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 3 4 5 6

not worth responding to this triple the dribble

Had hope of a pop corn sales deal.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

What are yours?

I’m not the one calling out nasa.. he is. 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’m capable of discussing, debating, and scrutinizing assumptions, conditions, constraints, etc. of claims being made about climate.

That’s a long way of saying you can talk and google things.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

But lets be honest here – this is less about not trusting NASA with science (I’m pretty sure NASA knows how science works) and more about the fact that you think the free market should dictate environmental regulations, which is to say, you don’t think there should be any environmental regulations at all.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Not at all. You’re making a huge leap from who I trust more to no regulations at all – typical libtard.
This is about not trusting a self-serving bureaucrat who is making big money on the side from this scam. It doesn’t matter if NASA knows how science works – but they should stick to real science and their true purpose and not get into political posturing.
But political appointees like Hansen always steer the talking points however their masters tell them. You apparently know nothing of computer modeling – which can be programmed many different ways to get all kinds of results depending on the assumptions you put in.

dentarthurdent on February 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM

You’re making it very easy for us to show that you’re truly clueless about any type of scientific or statistical issue.

Except it’s not a statistical issue. Second hand smoke killed my grandmother. That was the stated cause of cancer from her oncologist. There is literally nothing you could say that changes that cause.

See, this is what I’m talking about.

We have experts in these fields, and instead of believing medical professionals, you believe the companies who have monetary incentives to lie instead.

This is the kind of crap that gets people afraid of vaccines.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Wow, the flatearthers are still at it!

Santorum 2012!

KeninCT on February 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Really? Someone should tell NASA. They’ve discovered a couple thousand exoplanets in the last few years alone.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM

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!

Then they get to Mars and claim they found water. It just happened to be right underneath the space craft. What a coincidence, the only water that has ever been found on Mars they just happened to land on. I wonder….

Are they finding any carbon on Mars or were their worms the only carbon-based things that ever lived on Mars? What a coincidence that they ended up here on Earth and NASA found them.

I think it was the Times global cooling article back in the 70s that used the evidence of increasing Arctic ice cover to claim global cooling was happening. They said it always used to melt during the thawing season in the years prior. It’s convenient but fraudulent for NASA to only go back to 1980 now to show ice decline from an unnaturally high baseline. I wonder if there are more more icebreaker ships clearing the ice today than back in 1980. Having those things criss crossing back and forth creates a lot of edge to speed up melting. They are good at their purpose, which is clearing the ice.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

climate change is real.the question is are HUMANS CAUSING IT.
my opinion is NO. the world has had heatings and coolings for millions of years.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM

I’m not the one calling out nasa.. he is. 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

No, you want to discredit viewpoints through cradentialism. No one here demands you be cradentialed in any way. We only demand you stop being a dishonest hack. You link something from NASA and we make counter links, yet you address none of it and go off on ridiculous funding tangents. You have no interest in serious debate on this topic.

We are skeptics because we have read the work of scientists who point out the flaws of the warmists and we have compared and contrasted. You are a Kool Aid drinker because someone told you to be and you have already admitted as much.

I must be going now. You were quite funny earlier in the thread, especially when you started using forged memos to support you case. But your schtick is old now and I have places to be.

NotCoach on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 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

blink, do you believe in evolution? Or is that a hoax too?

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Except that your lack of scientific and statistical understanding led you to believe a clinician instead of deferring to epidemiology.

Sure. She spontaneously got throat cancer, living in a house full of smokers for 84 years, and it had nothing to do with smoking at all.

You are just unbelievable, you know that? That is some of the most disingenuous crap I’ve ever read.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Then they get to Mars and claim they found water. It just happened to be right underneath the space craft. What a coincidence, the only water that has ever been found on Mars they just happened to land on. I wonder….

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Where were the instruments to extract surface material for analysis? On board the Phoenix. Where was the mass spectrometer used to determine that water existed within the sample material? On board the Phoenix.

