Fox News: 120% Of The Public Thinks Scientists May Falsify GW Data

[RobertScorpio]

I think its utter rubish that those countries that have caused this climate change (USA--RUSSIA--ENGLAND) and reaped power from doing so, are trying to stop the developing countries from doing the same. Fools errand, and rather racist to the core!

ASSuming your first statement is true, which it isn't, I find it funnier than hell that the VERY CITY named after the Kyoto Treaty cannot even comply with its stipulations. This carbon-global-green-man-made-weather-changing is nothing more than a BS money game.

I'm wrong? Then why the big push for selling Carbon Offset Credits? It's a bullshit money shellgame that the likes of AlGore and the rest of his ilk are salivating at the chops to make loads of money.

Unlike most of you who buy into this nonsense, I remember back in the 70's when we were being scared into believing there was an Ice Age around the corner.

DUH -- According to Earth's history, there have been at least three of them.

Ummm..hello.?? It was only called Kyoto cause thats where it was held. But look at how America became the power it was; OIL baby. Pure and simple.

I think India/China will eventually flip the finger at the west and go right on with 'abusing' the world. And I SUPPORT them if that is what they do because I find it more stupid that the bulk of this Climate Change crap is coming from the countries that have benefitted the most from doing it.

Rob

 

[AnyStar]

I think its utter rubish that those countries that have caused this climate change (USA--RUSSIA--ENGLAND) and reaped power from doing so, are trying to stop the developing countries from doing the same. Fools errand, and rather racist to the core!

i find that a rather extremist view. dont you think the affore mentioned sovereinties realize the error of their ways, and are using their influence to prevent further damage?

 

[RobertScorpio]

I think its utter rubish that those countries that have caused this climate change (USA--RUSSIA--ENGLAND) and reaped power from doing so, are trying to stop the developing countries from doing the same. Fools errand, and rather racist to the core!

i find that a rather extremist view. dont you think the affore mentioned sovereinties realize the error of their ways, and are using their influence to prevent further damage?

Are you out of your mind? Half of the American people (I know, I live here) don't even think the world is in trouble. And its pretty petty to tell those smaller countries to follow the American/Britain lessons of the world after having been F'd over by those two countries for so long.

Never going to happen. China and India will nod one way, but do the exact opposite, and good for them. We can't get mankind from fighting over 1000 year political issues (middle east for example) and you expect the entire world to agree to this? Sorry, but the horse is out of the barn on that one.

 

[MarianLH]

Debunking the ice age claim

1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.

(emphasis mine)

The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling.

As for carbon trading, that's politicians selling out to business interests. To the extend that anybody else supports it, it's as a "we'll take what we can get" compromise.

If climate change were just a scheme to make money, the alleged schemers would have used it to make money, instead of denying it for 20+ years. Some skeezy politicians might be taking advantage of the situation, but the idea that they made it up and then...did nothing, for a generation, is just absurd.

ETA: Or, what Arrgh said.


Marian

 

[MarianLH]

And its pretty petty to tell those smaller countries to follow the American/Britain lessons of the world after having been F'd over by those two countries for so long.

Never going to happen. China and India will nod one way, but do the exact opposite, and good for them.

While that may be an accurate prediction of their actions, that is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm picturing Pratibha Patil and Hu Jintao saying to each other, "at least we showed those Americans" as they catch on fire.


Marian

 

[AnyStar]

I think its utter rubish that those countries that have caused this climate change (USA--RUSSIA--ENGLAND) and reaped power from doing so, are trying to stop the developing countries from doing the same. Fools errand, and rather racist to the core!

i find that a rather extremist view. dont you think the affore mentioned sovereinties realize the error of their ways, and are using their influence to prevent further damage?

Are you out of your mind? Half of the American people (I know, I live here) don't even think the world is in trouble. And its pretty petty to tell those smaller countries to follow the American/Britain lessons of the world after having been F'd over by those two countries for so long.

Never going to happen. China and India will nod one way, but do the exact opposite, and good for them. We can't get mankind from fighting over 1000 year political issues (middle east for example) and you expect the entire world to agree to this? Sorry, but the horse is out of the barn on that one.

no, i'm quite sane. i too am skeptical about the whole global warming trend, but on the same token i am 100% sure that the amount of pollution we are talking about is 100% a bad thing. are you trying to say you want everyone who wants to build factories and compete on global markets to just be free to start adding to the polution problem???

 

[RobertScorpio]

And its pretty petty to tell those smaller countries to follow the American/Britain lessons of the world after having been F'd over by those two countries for so long.

Never going to happen. China and India will nod one way, but do the exact opposite, and good for them.

While that may be an accurate prediction of their actions, that is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm picturing Pratibha Patil and Hu Jintao saying to each other, "at least we showed those Americans" as they catch on fire.


