Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is real

posted at 3:05 pm on February 29, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Talk about the rugged individualism of Americans. We’ll ignore experts on both sides of this debate, but we sure give credence to our own personal observations.

According to a new survey by the University of Michigan’s Gerald Ford School of Public Policy and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, more Americans than at any point since 2009 think climate change is real. (Who doesn’t think “climate change” is real? That’s too innocuous a phrase to feel threatened by: Clearly, the climate has and does and will change.)

Not surprisingly, belief in global warming (a less innocuous phrase) still breaks down along party lines:

The poll showed a sharp gap depending on ideology, with 78 percent of supporters of President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party saying there is solid evidence of climate change compared with 47 percent of supporters of the rival Republican Party saying so.

What convinced new believers? Nearly half of those who said they now accept global warming said they were primarily convinced by their own firsthand experience of warmer temperatures or weird weather changes.

Americans didn’t just imagine that the weather has been whacky lately:

Nine of the 10 warmest years in history have taken place since 2000, according to US space agency NASA.

Last year broke records for severe weather in the United States, with extreme events such as tornadoes and tropical storms causing more than $55 billion in damage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This isn’t the first time researchers have found that local temperatures influence individuals’ opinions about climate change.

But, but — those experts we ignore say day-to-day shifts in weather aren’t evidence of broader trends. That’s why, these experts say, meteorologists have no better insight into global warming than anybody else does. So, will the “climate change” experts let Americans’ observation-based belief in global warming stand because it works in their favor? Or will they stand by the assertion that observation of the daily weather and climate change study are two separate fields?

So, let’s say Americans shouldn’t believe in global warming based on their own personal observations. What other reasons for their newfound acceptance of “climate change” do they cite? More than half of global warming adherents say their belief in global warming was also influenced by melting glaciers. Are those glaciers melting as rapidly as we’ve been told? Not according to The Blaze:

[C]onsider that recent improvements in data collection technology has also revealed that the polar ice caps are melting less than originally thought. U.S. World News reported that researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder found that 30 percent less ice is melting than earlier projections. It does claim that ice melt that has occurred between 2003 and 2010 is enough to cover the whole of the United States with a foot and a half of water — or fill Lake Erie eight times.

The University of Michigan study doesn’t specify whether the two-thirds of Americans who believe climate change is real also think men are causing the earth to warm. The poll numbers fluctuate, but the debate is always the same. The disagreement that counts is not over whether climate change is real but whether men have mastery over the weather and whether we should implement government policies to somehow “control” the climate — to the detriment of other concerns, like the economy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

I also drink the koolaid on gravity, relativity, and the belief that we are not the center of the universe.

What a tool!

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Funny how that big yellow ball in the sky doesn’t fit in with your absolutes.

..or not.

98ZJUSMC on February 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM

When the loser in CT and the other Lefty troll get all wee weed up and practically hijack a thread I take that as a very healthy sign things did not go well at the Obama Fan Club meeting this morning.

There is nothing AGW pseudoscience fears more than having their central control schemes being derailed. Of course climate change is real. Winter is colder than summer and likely will remain so unless the Marxists try to float some scam that the Earth comes from a broken home and therefore suffers, er, trans-seasonal issues and winter should be allowed to dress like summer and summer deserves snowmen, if it wants.

viking01 on February 29, 2012 at 10:29 PM

There is nothing AGW pseudoscience fears more than having their central control schemes being derailed. Of course climate change is real. Winter is colder than summer and likely will remain so unless the Marxists try to float some scam that the Earth comes from a broken home and therefore suffers, er, trans-seasonal issues and winter should be allowed to dress like summer and summer deserves snowmen, if it wants.

viking01 on February 29, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Bam!

98ZJUSMC on February 29, 2012 at 10:33 PM

winter should be allowed to dress like summer and summer deserves snowmen, if it wants.

viking01 on February 29, 2012 at 10:29 PM

And both will get a trophy, just for showing up!

massrighty on February 29, 2012 at 10:33 PM

viking01 on February 29, 2012 at 10:29 PM

If you are taking flak, you are over the target.

ghostwalker1 on February 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

I also drink the koolaid on gravity, relativity, and the belief that we are not the center of the universe.

What a tool!

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM

All of these are examples of theories that were proven by easily reproducible experiments, using data that’s transparent.

So, these you should believe in.

