Global luke warming

Your alarmism does not seem to be catching on.
Lol OK bud, keep believing that..

"In fact, one of the most interesting – and consistent – findings is a clear difference between
liberal/moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans. In many respects, liberal/moderate
Republicans are relatively similar to moderate/conservative Democrats on the issue of global warming,
potentially forming a moderate, middle-ground public on the issue. Republicans are not a monolithic block
of global warming policy opponents. Rather, liberal/moderate Republicans are often part of the mainstream
of American public opinion on climate change, while conservative Republicans’ views are often distinctly
different than the rest of the American public."

For example:

• Two in three registered voters (66%) think global warming is happening. Large majorities of Democrats
(88%) – liberal (93%) and moderate/conservative (84%) – think it is happening, as do over half of
Independents (59%) and liberal and moderate Republicans (61%). By contrast, only 28% of conservative
Republicans think global warming is happening.

• Just over half of registered voters (51%) think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities.
A large majority of Democrats (69%, and 75% of liberal Democrats) and nearly half (47%) of liberal and
moderate Republicans, but only 22% of conservative Republicans think global warming is mostly
human-caused.

• Over half (56%) of registered voters say they are worried about global warming. Liberal Democrats are
the most worried (84%), followed by moderate/conservative Democrats (77%). Half of
liberal/moderate Republicans (51%) are worried about global warming and are more than twice as likely
to be worried than conservative Republicans (19%).

• Americans are more than two times more likely to vote for a congressional or presidential candidate who
strongly supports action to reduce global warming. Democrats, liberal and moderate Republicans, and
Independents are more likely to vote for such a candidate. Only conservative Republicans are less likely
to vote for such a candidate.

• Likewise, Americans are three times more likely to vote against a political candidate who strongly opposes
action to reduce global warming. Only conservative Republicans are, on balance, slightly more likely to
vote for a candidate who strongly opposes action to reduce global warming.

• Two in three Americans (66%) support the Congress and president passing laws to increase energy
efficiency and the use of renewable energy as a way to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Most likely to voice support are Democrats (81%), including 89% of liberal Democrats. Majorities of
liberal and moderate Republicans (63%) and Independents (59%) do as well. By contrast, conservative
Republicans are the least likely to support passing energy efficiency and renewable energy laws as a way
to reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels (42%).

• Two in three Americans (64%) support setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coalfired
power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health, even with the explicit caveat
that the cost of electricity to consumers and companies would likely increase. Most likely to support the
limits are Democrats (82%, 89% of liberal Democrats) as well as liberal and moderate Republicans
(65%). About half of Independents (48%) support such limits, but only 31% of conservative
Republicans support setting strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

• A majority of Americans (62%) say the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of
what other countries do. Democrats in particular are likely to agree (75%, 84% of liberal Democrats).
Majorities of liberal and moderate Republicans (57%) and Independents (53%) support this as well.
Fewer than half of conservative Republicans (43%), although still a plurality, believe the United States
should reduce its emissions regardless of what other countries do.

• Americans across political lines, except conservative Republicans, think government, (including their
own member of Congress, their governor, local government officials, and President Obama) should do
more to address global warming.

• Large majorities of Democrats, Independents, and liberal/moderate Republicans think corporations and
industry and citizens themselves should do more to address global warming. Conservative Republicans
are much less likely to say corporations or citizens should do more.

Other key findings include:

• About half of Democrats say a U.S. House candidate’s views on global warming and developing clean
energy sources will be very important to their vote. Independents and Republicans place less importance
on these issues.

• One in four Americans (26%) would be willing to join – or are currently participating in – a campaign to
convince elected officials to take action to reduce global warming. The most likely to do so are liberal
Democrats (49%); the least likely are conservative Republicans (6%).

• Many Americans, if asked by a person they like and respect, would take action to support candidates
who share their views on global warming. Half of Democrats (49%) would sign a pledge to vote only for
such candidates, and one third or more would write to a government official on the subject (42%), meet
with an elected official (35%), volunteer time to elect such a candidate (36%), and/or donate money to
such a political candidate (32%). Independents and Republicans are less likely to say they would take any
of these actions.