Marian

No Marian, its just a realistic look at our world and understanding the history in which we come from. I even laugh at women's rights groups who care very little about the women in the parts of the world where women are treated like property. I have been to those countries, and it is horrible.

When I ask my liberal women friends about invading other countries to free the women? They just laugh and say its up to each country to decide their own laws. What??? Okay. So we can't invade other countries to save women, but we can try to enforce other countries to burn less oil and coal? I almost laugh when I type this stuff, but its true.

Humans can't take care of each other, and you expect them to unite and save trees? Uh uh...ain't gonna happen.

Rob

 

[Pingfah]

To be honest, i'm not sure what the difference between "somewhat agree" and "somewhat disagree" would be.

To me "somewhat" means partially, so if one can somewhat agree with something, then they can somewhat disagree with the same thing.

It's a spectrum thing. Somewhat agree would mean that you have more agreement than disagreement.

I'll admit, the words may not be perfect but in the context of the spectrum, it works. No one goes into one of those surveys confused about what it means. It works.

Mr Awe

I suppose in the moment it would make sense, I wouldn't know though, people who walk up to me with surveys get ignored.

Perhaps next time i'll take the survey and start arguing with them about the meaning of "somewhat".

 

[Roger Wilco]

I think India/China will eventually flip the finger at the west and go right on with 'abusing' the world.

Maybe, but like I said, that's pretty shortsighted. Since they are the ones who will suffer the consequences too, not Europe and not the USA. We'll be fine whatever happens.-

 

[Mr Awe]

To be honest, i'm not sure what the difference between "somewhat agree" and "somewhat disagree" would be.

To me "somewhat" means partially, so if one can somewhat agree with something, then they can somewhat disagree with the same thing.

It's a spectrum thing. Somewhat agree would mean that you have more agreement than disagreement.

I'll admit, the words may not be perfect but in the context of the spectrum, it works. No one goes into one of those surveys confused about what it means. It works.

Mr Awe

I suppose in the moment it would make sense, I wouldn't know though, people who walk up to me with surveys get ignored.

Perhaps next time i'll take the survey and start arguing with them about the meaning of "somewhat".

For all I know, it's an American thing. Maybe it's different in the UK. In the past, I've been involved with surveying. It's all been statistically tested, etc. etc.

Mr Awe

 

[Marc]

I'm not referring to the people doing the actual research. No, I'm referring to people selling carbon credits, or other "green" solutions designed to either actually help or at least make people feel better about themselves.

and they'll probably be the same scum sucking bottom feeders who spectulate on the price of oil and who make millions out of it while the consumer gets screwed. They are an unfortunately a fact in the capitalist system - in Australia they are also play by an sell water rights.

For example, I read a story the other day about a new ATM-like machine installed at San Francisco International Airport where people can give this company money to offset the environmental harm caused by their flight.

A number of airlines have similar sorts of offset programs, Air Canada and Virgin Blue (Australian airline part owned by Branson's Virgin Group) but you sign up for that when you by your tickets and their websites do explain about their programs.

But yeah those ATMs are a bit sus unless it's fully documented where the money is going.

ETA: The opinion that climate change is being pushed so hard by some is just to make money is bolstered when people look at Al Gore's house, or the 140 private planes and 2000 limos and the extravagant parties going on in Copenhagen.

Gore's house I don't know much about - like what he had in the past, how much money he's got/had/made/whatever.

The planes and limos in Copehagen, well you've got Prime Ministers, Presidents, senior government ministers, senior public servants etc who are a very large chunk in Copehagen and well limo service, the direct flights etc are generally perks of the job and pretty much the same if it's a climate change sumit in Copenhagen or the G20/Apec/whatever - but where as the meetings like APEC have a family small number of attendees Copehagen is pretty muich attended by every U.N member nation of which there are approximately 190.

So you then you have countries with large delegations (U.K is sending 60, Australian it's claimed is sending 90) and lets say that's 4 people in each vehicle that's 37.5 cars just for those two delegations. then pad that becasue because for a national leader there will be the P.M or president, possibly his or her spouse, maybe one senior adviser and a security agent.

The luxury dinners - well rightly or wrongly that's a perk of the job but frankly have read some of the things the serve I couldn't stomach it - give me a good steak any day.

 

[farmkid]

I'm not referring to the people doing the actual research. No, I'm referring to people selling carbon credits, or other "green" solutions designed to either actually help or at least make people feel better about themselves.

and they'll probably be the same scum sucking bottom feeders who spectulate on the price of oil and who make millions out of it while the consumer gets screwed. They are an unfortunately a fact in the capitalist system - in Australia they are also play by an sell water rights.