CAGW; not so much; it doesn’t pass the seventh grade science test.

massrighty on February 29, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I could sooner convince a hard core islamist that Allah doesn’t exist than convince a warmist that man does not have the power to control the climate. It’s some kind of mental block.
steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

There are the pitiful, spiteful personalities that not only want to enslave themselves, but get a charge knowing that they are dragging the unwilling with them

Types that need beotch slappings

Sonosam on February 29, 2012 at 11:04 PM

“I just asked a question. Which is more likely?
-Al Gore wants to collapse the world economy and has convinced the vast majority of climate field to join him in his quest
-Oil companies stand to lose a large amount of money due to regulations stemming from global warming, so they’re funding people like the heartland institute to refute scientific consensus on the matter
Seriously, use your head.
triple on February 29, 2012 at 4:40 PM”

Then explain why the oil companies give well over 100 times as much money to the Sierra Club and Greenpeace than they give to Heartland?

It actually ties in with something that is obvious if you think, and so hidden from you:
BIG COMPANIES LOVE REGULATION. It drives little companies out of competition. If a big company is REALLY lucky, they get to be a government sponsored monopoly like AT&T.

Also, Al Gore is a politician, and more government power means more power for himself and other politicians. You think he gives a rotten rat’s ass for you? Do you think he even cares if you exist? Please, he is the Lord in the Manor, and you are less to him than a serf.
This is in no way a fight about the ‘environment.’ It is entirely political, and it is grounded in the notion that individuals cannot be free, that we must be controlled. FOR OUR OWN GOOD. We shouldn’t eat salt, make it illegal. We shouldn’t drive cars, inflate the price of gas; we shouldn’t smoke, raise the taxes on cigarettes.

TABoLK on February 29, 2012 at 11:06 PM

For there to be a natural influence that would affect our climate, it would have to be something massive — on the order of our own Sun.

From some commenter at Ace.

TABoLK on February 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Let’s face it according to the main-stream media, everything that happens is due to Man-made Global Warming.

RZuendt on February 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Well certainly not everything. I’m sure there’s something somewhere that hasn’t been blamed on AGW.

Oldnuke on February 29, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Climate change is certainly occurring. On a scale of 1 to 10, this rates a Duh. It changes all the time. In the time of the dinosaurs, the whole planet was a sweaty hothouse. For much of its existence, and as little as 15,000 years ago, it was an iceball. Climate change is fact.

What is far from settled is the role of human activity in climate change, and to what extent that activity needs to be changed. The science is far from settled on that, no matter what some in the science establishment would like us to think.

FuzzyLogic on February 29, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Oh… if you’ve never heard Charlton Heston reading from Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park – Chapter “Destroying the World” (edited) (audio from Heston’s reading on Rush Limbaugh show), it’s certainly worth a listen – it puts this topic in its proper perspective, IMHO.

E-R

electric-rascal on February 29, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Yes, click on the text for an interesting read… this excerpt is from an article nearly 90 years old
electric-rascal on February 29, 2012 at 11:35 PM

You had me going for a moment.

Shambhala on February 29, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Oldnuke on February 29, 2012 at 11:25 PM

You are correct. I believe that whole world hunger thing was Bush’s fault. /sarc

ghostwalker1 on March 1, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Global Warming turned me into a newt!

I got better.

TABoLK on March 1, 2012 at 12:58 AM

They showed pictures of the puddle. That was their big news at the time. Water would not have puddled there naturally. It was put there by the craft, the only question is was it by accident or a purposeful hoax. Since they are shameless hoaxers, my money is on hoax.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 8:01 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/06/no-puddles-on-mars.html

I have seen the picture of the water ice under the Odyssey lander, and I think what we are seeing is the result of the reaction of the hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide fuel/oxidizer combination the lander’s engines produced. Each molecular reaction of that fuel/oxidizer combination produces 4 water molecules. A lot of water was manufactured during the landing process. In essence, the landing site was contaminated.

unclesmrgol on March 1, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Apparently, you don’t understand the basic science and statistics involved with this issue, either.

blink on February 29, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Which issue?

unclesmrgol on March 1, 2012 at 2:26 AM

To the climate scientists: thanks for your opinion on AGW. We’ll take your opinions into consideration as we try to perform CPR on our economy.

