Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Crikey - had to check the profile to see if Pontiuth Pilate has come back
Even if they're 20% out, then that still doesn't stack-up as being a republican-only thing on these numbers.
BTW: I can't get to youtube, and even if I could, how is 'youtube' any more credible than a professional polling company?
The point is somewhat moot however; science is not settled by public opinion.
Oerdin that youtube clip you link never points out where he gets his numbers from so i suggest you provide a link to some thing more solid then that mans banter.
Oerdin said:The link is to a radio show out of LA which also does webcasts. The poll cited was done by ABC News & Washington Post. In any event Rassmusen is a very biased source which does push polling to get desired results rather then accurate results. It's well known for it.
You haven't provided the source for your data.
Then it was slashed, burned, and desertified.Where we ponder over Earth's vast history of ups & downs in various catagories we also must consider that, at now time in history did the Earth support nearly 7 billion people, many already on marginal land (much of the Middle East for example used to be lush forest).
science is not settled by public opinion. - Ainwood
Nope. It's settled by people who finance their entire lives on government grants. Surely there cannot be a conflict of interest there...
Nope. It's settled by people who finance their entire lives on government grants. Surely there cannot be a conflict of interest there...
All that says is that they were hired to find out what the evidence says. There is no reason to make it up.
I'll point out again that a very large number of scientific unions agree that there is a cause for concern.
Homeopathic science is the new rage. It's the belief that the minority position in the scientific community is probably the right one. Especially if it's the majority position in whatever media you chose to consume.
Get on the bandwagon now and get a free morphic resonance generator!
****
It was the hippies. It was the long-haired tree-hugging sort who first really pushed the "GW is a concern" thing. There are a lot of people who default to "If the hippies think it's true it must be wrong.". Defending that snap-judgment has become a profitable business. Beyond "Look at the new gadget!" the general media often gets completely un-controversial science significantly wrong. So there's always some new misunderstanding you can push about science.
I heard a really brilliant one recently. I'm not sure how long it's actually been floating around, but I've seen it multiple places in the last few weeks. Basically:
"CO2 is good for plants. How could it be bad? The more CO2 we get the more plants we'll get. Plants consume CO2, so it's a self-balancing system, and one that just makes things *better* as we pollute more. Not that CO2 is a pollutant, mind you. Cutting down on CO2 would be a bad thing, as a matter of fact - won't anyone think of the crops???!!!"
TBQH, I still don't know what your point is.This:
I hope that explains it. I'm a stickler for details, if something is not the fastest, why describe it as such, second fastest after a meteor strike is still impressive, actually more impressive if you think about it.
True, there are natural cycles, but at no time did the CO2 concentration rose so high as the present, even during the warmest period.
55 million years ago [...] That period also saw a 'sudden injection' ("..occured over decades or years..") of CO2 that raised the [CO2] from 500 to 2000 ppm by the release of some subterranean natural gas reserves ignited by magma.
Our findings document an abrupt and catastrophic means of global warming that abruptly led from a very cold, seemingly stable climate state to a very warm also stable climate state with no pause in between, said Martin Kennedy, a professor of geology in the Department of Earth Sciences, who led the research team.
This tells us about the mechanism, which exists, but is dormant today, as well as the rate of change, he added. What we now need to know is the sensitivity of the trigger: how much forcing does it take to move from one stable state to the other, and are we approaching something like that today with current carbon dioxide warming.
Study results appear in the May 29 issue of Nature.
Just wondering if anyone remebers the hole in the ozone layer scares thay were doing before thay jumped on the global warming band wagon?
Wonder what ever happened to all of that faermongering.
You should come here some time and get some of the down low at the facility I work at. Your opinion might change on that one...
A lot of the deniers are soaked in corporate money. If there was real evidence against manmade global warming, it would be out already and the proponents would be discredited.
But there isn't.