember the pollution of rivers and lakes.

And safe and renewal energy should be a concern of all people.

The Day After Tomorrow: Could it Really Happen? | Pew Center on Global Climate Change: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change

How do I account for the melting of glaciers? Could be any number of factors. That the glaciers are melting back to points of revealed ground not revealed in 7000 years tells us two things:

1. The glaciers were not always at the points of expansion at which they have been for some time.
2. Temperatures 7000 years ago were falling from points warmer than today and those highs could not possibly have been caused by the activities of Man.

Is the pollution of the planet a thing we should try to fight? Very probably. Is anthropogenic pollution the cause of Global Warming? Not likely. Why is it a bad thing to lie about this? Well, lying about anything is not good.

 

[elvis]

It's funny though that the lib media makes it out to be a universal truth, however.

It is a universal truth.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

you tell em lewinsky.

 

[elvis]

The global warming issue continues to fall off the doom n gloom radar.

Watch for $millions to be spent in advertising by the Green Machine to try and offset this continued downtrend...

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Looks like the multi-million dollar Green Machine campaign has already begun...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrc1XZayp4

I guess more people need to go to carpentry school and get educated.

 

[code1211]

Ah, now we see the cries of distress over the fact that global warming continues to be of little concern to Americans...

If you were so concerned about public opinion, you'd be supporting Obama, since he has over a 60% approval rating.

Not to be gloom monger, but his approval is sliding pretty sharply. His administration seems a little befuddled by the world in areas of economics, international relations, commerce, immigration and taxation. According to Rasmussun, his approval is down to 54%. The honeymoon might be coming to an end.

That Venezuelan moron played our Prez like a violin. Americans don't like it when we get beat in a game like that one.

We won't prosecute the CIA or, wait, maybe, um, er, well, what the heck, I guess we will. Golly by schucks. Rove might have been Bush's brain, but at least Bush acted like he was using that brain.

I get the sense that Obama has grand ideas, but will let Pelosi and Reid do whatever they want. It kind of reminds me of Bush the First. He trusted the Democratic Congress and they screwed him. Now they're going to do it to Obama.

Oh, well. It's been awhile since Carter. We can all get a good look at him again.


Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
Overall, 54% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. That’s his lowest total approval rating to date. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove. For more Presidential barometers, see Obama By the Numbers.

 

[code1211]

Wasteful spending --> Global warming.

If you disagree with global warming, expect funding to be cut. What happens when your boss tells you: "You better believe in the boogieman because he is out to get you...or else you are out of a job. So you want your job, better believe of the boogieman. If you don't, here's your pink slip."

The funny thing is that under Bush the exact opposite happened, those that agreed that global warming is real and at least in part caused by human activity were ignored, over turned, or even fired.

Repubs always accusing everyone of what they know they would be doing if they were in power.

That is simply not true. Dr. Hansen famously, publicly and repeatedly said that he was being muzzled. This had to have been the worst job of muzzling ever done. The guy never shut his mouth throughout the entire Bush Adinistration. Eight years. Talking continuously and always complaining that he was muzzled.

If your assertion is true, two things would be true today that aren't:
1) We never would have heard of Hansen and
2) He would have been fired.

 

[krotchdog]

Hansen famously got busted taking data from a hot month and presenting it as the data for a cooler month to falsely claim the cooler month was warm. One of the users here can attest to this fact.

This is all about government control and corporations making money. The effect on our lives, while if Obama really does hate america and is out to punish us, the best way is to cripple us financially. No one argues this is going to cost consumers higher prices for everything.

On a more technical note

Burkhart's Blog: Extinction is the Only Answer

Extinction is the Only Answer By Alan Burkhart

Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation. The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2. Supposedly, in some obfuscated way, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no real logic to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through obfuscation of complexities. "

Alan Burkhart got that little piece from:

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Also from the Alan Burkhart article and link I posted

Mister Gore’s former boss, Bill Clinton, seemed to believe that the Kyoto Protocol was a great idea to "save" us from global catastrophe. Here’s an excerpt from a 1998 report from the Department of Energy regarding Kyoto:


...The introduction of such reduction (Kyoto) would affect both consumers and businesses. Households would be faced with higher prices for energy and the need to adjust spending patterns. Nominal energy expenditures would rise, taking a larger share of the family budget for goods and service consumption and leaving less for savings. Higher prices for energy would cause consumers to try to reduce spending not only on energy, but on other goods as well. Thus, changes in energy prices would tend to disrupt both savings and spending streams. Energy services also represent a key input in the production of goods and services. As energy prices increase, the costs of production rise, placing upward pressure on the nominal prices of all intermediate goods and final goods and services in the economy, with widespread impacts on spending across many markets...