• If asked by a person they liked and respected, many Americans would support (21%) or participate in
(13%) an organization engaging in non-violent civil disobedience against activities that make global
warming worse. Liberal Democrats are the most likely to say they would do so; conservative
Republicans are the least likely.

• Americans think that when elected officials make decisions about how to deal with global warming, they
are most influenced by large campaign contributors (71%), fossil fuel companies (67%), clean energy
companies (57%), and climate scientists (53%). Fewer Americans (35%) think that people who share
their own views about global warming have influence.

• Democrats are more likely than Independents or Republicans to say they could influence the decisions
of government officials regarding global warming if they worked together with like-minded others.

• More than half of Americans think that if the United States takes steps to reduce global warming, it will
provide a better life for our children and grandchildren (60%), help free us from dependence on foreign
oil (55%), improve people’s health (54%), save many plant and animal species from extinction (52%),
and create green jobs and a stronger economy (50%). Most Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats,
expect these and other benefits, whereas fewer than a third of conservative Republicans expect any of
these benefits if the U.S. takes steps to reduce global warming. Nearly half of Independents and
liberal/moderate Republicans have these views.

• About half of Americans think that if the United States takes steps to reduce global warming, it will
cause energy prices to rise (53%) or lead to more government regulation (52%). Only 22% of Americans
think it would cost jobs and harm our economy. Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans, and
Independents are the most likely to expect these to happen.

http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/hot-topics/climate-polling
 
And it’s not working anyway. Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced. The most recent polling data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who worry “a great deal” about climate change is down slightly on thirty years ago, while the number who worry “not at all” has doubled from 12 per cent to 24 per cent—and now exceeds the number who worry “only a little” or “a fair amount”. All that fear-mongering has achieved less than nothing: if anything it has hardened scepticism.

Your alarmism does not seem to be catching on.

repeating biased twaddle is not exactly verbal sparring, klanman.
 
Actually, no. That is a steaming pile of lies as well. Scientists are about evenly split on the topic.
Oh right, about evenly split. There are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies contradicting anthropogenic climate change...

I have never seen one, but there are tens of thousands.
 
Oh right, about evenly split. There are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies contradicting anthropogenic climate change...

I have never seen one, but there are tens of thousands.


Politicians love this polarising because it means they can attack a straw man. It’s what they are good at. “Doubt has been eliminated,” said Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway and UN Special Representative on Climate Change, in a speech in 2007: “It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act.” John Kerry says we have no time for a meeting of the flat-earth society. Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.

So where’s the outrage from scientists at this presidential distortion? It’s worse than that, actually. The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.


The second source of the 97 per cent number was a survey of scientific papers, which has now been comprehensively demolished by Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, who is probably the world’s leading climate economist. As the Australian blogger Joanne Nova summarised Tol’s findings, John Cook of the University of Queensland and his team used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along, a scientific no-no if ever there was one. The data could not be replicated, and Cook himself threatened legal action to hide them. Yet neither the journal nor the university where Cook works has retracted the paper, and the scientific establishment refuses to stop citing it, let alone blow the whistle on it. Its conclusion is too useful.
 
Oreskes 2004

Is a peer-reviewed study which reviewed all peer-reviewed studies previously conducted. That is where the consensus comes from. Not Obama, Kerry, AL Gore or any other partisan politician. Nor does it come from John Cook. However, John Cook did coauthor a study in 2010 which did withstand peer-review and affirmed the findings of Naomi Oreskes regarding the consensus among climate scientists regarding the vast body of research on climate change.
 
From Oreskes 04 abstract:

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
 
Politicians love this polarising because it means they can attack a straw man. It’s what they are good at. “Doubt has been eliminated,” said Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway and UN Special Representative on Climate Change, in a speech in 2007: “It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act.” John Kerry says we have no time for a meeting of the flat-earth society. Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.