On second thought, your opinions don’t amount to much. Thanks anyway.

freedomfirst on March 1, 2012 at 7:19 AM

All the evidence indicates that human activity has some measurable influence, but it is sufficiently small that dealing with the effects as they occur will be more cost effective than attempting to reduce our GHG emissions.
Inkblots on February 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM

What evidence are you talking about?
There isn’t any evidence that proves conclusively mankind’s activities affect climate. OR weather.
Man can affect microclimates.
And it has never been scientifically shown CO2 causes rises in atmospheric temps.
Rising atmospheric temps DO cause a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, however.
And the CO2 attributed to man-kind is a tiny fraction of % that the Earth itself produces.
They haven’t even studied the output of CO2 created by the erosion of the world’s carbonate rocks.
Greenhouse gases make up a small % of the Earth’s atmosphere.
And of that small %, water vapor is 90something % of them.
And let’s talk about the perception of rising sea levels in some areas of the world.
Isostasy has not even been seriously considered in any of these doomsday climate predictions.
The majority of these climate ‘scientists’ are nothing but grant $$ whores.
A science with a huge number of variables & uncertainty like climate science does not deserve the huge amounts of $$ it has received.
It’s a fricking racket.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 8:08 AM

From what I’ve seen, the evidence suggests that AGW is real. Not public opinion and not peer review have influenced my opinion.
What liberals have done is condone using this real problem as an excuse to allow unscientific methods to solve the problem but instead to line their pockets with money and political power.
shick on February 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Peer reviewed research has influenced your decision?
What are you making your decision based off of?
Please read my above comment.
I’ve reported many times the flaws in climate science:
Computer models based on fudge factors that tweak the model to produce the desired results, yet never have been correct in any predictions.
Computer models whose math has not been checked over by statisticians, but climate scientists whose specialty is not statistics.
Dissension being squashed by nothing more than crazed vitriol & personal attacks from one part of the scientific community to another.
No scientific research or actual physical proof showing the correlation btwn temp & CO2 (they are reported the opposite of what actually happens).
Carefully cherry picked data points to show things like:
Disappearing & dying polar bears [yet the evidence shows polar bear populations actually rising, with the exception of one gene pool which is slightly declining]
Rising sea levels [not considering the expansion of a warming ocean, which, BTW, releases CO2 & does not absorb it anymore, as well as the ignoring of isostatic adjustment]
There’s a lot more, but the point to be made here is that Climate is DYNAMIC & the weather is only the day to day conditions of an area.
We have not even considered the strong theory surrounding the Milankovitch effect.
The Mother Gaia hypothesis is even rejected by top liberal AGW pushing scientists.
The Gaia hypothesis was basically if one thing changed on the Earth, just one thing, then everything else would change like a line of falling dominoes & that simply is not true at all.
I’ve been reading peer reviewed papers on all of this for up to 20 years now.
And I have found the bias incredible, the science AWFUL [they don't follow the scientific method!] & the conclusions unwarranted based on available data, as well as the fact that the data is not even very rigorous or complete enough to make such crazy predictions.
For God’s sake, even NASA’s surface temperature data sets don’t even factor in the effect of CLOUDS on surface temps.
WTH?
That’s what a former cloud scientist for NASA was wondering, too.
Yet they didn’t care to take his advice.
Those of you conceding man can change CLIMATE have no basis for concluding such an outlandish thing.
You have never given true thought or scrutiny to those who push this agenda, never read their work & picked it apart for flaws etc.
Here’s an analogy for you regarding ‘believing’ the work of various people touting AGW:
Your car doesn’t start.
You know nothing about cars.
NOTHING.
But you ‘believe’ certain things about cars bcs you’ve heard it in the news.
The ‘mechanic’ you bring it to says it’s clogged fuel injectors & that they need to be replaced at a cost of about $5,000.
So you pony up the $$, only to have it happen again about a month later.
He says the REST of the fuel injectors need replaced, at a cost of about $7,000.
So you pay up again.
Then the same thing happens AGAIN about a month later.
So you take it to another mechanic bcs you’re getting suspicious now. All the fuel injectors have been replaced. So what could be the problem?
The new mechanic, who’s actually a smart person, even though he & the other ‘mechanic’ went to the same school, says “It’s a sock-like filter in your fuel tank that fell down & is causing the problem.”
So they replace it at a cost of about $500 & you’re off.
4 years later the car is running great, with better mileage.

Moral of the story:
Some scientists are much better & smarter than others, no matter their education or references.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Peer reviewed research has NOT influenced your decision?

