Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 63

Thread: Poll: 53% Of Americans Donít Believe In Man-Made Global Warming

  1. #1

    Poll: 53% Of Americans Donít Believe In Man-Made Global Warming

    President Obama is emphasizing global warming ahead of the November elections, but a new poll suggests he faces an uphill climb.

    According to a Pew Research Center poll, 35 percent of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to mankind is warming the Earth while another 18 percent says the world has warmed due to ďnatural patternsĒ and not human activity.

    Thatís a 53 percent majority against the presidentís position.
    cont.
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/po...lobal-warming/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    That's it? I seriously would have thought it was higher than that. Global warming is dead and is now just being dragged through the mud by politicians with an obvious agenda.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    That's it? I seriously would have thought it was higher than that. Global warming is dead and is now just being dragged through the mud by politicians with an obvious agenda.
    Yeah well, ~50% still believe in socialism...

  5. #4
    I wonder why random people answering their phone have a drastically different opinion from scientists.
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    I wonder why random people answering their phone have a drastically different opinion from scientists.
    Because they are not getting paid to spew BS. Almost all scientists are Government lapdogs. They love grant money, independent thinkers like Art Robinson are labeled kooks.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Because they are not getting paid to spew BS. Almost all scientists are Government lapdogs. They love grant money, independent thinkers like Art Robinson are labeled kooks.
    Most scientists aren't get paid to spew BS, and many who do are "skeptics".

    To think that any sizable chunk of the human population actually looks at the topic of AGW from any kind of advanced analytical perspective is being foolish.
    Last edited by Anti-Neocon; 06-26-2014 at 09:39 PM.
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  8. #7
    Of course, then you have those who are gullible and will believe most anything the government tells them.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    Most scientists aren't get paid to spew BS, and many who do are "skeptics".
    Really? who butters their bread? many universities take government grants. There are almost no real independent scientists anymore. Somebody has to pay for them sitting around doing experiments. Corporations are biased too, obviously.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Really? who butters their bread? many universities take government grants. There are almost no real independent scientists anymore. Somebody has to pay for them sitting around doing experiments. Corporations are biased too, obviously.
    "Sitting around doing experiments"...

    And some people question whether or not the climate change denialist movement is anti-science.
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    "Sitting around doing experiments"...

    And some people question whether or not the climate change denialist movement is anti-science.
    The point is that you can get a lot of money for creating something that does not necessarily have to work in any real sense of the word.
    Donald Trump > SJW ass-tears

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    I wonder why random people answering their phone have a drastically different opinion from scientists.
    Perhaps it's because random phone people are becoming increasingly cynical & suspicious of the ever-mounting pile of $#@! that has been ceaselessly shovelled at them by politicians, bureaucrats, "journalists" and "activists" (and even some "scientists") - regarding any of a vast range of subjects (war, the economy, "climate change," IRS emails, etc. ad nauseum).

    Does anyone seriously expect public opinion to align with that of some vaguely specified group such as "scientists" merely because agenda-mongers (like Obama) wag their fingers and shout, "Science, bitchez!" ... ?


    Frťdťric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    "Sitting around doing experiments"...

    And some people question whether or not the climate change denialist movement is anti-science.
    Some of us do not wish to be ruled over by a technocratic elite, that have gotten some things wrong in a spectacular manner in the past.
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  15. #13
    But it is exactly that - "science bitchez!"

    The countless things the government does to lose our trust doesn't mean we should disregard science, nor see it as a victory when people do.

    Science is perhaps the only field with a functioning BS-O-meter, where prospective publications go through rigorous peer-review processes before they are even taken seriously. "Science, bitchez" is the quest for truth, and you can help improve it by pointing out where climate scientists are wrong. I've read through numerous publications and there is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real, and I don't know how anyone who actually acquaints themselves with the topic can think otherwise.

    Now if only the fields of history and politics were driven by a quest for truth...
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Really? who butters their bread? many universities take government grants. There are almost no real independent scientists anymore. Somebody has to pay for them sitting around doing experiments. Corporations are biased too, obviously.
    Do you know what really gets you paid the big bucks when you're a scientist? Proving other scientists wrong. Devising a well-grounded theory that successfully stands up to the rigorous peer-criticism and yet flies in the face of a previously held consensus. If somebody made a breakthrough that can actually stand up under its own weight, that scientist would be a hero.