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Hansen recieved the wrong data. He did not use it knowing it was wrong. In fact, he immediatly changed the data base when he recieved the corrected data. And it changed that month from the hottest to the second hottest.

Very nicely done article. So what peer reviewed scientific journal was it first published in?

Unfortunetly, the physicists that make up the American Institute of Physics seem to have come up with a much differant conclusion. The same for every other Scientific Society in the world.

 

[Old Rocks]

American Geophysical Union policy statement on global warming;

AGU Revises Statement on Global Warming | DesertUSA News

The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system - including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons - are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the period 1956-2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.


The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

07.1 CLIMATE CHANGEEmail | Print
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
APS Physics | APS Home

 

[Dr Grump]

, but at least Bush acted like he was using that brain.

Um, no he didn't.....

 

[JohnStOnge]

In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.
We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
..

Not THAT again. As I've posted before, when that came out, I had no problem finding papers published in peer reviewed journals during that time frame that disagreed with the "consensus" position. If she didn't find any, she wasn't looking very hard. I guess if you make me I'll go ahead and do it again and give you some links. But, please, when you've got people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer out there you're going to have articles published in peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "consensus" opinion.

And the point isn't whether or not you can engage in ad hominem attacks about how people like that get funding from Exxon or whether or not you think they were wrong. The point here is that they publish papers in peer reviewed journals that are contrary to the "global warming" consensus and this woman could only have missed them if she tried as hard as she could to do so.

 

[amiam*]

What disturbs the scientific community is the rapidl increase in Co2 generation. I once told a firend: "The Earth cannot afford too many Americas with our culture. (As an after thought,You can't come between a man and his car[horse] for it is a symbol of his freedom.)

The roof has to fall down and hit him in the head before he'll respond. Such is life.

 

[amiam*]

What disturbs the scientific community is the rapidl increase in Co2 generation. I once told a firend: "The Earth cannot afford too many Americas with our culture. (As an after thought,You can't come between a man and his car[horse] for it is a symbol of his freedom.)

The roof has to fall down and hit him in the head before he'll respond. Such is life.

 

[Old Rocks]

In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.
We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
..

Not THAT again. As I've posted before, when that came out, I had no problem finding papers published in peer reviewed journals during that time frame that disagreed with the "consensus" position. If she didn't find any, she wasn't looking very hard. I guess if you make me I'll go ahead and do it again and give you some links. But, please, when you've got people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer out there you're going to have articles published in peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "consensus" opinion.

And the point isn't whether or not you can engage in ad hominem attacks about how people like that get funding from Exxon or whether or not you think they were wrong. The point here is that they publish papers in peer reviewed journals that are contrary to the "global warming" consensus and this woman could only have missed them if she tried as hard as she could to do so.

You presented two, to your credit. But the others that you posted were from political think tanks, not peer reviewed scientific journals.

When a scientist gets a research grant, he gets paid for research, irregardless of the conclusion. When Exxon puts out money, they pay for a conclusion favoring their interests. That is why they pay whores like Singer and Lindzen.

 

[KittenKoder]

In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.
We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
..

Not THAT again. As I've posted before, when that came out, I had no problem finding papers published in peer reviewed journals during that time frame that disagreed with the "consensus" position. If she didn't find any, she wasn't looking very hard. I guess if you make me I'll go ahead and do it again and give you some links. But, please, when you've got people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer out there you're going to have articles published in peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "consensus" opinion.

And the point isn't whether or not you can engage in ad hominem attacks about how people like that get funding from Exxon or whether or not you think they were wrong. The point here is that they publish papers in peer reviewed journals that are contrary to the "global warming" consensus and this woman could only have missed them if she tried as hard as she could to do so.

You presented two, to your credit. But the others that you posted were from political think tanks, not peer pressured scientific journals.

When a scientist gets a research grant, he gets paid for research, irregardless of the conclusion. When Exxon puts out money, they pay for a conclusion favoring their interests. That is why they pay whores like Singer and Lindzen.

Fixed it for you. They all get their money from companies and all work to make those products look good. However those who are not paid by government or companies I would trust.