FIFM

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Observed data simply doesn’t come close to matching the predictions of the climate fanatics. Everything they’ve predicted has failed to materialize. Everything.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Ever look at the mountains and wonder at the layers that you see were caused by sedimentary conditions and that can only happen when they are underwater? What are they doing at twelve thousand feet? 9th grade science. Cousteu held up a rock with the fossil of a fern in it while he was in the arctic stating, “Look here, there was growth here at one time”. The earth moves and changes and these warmers need to blame it all on mans influence on the earth and they want control of it no matter what. They even tried to blame a hurricane on a President.

mixplix on March 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

There isn’t any evidence that proves conclusively mankind’s activities affect climate. OR weather.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 8:08 AM

This is overstated. The Urban Heat Island effect is real, and certainly does affect weather; check the average snowfall inside cities and in the surrounding countryside if you doubt me. If the presence of man makes a microclimate warmer and there are thousands of points at which this warming is occurring, then the Urban Heat Island effect suggests an overall warming pressure from humans.

Furthermore, the greenhouse effect does exist, and really does have a great deal of experimental support. Calculations suggest that the CO2 emitted by humans since the start of the Industrial Revolution should have been enough to raise the average global temp around half a degree. That’s not enough to cause any calamity, of course. And the AQUA satellite is returning data suggesting that the climate is even less sensitive to CO2 than our calculations predicted.

On the whole, you’ve got the right idea: catastrophic, anthropogenic, global climate change is a politically-motivated crock touted by crooks. But let’s not go overboard and say things that permit the crooks to call us unscientific.

philwynk on March 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

There isn’t any evidence that proves conclusively mankind’s activities affect climate. OR weather.
Man can affect microclimates.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 8:08 AM

This is overstated. The Urban Heat Island effect is real, and certainly does affect weather; check the average snowfall inside cities and in the surrounding countryside if you doubt me. If the presence of man makes a microclimate warmer and there are thousands of points at which this warming is occurring, then the Urban Heat Island effect suggests an overall warming pressure from humans. But let’s not go overboard and say things that permit the crooks to call us unscientific.

philwynk on March 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I said mankind can affect microclimates.
He does this through phenomenon like the Urban Heat Island effect.
I suppose that can be classified as an overstatement, but clearly I was willing to concede we can affect microclimates.
But as far as going overboard, as you can see from my inclusion of man being able to affect microclimates :

A microclimate is a local atmospheric zone where the climate differs from the surrounding area.

Well that IS true.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I would like to address triple’s claims concerning second hand smoke causing his grandmother’s cancer.
First of all, the study of genetics has proven that at least half of what you are destined to become is bcs of your genes.
There are people who CAN smoke & it doesn’t hurt them at all.
There are some people who can smoke one ciggy & that tiny bit of exposure alone can genetically trigger cancer.

I’m betting that is was your grandmother’s genetic predisposition to cancer, coupled with being exposed to an environmental trigger is why she had cancer.

And she may have gotten it no matter if she had ever been exposed to smoke in her life or not.

People make all sorts of assumptions about causes for things.
Like Obesity.

And yet, there is so much evidence coming out that genetics is really the number one reason why people get the diseases that they do.
And sometimes no amount of being careful is going to avoid that end for many of us.

I would also like to address this notion that since you can Google something, you know it.
I can Google how to tie a tie. And I’ve done so.
And I still can’t tie a tie.
Bcs I haven’t practiced enough.
Science is something that you really need experience doing.
You also have to be willing to analyze everything & pick it apart mercilessly.
When you go to college & get trained to think scientifically, it is rigorous.
You need a mathematical background as well as an experimental one.
My students in High School erroneously think that sine they can Google a scientific paper & read it that they know science.
It is much like being a mechanic.
You go to school & learn about it, but you also need to DO it.
My husband never went to school to learn mechanics, & yet, that example above I alluded to regarding the fuel injectors?
HE was the one who TOLD the diesel mechanics, certified by FORD to check on as the problem with our Ford diesel pickup.
They didn’t have a clue.
My husband erroneously thought, well they must know what they’re doing. They’re the EXPERTS!
And after spending over $15,000 letting them ‘fix’ our problem, mny husband FINALLY realized they didn’t know their a$$ from a hole in the ground & TOLD them what to do.
It fixed the problem & we’ve been driving it with no problems ever since (3 years & going strong).
Triple & oakland & KeninCT & all you others who get snarky about this & experts knowing their $hit: get a clue.
You need to think for yourself.
I only have an undergraduate degree in geology & am a HS science teacher.
But I do science everyday & have gained experience in analzying others’ works.
I know a snow job when I see it in the scientific world.
And it’s even more obvious when you call an expert on his BS & all he’s got is crazy rhetoric & name calling & obfuscation to fall back on.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 10:59 AM