So where’s the outrage from scientists at this presidential distortion? It’s worse than that, actually. The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.


The second source of the 97 per cent number was a survey of scientific papers, which has now been comprehensively demolished by Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, who is probably the world’s leading climate economist. As the Australian blogger Joanne Nova summarised Tol’s findings, John Cook of the University of Queensland and his team used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along, a scientific no-no if ever there was one. The data could not be replicated, and Cook himself threatened legal action to hide them. Yet neither the journal nor the university where Cook works has retracted the paper, and the scientific establishment refuses to stop citing it, let alone blow the whistle on it. Its conclusion is too useful.


continuously referring to the same article, which was written by a dishonest liar with massive investments in the energy/fracking industry, and which was published by a right wing conservative paper that's still trying to fight communism, is a retarded tactic even for a lowly skinhead rat like you.
 
Why would someone rely on 1% of the earth's history as being representative of the other 99%?
So they can deceive you.
 
Wake me when the hiatus ends and global temperature begins rising in lock-step with rising CO2 levels, as the global warming hypothesis predicts it should do.
 
Oreskes 2004

Is a peer-reviewed study which reviewed all peer-reviewed studies previously conducted. That is where the consensus comes from. Not Obama, Kerry, AL Gore or any other partisan politician. Nor does it come from John Cook. However, John Cook did coauthor a study in 2010 which did withstand peer-review and affirmed the findings of Naomi Oreskes regarding the consensus among climate scientists regarding the vast body of research on climate change.

The Letter Science Magazine Rejected
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, pp. 685-688, July 2005)
- Benny Peiser


Abstract: On 3 December 2004, Science published an article entitled "The scientific consensus on climate change" by Naomi Oreskes (Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686). Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "global climate change". The article suggested that for the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Between 3 December 2004 and 4 January 2005 I conducted a similar analysis. The results of my findings contradicted Oreskes and essentially falsified her study. On 4 January 2005, I submitted these results in a letter to Science. On 18 February, editors from Science contacted me to suggest that they would consider publishing a shorter version of the letter. This shorter version was submitted on 23 February. On 13 April, Science responded, saying "After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter." No evidence was provided for this technically contrived excuse. As far as I am aware, neither the details nor the results of my analysis were cited anywhere. Journals such as Science have an obligation to correct errors, especially as activists, journalists and science organisations have endlessly repeated claims made in Oreskes (2004). The sad reality is that by refusing to publish corrections to a fatally flawed paper, they undermine their own credibility, that of their contributors, and the integrity of science.


Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte


Abstract: Fear of anthropogenic "global warming" can adversely affect patients' well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on "global climate change" found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to "catastrophic" climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.

Next...
Navier-Stokes Equations and

CARBON-FREE SUGAR :lol:

 
The Letter Science Magazine Rejected
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, pp. 685-688, July 2005)
- Benny Peiser


Abstract: On 3 December 2004, Science published an article entitled "The scientific consensus on climate change" by Naomi Oreskes (Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686). Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "global climate change". The article suggested that for the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Between 3 December 2004 and 4 January 2005 I conducted a similar analysis. The results of my findings contradicted Oreskes and essentially falsified her study. On 4 January 2005, I submitted these results in a letter to Science. On 18 February, editors from Science contacted me to suggest that they would consider publishing a shorter version of the letter. This shorter version was submitted on 23 February. On 13 April, Science responded, saying "After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter." No evidence was provided for this technically contrived excuse. As far as I am aware, neither the details nor the results of my analysis were cited anywhere. Journals such as Science have an obligation to correct errors, especially as activists, journalists and science organisations have endlessly repeated claims made in Oreskes (2004). The sad reality is that by refusing to publish corrections to a fatally flawed paper, they undermine their own credibility, that of their contributors, and the integrity of science.


Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte


Abstract: Fear of anthropogenic "global warming" can adversely affect patients' well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on "global climate change" found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to "catastrophic" climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.
Next...
Navier-Stokes Equations and

CARBON-FREE SUGAR :lol:

He retracted.
 
Back
Top