    So many people in the U.S. have these huge convictions about climate change yet have very little or no knowledge of how scientists are actually arriving at the conclusions they arrive at. These same people don't seem to have a problem with other scientific models like regarding how the earth's tectonic plates move. But no definitely not humans' effect on the environment. [Insert fallacious argument from incredulity here. But humans are so small! And, the Bible says only God controls the weather! 98% of scientists are all corrupt falsifying results for the money!]
    Last edited by Crashland; 06-26-2014 at 10:55 PM.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Some of us do not wish to be ruled over by a technocratic elite, that have gotten some things wrong in a spectacular manner in the past.
    That's all fine, and I am not suggesting that you should desire being ruled over by these technocrats. But please don't equate science with politics. Agenda-driven science simply doesn't get far because scientific research is judged by its truthfulness. There's always people masquerading as scientists too who really don't follow scientific protocol whatsoever, but they are quacks and rejects from the scientific community. IF you want to form an opinion on AGW, READ scientific literature. Don't look at who is quoting said literature. Learn about the topic and assess it on its own merit. And whatever you do, don't quote a quack's interpretation of said literature.

    And from what I've seen, there really is only serious scientific debate to be had on the level of AGW, not on whether or not it's happening. And thus in the political world, the debate should focus on what should be done in response to said AGW, not whether or not it's happening. It's definitely happening!
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Do you know what really gets you paid the big bucks when you're a scientist?
    I agree with most of your points, but one thing:

    I think you underestimate how lucrative it is to peddle BS. But of course, all BS peddling has to be done outside of the scientific arena, because if it was attempted within, it would be the equivalent of jumping straight into a pit of lions, as other scientists will tear up pseudoscience. It is chewed up and spit out straight into the countless trash heaps of garbage never published.

    If you REALLY want big bucks as a "climate scientist", you can go on Koch-funded disinformation tours and tout your credentials while filling in peoples' knowledge gaps with complete fabrications.

    But of course, in that case, you are not being a scientist. You are being a politician.
    Last edited by Anti-Neocon; 06-26-2014 at 11:05 PM.
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    I agree with most of your points, but one thing:

    I think you underestimate how lucrative it is to peddle BS. But of course, all BS peddling has to be done outside of the scientific arena, because if it was attempted within, it would be the equivalent of jumping straight into a pit of lions, as other scientists will tear up pseudoscience. It is chewed up and spit out straight into the countless trash heaps of garbage never published.

    If you REALLY want big bucks as a "climate scientist", you can go on Koch-funded disinformation tours and tout your credentials while filling in peoples' knowledge gaps with complete fabrications.

    But of course, in that case, you are not being a scientist. You are being a politician.
    Yeah, except that it isn't...
    Donald Trump > SJW ass-tears

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Petar View Post
    Yeah, except that it isn't...
    Oh yeah? Examples please!

    You may be God and able to declare things true or false, but first of all you'll have to prove your divinity.
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by green73 View Post
    Well , nobody polled me , put my entire tribe down as a no . $#@! them . Lol

  23. #20
    Here is all a scientist or layman who believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming has to say to get my complete support.

    I believe in AGW,good!It was getting a little nippy around here!

    I believe in AGW,How about them San Diego Padres?

    I believe in AGW,the oceans are rising about an inch a century!Saunter,Saunter for your lives!

    I believe in AGW,but of course a free people have every right to expel as much CO2 as they wish,even if it approaches the ridiculous amounts that B.H.Obama and Al Gore put into the atmosphere every year.

    And so on.People who don't believe in that horsecrap aren't telling you to pay more taxes,pay more for your electricity,subsidize solar power and electric cars,pay for 'carbon credits' and on and on and on,now are they?
    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


    A police state is a small price to pay for living in the freest country on earth.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    But it is exactly that - "science bitchez!"

    The countless things the government does to lose our trust doesn't mean we should disregard science, nor see it as a victory when people do.