And while you’re at it, take a look at guys like Einstein & Michael Faraday, guys who were dissed by scientists of the day.
Those guys’ work eventually could not be denied, though others tried like hell to ignore them & explain them away.
Even look at Lisa Meitner, who was dissed by her chemist partner getting a Nobel prize for his and HER works on the atom.
Scientists are [people.
And even if they have a fancy degree & qualifications, they can still be dumb as an effing rock.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM

There’s no shame in an appeal to authority. It’s okay to admit you don’t know everything. Because you don’t.
triple on February 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM

I used to do this with my OB/GYN Doctor.
Turns out, she didn’t know jack $hit.
I had to research my concerns myself, then after asking her pointed questions regarding my problem, I realized after educating myself & thinking things through that she did not know anything about my condition that was going to help me.
So I switched to another Dr who knew his stuff & I was able to work out my problems.
Knowing a lot about a subject doesn’t mean you can use that knowledge to make inferences about the real world.
In fact, I’ve realized there are few people who can take concepts & apply them to real world problems successfully.
That includes scientists.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

but I know what that guy’s conclusions are. Do you?
triple on February 29, 2012 at 6:45 PM

You need to be able to adequately analyze another person’s conclusions about something.
You do this by reading through the person’s research methods & look at their data.
Anyone trained in the discipline of science can do this to any other scientist’s work & make a reasonable conclusion about whether their conclusions make sense or not.
A physicist can look at diet science & figure it’s full of inaccuracies.
And that has happened.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I don’t need to major in physics to claim light travels no faster than c, do I? But if I claimed it could go faster.. you’d probably want some creds, no?
triple on February 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I wouldn’t ask for a single cred. I’d ask you to explain the science, and then I would discuss it with you.
I certainly wouldn’t believe you simply because you had a cred. Why would you?
blink on February 29, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Excellent, as always, blink.

My husband, the self taught diesel & regular mechanic has proven this time & again.
He is also in many ways, smarter than a Vet.
He routinely preg checks cows, does cescarians [sic] & other operational procedures on animals & is far more successful than the local vet.
In fact, HE is the one the local farmers & ranchers call when they have a problem.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM

They do mostly hoaxes now. Hey, do you remember that press conference where all those NASA people were crying and hugging each other over the Martian worm rock they found in Antarctica? Good times!

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Igneous rocks don’t have fossils.
That was the first clue.
We discussed this first claim (early 90s) in my structural geology class with my professor Dr Art Snoke.
In fact, we did stuff like that a lot, picked apart the science of leading scientists.
The geology club would watch popular science type movies & we’d rip them apart.
Very fun.
My hubby can’t stand watching movies with me now LOL!

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Now, please tell me what carcinogens are removed when someone simply exhales that smoke?
I’d love for you to explain how that stuff stays within the smoker’s lungs, and the smoker’s lungs -only-.
I guess you don’t believe in contact highs, either.
triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Carcinogens are environmental factors that can cause cancer.
But they don’t always cause cancer in everybody they come into contact with.
You should watch some of the medical lectures on hhmi.org.
Very interesting stuff.
They talk at length about the experimental evidence [the Drs doing the actual reasearch themselves, talking aobut their work in detail] genetics has shown in the medical world.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I haven’t had time to read the comments. I’m late to this show. I do want to point out the fallacy of that “9 of the last 10 years” crap, though.

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/top-10-hottest-years-us-temperatur

Buford Gooch on March 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Carcinogens are environmental factors that can cause cancer.
But they don’t always cause cancer in everybody they come into contact with.
You should watch some of the medical lectures on hhmi.org.
Very interesting stuff.
They talk at length about the experimental evidence [the Drs doing the actual reasearch themselves, talking aobut their work in detail] genetics has shown in the medical world.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Many things affect different people differently. My grandmother died of throat cancer – smoked her whole life. My Dad however has smoked his whole life as well – but finally quit smoking in his late 70s due to heart surgery and the pain of coughing after that – but now at 84 shows no signs of lung or throat cancer or emphysema or any other apparent lasting effects from smoking. He does have prostate cancer though and very poor circulation in his legs.

This is why I don’t believe you can say outright that smoking causes lung cancer or throat cancer. Some people may get lung cancer, others throat cancer, others emphysema, others heart trouble, etc. And while you may be able to point smoking as likely causing something bad (and I believe in most cases it will) – we can’t absolutely say what it will cause in any particular person.

dentarthurdent on March 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM

My hubby can’t stand watching movies with me now LOL!