That water still exists on Mars is not questioned — by reasonable people.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phx20100909.html

unclesmrgol on February 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

And you would have drunk the koolaid that the earth is the center of the universe because you would have simply deferred to those that claimed it so.

You can’t deny this.

blink on February 29, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I’m an atheist. Those that “claimed it so” in the past were by and large the religious. Of course, I’d be put to death for blasphemy before I could raise my point, but if I were allowed to live, I’d side with the blasphemous scientists first.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:13 PM

That is some of the most disingenuous crap I’ve ever read.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Haha!@ the faux outrage of the hoaxer! you are hilarious.

tom daschle concerned on February 29, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I would love to discuss ANY scientific topic that you choose. Please name it. I’m more than happy to discuss evolution if that’s what you want to do.

blink on February 29, 2012 at 7:13 PM

That was a yes or no question, but I’m all for another 2-3 hours on evo.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

This is the kind of gotcha BS that the liars in the Alarmist camp have to resort to.

FACT: CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas. this is true. However, it retains heat in a logarithmic way, which means as you add more gas, each new chunk of CO2 adds less heat retention.
but, Oh my gosh, if I admit that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas then I must be a supporter of the alarmist position, then, right?
Wrong.
The problem isn’t with CO2 itself, even if CO2 tripled, its own contribution to warming would still be well below 3 degrees. THIS IS ESTABLISHED. Even the warmers acknowledge this. However, they also claim that each degree of CO2 induced warming will cause 3 or more degrees of additional warming due to positive feedbacks. These feedbacks have never been demonstrated, every prediction that has been made as to how these feedbacks would work has failed, and from an engineering perspective, there is NOW POSSIBLE WAY that the Earth’s climate experienced millions of years of change within the same range while experiencing any run-away positive feedbacks.

Fact: Human activity can affect the temperature of a region.
Well, this is a slam dunk, I must be admitting that human activity IS DESTROYING THE WORLD OMG!!11!!!1!eleven!!
Again, no. I doubt that CO2 emissions are that significant in the grand scheme of things. Where I think human have, however, had a significant impact if by plowing over millions of acres of grassland and forest to plop down tons of asphalt for Super Walmarts with their asphalt parking lots and asphalt roofs. You can verify this warming all by yourself. Go to any parking lot that has a strip of grassland a few feet from the curb. Stand in the middle of the parking lot. Stand in the gassy part. You can tell the difference on a sunny day. Bingo. Anthropogenic warming. But try to bring up land use, and the self-selected ideologues will call you an anti science bozo. They’ll point to one study (out of thousands) that showed that there is no such thing as ‘urban heat island.’ That this study was designed to give the wrong answer is irrelevant. That direct measurements weren’t used, but indirect readings based off of secondary measurements downwind were used, is irrelevant. No joke, the fact that hot air goes up instead of sideways is somehow no longer valid according to the “UHI doesn’t exist” paper.

Science is a process. It isn’t something where a guy with the right degree says “This is how it is.” That’s crap, but that’s what we get. These ‘scientists’ use secret processes (that they refuse to release) on secret data (that they refuse to release) to come up with charts that they refuse to explain, and which (when eventually everything is pried out of their grasp) end up relying on cherry-picked and radically modified data; untested, unproven, or discredited statistical analyses; and were ‘validated’ using a quid-pro-quo good ol’ boy network of ‘peer-review.’ The science in the field of climate study is broken. It’s broken. I’m not anti-science for saying that, I WANT science to work. I want it to work the right way. The alarmists get a thousand times more money out of the oil companies than the skeptics get. The alarmists get all of the government money. THERE’S NO MONEY in being skeptics.

TABoLK on February 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Blink, we both agree smoking causes cancer? Pretty cut and dry.

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

I’d love to discuss evolution with you.

Sure, lets start.

Evolution – bullshit?