    Science is perhaps the only field with a functioning BS-O-meter, where prospective publications go through rigorous peer-review processes before they are even taken seriously. "Science, bitchez" is the quest for truth, and you can help improve it by pointing out where climate scientists are wrong. I've read through numerous publications and there is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real, and I don't know how anyone who actually acquaints themselves with the topic can think otherwise.

    Now if only the fields of history and politics were driven by a quest for truth...
    If you think "science, bitchez" is merely "exactly that" then you have obviously and utterly failed to understand anything I've said. The fact that history and politics are NOT driven by a "quest for truth" is the whole point. Pissing and moaning because the opinions of the "ignorant masses" don't conform to whatever happens to be the "scientific consensus" at any given moment completely misses that point - especially when a much vaunted (but ultimately changeable and even ephemeral) "scientific consensus" is blatantly used to prop up and push political and special-interest agendas.

    Even granting (for the sake of argument) the fairy tale notion that science and scientists are somehow untainted by self-interest, political agendas, and all the other biases that all other humans and human endeavors are always prone to, it's still irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that people wouldn't have "opinions" or give a damn about AGW one way or the other if it weren't for the politicization of AGW by agenda-mongers. If you don't like what you perceive as the "unscientific" or "anti-science" garbage that gets trotted out in response to that stimulus, then you would do better to condemn the politicizers of science rather than the ignorant victims of the politicization of science.

    There is, after all, a reason why there isn't much in the way of "public opinion" about (or people getting "unscientifically" pissed off over) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example - and it's NOT because HUP is widely understood or because people have "educated themselves" about it by "reading numerous publications" or any such thing. It's because HUP is not being shoved in their faces or rammed down their throats by flagrant agenda-mongers.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-27-2014 at 03:32 AM.

  25. #22
    Scientists are just as corrupt as anyone else, probably more so. After all, they're the ones making all of the pills and designing the deadly war machines. The idea that they are sacrosanct is complete nonsense, and pushed by the government that has tons of them on their payroll.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    But it is exactly that - "science bitchez!"

    The countless things the government does to lose our trust doesn't mean we should disregard science, nor see it as a victory when people do.

    Science is perhaps the only field with a functioning BS-O-meter, where prospective publications go through rigorous peer-review processes before they are even taken seriously. "Science, bitchez" is the quest for truth, and you can help improve it by pointing out where climate scientists are wrong. I've read through numerous publications and there is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real, and I don't know how anyone who actually acquaints themselves with the topic can think otherwise.

    Now if only the fields of history and politics were driven by a quest for truth...
    Science has a BS-O-meter like government has checks and balances. They're supposed to be there, but nobody actually pays attention to them. The ever-so-noble "quest for truth" claim completely dismisses the idea that scientists, mere humans, could ever be corrupted. It's like people think they're gods who can't lie. If you had the power and the grant money to make people believe what you say without question just because of your status or inclusion in some group, don't you think you would be compelled to gain a monopoly on that institution? Well, there just happens to be someone with the power and the money to do it... government.

    If I can point out where they're wrong, as many people often have, would you believe it? No, you would claim that we were wrong because we are not scientists and because we did not become famous for stunning the world with our superior logic and skillfully debating with scientists. But you don't have to if you're a scientist. Every time you say something, "Science has spoken!" and that's that. No questions asked.

    That doesn't seem a little iffy to you? Not to mention the government-controlled education and obvious slant in the media. You don't think there's an agenda there?
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 06-27-2014 at 05:36 AM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    That's all fine, and I am not suggesting that you should desire being ruled over by these technocrats. But please don't equate science with politics. Agenda-driven science simply doesn't get far because scientific research is judged by its truthfulness. There's always people masquerading as scientists too who really don't follow scientific protocol whatsoever, but they are quacks and rejects from the scientific community. IF you want to form an opinion on AGW, READ scientific literature. Don't look at who is quoting said literature. Learn about the topic and assess it on its own merit. And whatever you do, don't quote a quack's interpretation of said literature.

    And from what I've seen, there really is only serious scientific debate to be had on the level of AGW, not on whether or not it's happening. And thus in the political world, the debate should focus on what should be done in response to said AGW, not whether or not it's happening. It's definitely happening!
    Listen to you. "Science is judged by its truthfulness."