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM

My wife has the same problem with me. Since most of my background is in space systems and operations, it’s hard for me to watch movies where they clearly don’t understand or are ignoring the laws of physics (especially orbital mechanics).

dentarthurdent on March 1, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is real

I don’t…:)

Irenaeus on March 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

blink on March 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

You need to take both of my statements together to get what I meant. I think you can point to smoking as the most likely cause of some health problem any certain person has gotten – but you can’t necessarily predict in advance that smoking will cause that very same disease in some other person. I think you can definitely say smoking will very likely cause a health problem of some sort in most people – but you can’t predict to a high degree of reliability exactly what it will be in each person.

Totally off topic for this thread of course, but a lot of the thread went off on this tangent – so just my 2 cents worth.

dentarthurdent on March 1, 2012 at 1:16 PM

For the record – I don’t like smoking – I;ve never smoked, never even tried it, but my Dad smoked most of his life and I always hated the second hand smoke that I was forced to grow up in. I don’t like the smell, it makes it difficult to breath, and it smells and tastes bad on the girls I’ve dated who smoked. And I don’t like going to clubs or restaurants where smoking is allowed or being around people who are smoking.

HOWEVER, I am also adamant that it is none of the government’s business to outlaw smoking.

dentarthurdent on March 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

The real debate should be whether a warmer earth is actually a good thing. Considering that warm earth grows more food then cold earth, the answer seems to be yes. In that case, IF it is getting warmer, for whatever reason, celebrate, don’t fret.

Of course there are always these issues to worry about, for some…

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

contrarian on March 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM

My husband has been chewing Copenhagen since the 5th grade.
And he does smoke on occasion when he can’t chew anymore & needs the nicotine fix.
My husband is physically addicted to it.
I support his efforts to quit, but he doesn’t want to know & I don’t nag him.
I let him buy it himself & that is that.
I do, however, tell him to STFU when he gives me grief about buying a piece of clothing or a purse or tack or something.
The $$ he spends on Cope is way more than the occasional purse I buy.
When I did taxes one year I saved up all the Tobacco & Beer receipts & my own receipts for clothes & such & he far outspent me.
He was really pi$$ed off & gives me much less grief over things.
LMAO!

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 3:20 PM

know= NOW :P

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I used to do this with my OB/GYN Doctor.
Turns out, she didn’t know jack $hit.
I had to research my concerns myself, then after asking her pointed questions regarding my problem, I realized after educating myself & thinking things through that she did not know anything about my condition that was going to help me.

Badger40 on March 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Yes – we’ve had trouble finding competent doctors as well. My wife has had a chronic cough for 13 years (never smoked) – at least a dozen doctors of various types have yet to figure out why. They all want to just throw prescription meds at it without diagnosing the underlying problem – think maybe the pharmaceutical kick-backs have anything to do with that?
“Experts” my a$$.

dentarthurdent on March 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Whether you’re talking doctors, lawyers, engineers, or “climate scientists” – there’s always a bottom half to every graduating class – and once they get out into the workforce you have no way of knowing whether that’s where they were – until you see the quality of their work.

dentarthurdent on March 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

First, start with a solid understanding of the science that is behind the claim;

Second, we do the items that you mention above. We research each aspect of what goes into the claim and the assumptions, etc. used; and

Third, we carefully form an educated conclusion regarding the claim.

blink on March 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Yup – just look at the news out last week that some “scientists” had determined that particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light – and then this week it turns out they had bad connections on their equipment. This is the quality work most of the AGW believing “climate scientists” are doing.

dentarthurdent on March 1, 2012 at 4:38 PM

So, clinicians often don’t see a need to put too much time into diagnosing – especially on the first visit about any medical condition – because they know that there’s an 80% chance that they won’t see the patient again.

blink on March 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM

This is interesting.
I’ve often considered this.
There’s a PA in the small town I Doctor in.
I was in for something many years ago & she threw drugs at me.
I was reluctant to try them, but desperate for some relief.
The combo of the 2 drugs sort of worked, but in reality, I’ve never been satisfied with this remedy.
I now realize it’s probably just allergies & I use OTC drugs, which still don’t get rid of the problem, but WTH else can one really do?
Allergies are common in humans & now I just suck it up.

Badger40 on March 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Only two thirds think climate change is real? What happened to the other third? Sure climate change is real. I am stunned that everyone does not know this fact.

The question should be: Is AGW a problem and of course the answer is no.

TomLawler on March 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6