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Sure, lets start.

Evolution – bullshit?

triple on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I believe allele frequency changes occur in populations.

What do I win?

tom daschle concerned on February 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

That water still exists on Mars is not questioned — by reasonable people.

unclesmrgol on February 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

They landed on the only puddle of water on Mars.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM

If you want to hear some liberal tripe, the University of Michigan is the place to go.

jaime on February 29, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I buy into global warming as far as temperatures getting warmer globally. But the southern hemisphere is cooling, and I don’t buy it’s 100% human caused, like Al wants me to think. A contribution? Sure.

This entire debate sucks because there is so much partisan politics and uncertainty. Let’s just make solar panels cheaper, go solar, and let ExxonMobil go under. Sounds awesome.

Freeloader on February 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM

triple wanted to talk science, changed the topic to evolution, then began the ‘discussion’ with an entry point he hoped would lead to being able to play a gotcha. Are you a recent college grad?

You aren’t half as intelligent as you think you are. You lack integrity, are dishonest, and cannot stay on topic.

May God have mercy on your soul.

tom daschle concerned on February 29, 2012 at 7:31 PM

The last good thing to come out of Michigan was a 1969 Z28

faraway on February 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

+1000

Dunedainn on February 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM

If you want to hear some liberal tripe, the University of Michigan is the place to go.

jaime on February 29, 2012 at 7:27 PM

But-but it’s the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy and he was a Republican…so it must be super credible! Lol, good thing there isn’t a Ronald Reagan School of Public Policy because they would use it as the clearinghouse for every left wing hoax.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:34 PM

You don’t know that.
blink on February 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Sure he does.

You are saying that we should not defer to authority. What you are really saying is that we should not defer to authority which does not think like we do.

We’ve seen the documents from the tobacco companies proving that they cooked the science of tobacco just as badly as the AGW people appear to be doing now. We’ve see research from others indicating that sidestream smoke does cause cancer in bystanders.

A defense of tobacco company scientists is a red herring — you are defending precisely the kind of science the AGW people are doing.

It’s clear we have a warming event underway — but it’s not clear why — just as it wasn’t clear in the 1960′s as to why we had a cooling event underway.

In both cases (warming and cooling), a large group rushed to blame humans — and, in the earlier case, the claim vanished as research continued. Now, in the present case, we have people whose funding (like those tobacco company “scientists”) is dependent on finding a human cause for the observed warming. They have a vested interest of defending their hypothesis — to the point where, in the East Anglia case, they were deleting and withholding raw data files from critics.

I wonder if there are more more icebreaker ships clearing the ice today than back in 1980. Having those things criss crossing back and forth creates a lot of edge to speed up melting. They are good at their purpose, which is clearing the ice.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

There’s a prime example of fuzzy thinking. Loss of icepack is traced by an opponent of AGW to possible human-caused effects. Could icebreakers clear the entire northern icepack to the point where it disappears?

I would submit that icebreakers only temporarily clear the ice through which they travel — thin ice at that, and that it normally reforms nearly immediately thereafter.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/27/cold-irony-arctic-sea-ice-traps-climate-tour-icebreaker/

unclesmrgol on February 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

climate change is real.the question is are HUMANS CAUSING IT.
my opinion is NO. the world has had heatings and coolings for millions of years.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Actually for billions of years. There exists evidence of glacial deposits in the Proterozoic.

Yoop on February 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Dude, just stop. I lost my grandmother to throat cancer – she never smoked a day in her life, but her 8 kids all did.

triple on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

You just keep using one fallacious argument after another.

CW on February 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Not at all. You’re making a huge leap from who I trust more to no regulations at all – typical libtard.
This is about not trusting a self-serving bureaucrat who is making big money on the side from this scam. It doesn’t matter if NASA knows how science works – but they should stick to real science and their true purpose and not get into political posturing.