    They literally can do no wrong to you.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    ..
    I don't dispute anything you said. In fact I agree. It's just sad that distrust in science is the consequence, rather than a willingness to vote out all the crooks.
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    Science has a BS-O-meter like government has checks and balances. They're supposed to be there, but nobody actually pays attention to them. The ever-so-noble "quest for truth" claim completely dismisses the idea that scientists, mere humans, could ever be corrupted. It's like people think they're gods who can't lie. If you had the power and the grant money to make people believe what you say without question just because of your status or inclusion in some group, don't you think you would be compelled to gain a monopoly on that institution? Well, there just happens to be someone with the power and the money to do it... government.

    If I can point out where they're wrong, as many people often have, would you believe it? No, you would claim that we were wrong because we are not scientists and because we did not become famous for stunning the world with our superior logic and skillfully debating with scientists. But you don't have to if you're a scientist. Every time you say something, "Science has spoken!" and that's that. No questions asked.

    That doesn't seem a little iffy to you? Not to mention the government-controlled education and obvious slant in the media. You don't think there's an agenda there?
    Nobody has pointed out where they are wrong successfully, and that is why the science remains the same. Hell, the mechanism for AGW can be replicated in a laboratory.
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    Nobody has pointed out where they are wrong successfully, and that is why the science remains the same. Hell, the mechanism for AGW can be replicated in a laboratory.
    That's because everyone just believes everything they say by default.

    And let me guess, the "mechanism" for AGW is one of your computer models, isn't it?
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  32. #28
    My two cents - One result of the higher education bubble, and subsequent degree inflation, is that we have more people who are expected to publish articles. We probably don't have more people (as a percentage of the population) with ideas worthy of publication, but their university says they have to publish something once every 2-3 years at the least to maintain their status as faculty. OK, great. So now we have Dr. Smith at Eastern Southern Methodist State University who is publishing a paper that's not too controversial, uses accepted data and techniques, and so forth. To me, the "97% of scientists agree with X position" doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling argument, for this reason.

    Now, that said, numbers are numbers. It's not debatable to me that we've been in a warming period for the last 40-50 years. What's not clear (and really, in my opinion, is impossible to prove irrefutably) is that this is caused by human activity. Standards were much worse during the Industrial Revolution and no warming pattern emerged during that time. Warming patterns have emerged at other times in the long run of data where there is seemingly no relationship with human events.

    The reason there is skepticism is more because policymakers are using a correlation (which may or may not be valid) as grounds for policy which would reduce quality of life, grounds for additional taxation and regulation. I'm open-minded about it, but it's difficult not to have a visceral reaction when this cascade effect occurs where the left is ramming the "accepted science" down your throat as a guise for their agenda.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    That's because everyone just believes everything they say by default.

    And let me guess, the "mechanism" for AGW is one of your computer models, isn't it?
    Or the greenhouse effect?

    Here's the thing. The models have existed for decades. They didn't work.
    Data has shown to be "adjusted" and outright fabricated.
    Skeptics have been bullied and removed from discourse.

    That's not science. The scientific method works, but scientists are imperfect.
    Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.

  34. #30
    The data should only be used to analyse the effects of some of the chain-reaction effects which can't easily be understood with a scientific model, and even so, there's a lot of stuff that clouds the data.

    When it comes to whether or not it is man-made deniers like to present this as a black and white issue with 2 possible options: (a) humans are responsible for all climate change, and (b) humans are not the major cause of climate change. Choice (b) seems more reasonable and is arguably closer to the truth than (a), but in reality humans are a major cause but not the only one. And various human actions release greenhouse gases which are proven to cause warming. This is no pseudoscience. It's proven stuff.

    And always beware of the disinformation campaign (link).
    Trump hates liberty.

    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming- Man Made or Natural?
    By rational thinker in forum Stop Global Warming Fraud
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 04:56 PM
  2. New Report: Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2012, 08:34 PM
  3. What lies behind the man-made global warming hoax? (Video)
    By LarryLawrence in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2011, 09:04 AM
  4. Replies: 300
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 11:38 PM
  5. Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
    By yoshimaroka in forum Stop Global Warming Fraud
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-25-2009, 06:28 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •