- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over - Rasmussen Reports™
From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...
Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:
The Koch brothers have done an admirable job making Climate Science into politics.From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...
Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:
From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...
Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:
What do you do when you cannot debate the merits of an argument? Insult those making it. You show a perfect example of it. Nothing you said addresses the science, ypou just spewed ad Homs. Well done!
Didn't you just do exactly what you claim j-mac was doing - i.e. insult him for posting a poll rather than debate the merits of the poll?
Part of the problem with environmental science is that it is entirely counter to people's own experiences and all of the remedies appear to be ones that almost totally destroy the lifestyle people have worked hard to create. No wonder people, those well informed and those not well informed, challenge the validity of the "science" presented to them.
Actually, I commented on his post. Reading Is Fundamental.
I just did a poll...95% of people would not use public opinion polls to determine what is scientifically accurate. The 5% of course were unsure because they were just north of mentally handicapped.
It is fundamental - that's why I challenged the hypocrisy of your post.
Attempts at exerting superiority, feigned or otherwise, seldom bring you converts to your side of an argument.
OK, I am not sure why this is confusing for you, but let's try again. There is a large, unsubtle difference between insulting a group of people, and pointing out the faults with a post.
There's that nasty superiority thing working against you again.
Funny, I was under the impression that the issue of the OP was a poll that showed that only 20% of the American public believed the debate on the validity of man-made global warming was over. Perhaps you were confused into thinking the OP was a direct challenge to the science or - pseudo science or perhaps I'm confused because I thought the OP was a direct challenge to the claims that the debate is over. There is a subtle difference.
There's that nasty superiority thing working against you again.
Funny, I was under the impression that the issue of the OP was a poll that showed that only 20% of the American public believed the debate on the validity of man-made global warming was over. Perhaps you were confused into thinking the OP was a direct challenge to the science or - pseudo science or perhaps I'm confused because I thought the OP was a direct challenge to the claims that the debate is over. There is a subtle difference.
I suppose if you ignored his actual words, you might think that...
This is the result of ignorance. People who don't understand science but think they do. I will never understand why people think that an idea they had while looking out the window is just as valid as a scientist... A professional, a person who went to college and got a degree, who spent many years studying after college and while working in the field many years as a career.
I've said this many times in the environmental forum and I will say it again here. Almost all of the questions about global warming can be answered simply by reading an introductory science textbook. The remaining questions can be answered by studying climate science and reading the IPCC's reports.
If you don't know anything about these things, you should not have an opinion that you think AGW is X(anything), because you have no idea. If you are going to have an opinion at least do a bare minimum of research and learn basic science first, it is not that hard at all. If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet. It is laughably stupid and you will immediately spot it once you learn a few basic things.
There are charlatans everywhere, my friend, and throughout the history of man's time on earth. It is the wise man who takes very little on faith simply because another man claims to be able to look into the future.
So take a look for yourself.
Perhaps you could point out any fraudulent claim I've made as it relates to man-made global warming.
And just to note, Redress already pointed out that it is a trait of those who can't counter an argument to attack the other person. You're proving his point, even if his point wasn't well founded when made.
This is the result of ignorance. People who don't understand science but think they do. I will never understand why people think that an idea they had while looking out the window is just as valid as a scientist... A professional, a person who went to college and got a degree, who spent many years studying after college and while working in the field many years as a career.
I've said this many times in the environmental forum and I will say it again here. Almost all of the questions about global warming can be answered simply by reading an introductory science textbook. The remaining questions can be answered by studying climate science and reading the IPCC's reports.
If you don't know anything about these things, you should not have an opinion that you think AGW is X(anything), because you have no idea. If you are going to have an opinion at least do a bare minimum of research and learn basic science first, it is not that hard at all. If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet. It is laughably stupid and you will immediately spot it once you learn a few basic things.
The evidence is that the Global average temperatures based on the GISS have increased by .8 C since 1880.What the hell are you talking about? I suggested people educate themselves and you made a veiled reference to AGW predictions as being a trick so I suggested you look at the evidence yourself.
edit: Perhaps I misunderstood your original reply?
We are 43% of our way to doubling CO2, but the diminishing response curve of CO2It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks
amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
There are better reasons to use green technologies other then just climate change... people today live today with technology and advancements that make life better, why would we want to stop progress and advancement?
I disagree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?