Ah yes… every major research university in the US, Europe,and Asia is part of a global conspiracy to produce ‘fake’ science to ensure further research funding. It must be hard to live among the self-righteous few, so victimized by all the greedy and corrupt scientists trying to delude you with their lies.

If you want to hear some liberal tripe, the University of Michigan is the place to go.

jaime on February 29, 2012 at 7:27 PM

That’s right, one of the world’s beset research universities and medical schools is actually nothing more than a group of small-minded partisan hacks. Good call.

bayam on February 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM

They landed on the only puddle of water on Mars.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM

No. They landed not on a puddle of water, but on ground which contained frozen water — which their mass spectrometer measured.

They’ve found water in other ways too:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/24sep_martianice/

unclesmrgol on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Lol, good thing there isn’t a Ronald Reagan School of Public Policy because they would use it as the clearinghouse for every left wing hoax.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Translation: I don’t think any source is credible, except when I want it to be.

MelonCollie on February 29, 2012 at 7:48 PM

temperatures getting warmer globally. But the southern hemisphere is cooling,

Then it isn’t GLOBAL then, is it?

It is regional. And with regional warming, and regional cooling, and excluding variations in solar output, what we have is global equilibrium on a geological scale of time.

LegendHasIt on February 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM

I have ceased to argue with liberals or drunks; passersby cannot distinguish between you.

ghostwalker1 on February 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM

You are saying that we should not defer to authority. What you are really saying is that we should not defer to authority which does not think like we do.

unclesmrgol on February 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

We shouldn’t defer to authority that proposes insane solutions. I defer to my physician, but if he told me that I needed to cure my cold by jumping off the Chrysler building, I’m tell him “thanks but no thanks.”

The solution to every new climate ‘calamity’ is global governance and wealth redistribution.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM

No. They landed not on a puddle of water, but on ground which contained frozen water — which their mass spectrometer measured.

unclesmrgol on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

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

This whole thread is an example of the blind leading the blind. 2/3 believe in GW? Answer in 3 words…public school system.

congma on February 29, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Apparently two-thirds of Americans aren’t very intelligent

sadsushi on February 29, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since Earth has existed, with or without man. Yes, it warmed in the 20th Century. It has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

This does not, however, mean we should destroy our economy and go back to living like primitives so we can control the climate. That isn’t possible at our level of technology, and handing our lives over to a bunch of scientific and political elites in the mistaken belief that they are smarter and more able to cope with a non-existent problem than we are would be the height of stupidity.

hachiban on February 29, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I have ceased to argue with liberals or drunks; passersby cannot distinguish between you.

ghostwalker1 on February 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM

The drunks are the ones not foaming at the mouth, and if you listen long enough they sometimes make sense. They also usually smell better.

Oldnuke on February 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM

The funnest part of this hoax is that some of them really believe in it (just the slower ones), and there is nothing, nothing that will ever happen to slow the production of carbon emissions. India and China will be cranking out CO2 in ever increasing amounts while these ninnies whine.

Ted Torgerson on February 29, 2012 at 8:30 PM

A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

Arguing with trolls like Triple is like me, an atheist, telling a Christian that they’re wrong.

Triple believes in the UN and their blemished IPCC non-scientific reports written by interns.
Incidentally, the same UN that wants to give Mommar Gadhafi a human rights award.

“I don’t mind idiotic notions, so long as, you keep them to yourself.” D. Hammett

kregg on February 29, 2012 at 8:52 PM

This does not, however, mean we should destroy our economy and go back to living like primitives so we can control the climate.

no, we should destroy our environment instead (or at least destroy our ability to survive comfortably, if at all)

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

That’s right, one of the world’s beset research universities and medical schools is actually nothing more than a group of small-minded partisan hacks. Good call.

bayam on February 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM

You know, those docs are just out to make money, after all.

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:03 PM

no, we should destroy our environment instead (or at least destroy our ability to survive comfortably, if at all)

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

1. Prove that the earth is warming.
2. Prove that that warming, if it exists, is harmful.
3. Prove that man caused it.
4. Prove that the methods you propose to ameliorate the warming will reduce it.

Do this with transparent data, and experiments that can be replicated.

Science!

Then, we can decide if it’s worth doing.

Properly constructed public policy!

massrighty on February 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

pretend that you don’t know that the Mann Hockey Stick is

ne’er saw it

must have kept it in his closet

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

1. Prove that the earth is warming

prove what you mean by “prove”

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

There is no doubt that the climate changes. It always has. If the climate was static this would be a dead planet. And the Earth has been warming since the last mini ice age in the 1600s. However, it has not been warming for about the last 30 years and there is no proof that any of this warming is attributable to man or that it could become catastrophic.

The alarmists who are claiming otherwise are liars and frauds.

woodNfish on February 29, 2012 at 9:22 PM

For those who like to read, check out the climate article in the headlines of HotAir presently posted.

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

prove what you mean by “prove”

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

transitive verb: establish truth of something: to establish the truth or existence of something by providing evidence or argument

That’s one definition. In the scientific sense, proof would be offered with results of reproducible experiments.

You kinda knew this.

Now, instead of dodging my challenge; do it.

1. Prove that the earth is warming.
2. Prove that that warming, if it exists, is harmful.
3. Prove that man caused it.
4. Prove that the methods you propose to ameliorate the warming will reduce it.

Do this with transparent data, and experiments that can be replicated.

massrighty on February 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

This has been the mildest winter I’ve ever experienced. If this is global warming give me more.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Hey…!

… It was raining yesterday, but it’s sunny out today.

OH… MY… GOD…!!!

… THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH…!!!

(runs into the dark of night, screaming, with arms flailing about wildly)

/

Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

LMAO ! Couldn’t have said it better !! Happy leap day 7%!!

cableguy615 on February 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

This has been the mildest winter I’ve ever experienced. If this is global warming give me more.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Unless you live in Europe … then it’s probably been the worst.

darwin on February 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Unless you live in Europe … then it’s probably been the worst.

darwin on February 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Screw them, they can keep the cold. Aren’t they the ones who signed the Kyoto treaty.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM

TABoLK on February 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM

very good dissertation, I mostly agree with you, the only thing you left out was the glass towers we are building in cities

RonK on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

ne’er saw it

must have kept it in his closet

oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

This thread has been very enlightening. Incredible just how ignorant the Kool Aid drinkers are as demonstrated by oakland above and triple elsewhere. They all claim to trust the scientists who “know”, yet are ignorant of the most important debates currently occurring on this subject. Apparently we now know who the propaganda works on and who is really living in denial. It is down right shameful these tools are so uncritical and incurious.

NotCoach on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Screw them, they can keep the cold. Aren’t they the ones who signed the Kyoto treaty.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM

lol

Fine with me.

darwin on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

NotCoach on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Bayam at least tries, (on occasion) to have a conversation.

Oakland’s mostly about unsupported snark.

Triple’s work here tonight was just embarrasing.

massrighty on February 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

This has likely been said already…

Remember when both Time and Newsweek were warning of the coming Ice Age?

The Fiction Of Climate Science

ITguy on February 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Oakland, you did a fantastic job with my challenge.
Based on your efforts, I’m convinced of the rightness of your position.

/

massrighty on February 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

One side wants to debate and the other side says the debate is over. I never saw any debate did I miss somthing.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

I’ve never debated global warming with anyone that attempted to feign ignorance about this. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why he thinks that appearing like an ostrich is a good debating tactic.

blink on February 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Happens all the time. I go on some of the alarmists blogs and it appears the only debating technique they know is to call you names. You can’t reason with thes people.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

One side wants to debate and the other side says the debate is over. I never saw any debate did I miss somthing.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain the debate that never happened!

ITguy on February 29, 2012 at 9:51 PM

The drunks are the ones not foaming at the mouth, and if you listen long enough they sometimes make sense. They also usually smell better.

Oldnuke on February 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Well, you got me there. It is also true that a drunk man speaks a sober man’s mind while liberals illustrate the difference between genius and stupidity – genius has it’s limits.

ghostwalker1 on February 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM

…and if we were experiencing unusually cooler weather everyone would be saying, “The new ice age is coming!” Wait a minute, they are, aren’t they? My scientist brother-in-law explained it this way; the models used by climatologists today are too short in duration, using data hundreds or maybe even thousands of years old. It’s true significant variations have been observed but taken in context, we’re talking a very brief moment in the time of earth’s existence.
As a pilot when I’m on the ground I spend a lot of time looking up and conversely, when in the air I’m looking down, at an earth older than description, marred and moved by events unrecorded or even quantifiable yet in our infinite wisdom, we take some findings, extrapolate and divine the secrets of the universe. Sheer arrogance. Simply put, we don’t know, but being the adaptive and allegedly intelligent beings we presume ourselves to be, we should be able to survive earth’s minor fluctuations and foibles.

LizardLips on February 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain the debate that never happened!

ITguy on February 29, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I think they had a secret vote and declared themselves the winner.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Industry pays for it – that was what the whole carbon credit scam was about. Industry is fined, made to change equipment (produced by the cronies of big government) and made to pay tribute to the green industry and it’s makers.

The professors who pimp the AGW lie garner bigger grants so the Universities join in the pimping. And if the professors are really big pimps they get to consult to the crony greenies or go work for them.

It’s a game of pimps and ho’s and we’re the ones getting screwed.

batterup on February 29, 2012 at 8:40 PM

ITguy on February 29, 2012 at 9:57 PM

LizardLips on February 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Last year we had a snowy winter with avg temps, the reason? Climate change. This year we have a mild winter with no snow, the reason? Climate change. It doesn’t matter what happens because it’s all climate change.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 10:00 PM

The debate can never be about the actual science, can it?
NotCoach on February 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Well, please inform the rest of us about the real science.
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

Which is better for the basic individual?

I’ll go with inexpensive fuel without scum commies adding their vig

You can buy into energy stocks if you want not that the commies have increased the value with their BS

Shut up

Sonosam on February 29, 2012 at 10:00 PM

I think they had a secret vote and declared themselves the winner.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I think Nancy Pelosi simply “deemed” the “progressives” the winners…

ITguy on February 29, 2012 at 10:00 PM

no, we should destroy our environment instead (or at least destroy our ability to survive comfortably, if at all)
oakland on February 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Hey azzwipe

Bother reading the article about how your commies have destroyed mid California’s agriculture

Jump off a bridge

Sonosam on February 29, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Two years ago New Jersey had the worst blizzard it has ever had. We also had something along the lines of 70 inches total snowfall. Reason, Man-made Global Warming. Last year we had the most snowfall ever recorded in the state for a winter season. Reason, Man-made Global Warming. This year we had an October snowfall and then a mild winter. Reason, Man-made Global Warming. Eastern Europe is having one of the coldest winters in history. Reason, Man-made Global Warming. Last year the Gulf of Finland froze over and entrapped the most ships every. Reason, Man-made Global Warming.

If my dog dies, Man-made Global Warming.
If I beat my kids, Man-made Global Warming.
If my wife leaves me, Man-made Global Warming.

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

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

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

Don’t forget earthquakes and volcanoes. Oh and the fact that the US hasn’t been hit by a cat3 hurricane for the longest time since the civil war doesn’t mean anything.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Unless you live in Europe … then it’s probably been the worst.

darwin on February 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Screw them, they can keep the cold. Aren’t they the ones who signed the Kyoto treaty.

steel guy on February 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Skating on the Thames will be good exercise for all those porky Brits.

slickwillie2001 on February 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6