For example, I read a story the other day about a new ATM-like machine installed at San Francisco International Airport where people can give this company money to offset the environmental harm caused by their flight.

A number of airlines have similar sorts of offset programs, Air Canada and Virgin Blue (Australian airline part owned by Branson's Virgin Group) but you sign up for that when you by your tickets and their websites do explain about their programs.

But yeah those ATMs are a bit sus unless it's fully documented where the money is going.

ETA: The opinion that climate change is being pushed so hard by some is just to make money is bolstered when people look at Al Gore's house, or the 140 private planes and 2000 limos and the extravagant parties going on in Copenhagen.

Gore's house I don't know much about - like what he had in the past, how much money he's got/had/made/whatever.

The planes and limos in Copehagen, well you've got Prime Ministers, Presidents, senior government ministers, senior public servants etc who are a very large chunk in Copehagen and well limo service, the direct flights etc are generally perks of the job and pretty much the same if it's a climate change sumit in Copenhagen or the G20/Apec/whatever - but where as the meetings like APEC have a family small number of attendees Copehagen is pretty muich attended by every U.N member nation of which there are approximately 190.

So you then you have countries with large delegations (U.K is sending 60, Australian it's claimed is sending 90) and lets say that's 4 people in each vehicle that's 37.5 cars just for those two delegations. then pad that becasue because for a national leader there will be the P.M or president, possibly his or her spouse, maybe one senior adviser and a security agent.

The luxury dinners - well rightly or wrongly that's a perk of the job but frankly have read some of the things the serve I couldn't stomach it - give me a good steak any day.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking anyone for what they're doing. Red Ranger said that those who deny global warming are doing it because they stand to lose a lot of money if the proposed changes are made. I was pointing out that many make the same argument about those who are proposing the changes saying that they stand to make a lot of money if those changes are enacted. My point was that once politics and money are involved it's hard to know who to believe, and both sides will claim the moral high ground and accuse the other of being motivated by greed. You asked for examples of who might be making money from green solutions, so I answered your question. I mentioned the conference in Copenhagen because their actions there, rightly or wrongly, are easy ammunition for those who are making such accusations.

 

[Red Ranger]

This is quite possibily the worst 'news' channel that ever existed in the history of the universe.

I don't think these guys are even CAPABLE of telling the truth anymore. In fact, I'm not at all certain they are living in the same space/time continuum as the rest of us.

It would explain much. Mark my words -- it will come out that these emails were tampered with somehow. The folks who want to discredit climate change have the financial resources and incentive to do such a hatchet job.

I guess those on the opposite side of the debate forget how the GOP and their allies influenced the 1972 elections by using the CRP (Committee to Reelect the President) to ruin the rep of stronger Democratic challengers like Edmund Muskie with the forged Canuck Letter -- tactics known as r*t-f***ing (fill in the asterisks). It wasn't an accident Nixon faced McGovern.

Also, the tobaccco industry used similar tactics in what's known as manufactured doubt today to cloud the obvious evidence that cigarettes cause cancer, esp. the infamous "seven dwarfs" appearance by the heads of the seven major tobacco companies before Congress where they flat-out denied the link. This was despite the fact much of their own research indicated the link.

Those who favor profits over people have and continue to engage in sophisticated, well-funded disinformation campaigns like this latest attack against the science of climate change. And given that in a recent Gallup poll, 18% of American respondents thought the sun revolved around the Earth, it's not surprising that the feeble-minded in the U.S. without a basic grasp of science can be fooled by these obfuscation tactics.

Well, when the human race drowns in its own crap and causes its own extinction, the Earth will continue and evolution will start over, probably with the bees.

Your point is well stated. However, I must point out that this is the same argument used by the other side of the debate. Many accuse those who push changes to reduce climate change of favoring their own profits over people. Many who push change the hardest are the same people who stand to make lots of money by selling the proposed solutions, at the expense of the economic damage the solutions will do to many.

When politics and money get involved the science takes a back seat. Unfortunately, since scientific conclusions are never absolute, it's easy for people to reinterpret the science to promote their politics and financial gain. Both sides can be and are accused of doing so, and there are certainly players on both sides who are guilty of using the science for their own gain. Only in the future, when we can look back and see what was done and what happened will we be able to say for sure who was right (assuming anyone is absolutely right).

Farmkid:

You raise a good point on how scientific data can be misused by many to prove one's point. I don't think there's anything wrong with profit, just profit at the expense of the majority to benefit the plutocrats. Hell, I'm sure T. Boone Pickens, a smart investor, wouldn't be urging a changeover to alternative sources of energy because he's a good guy and philanthropist. He wants to make money.

But he also realizes that continuing to do business as usual in the energy sector isn't the best thing for the planet and the human race's future. Pickens' example reminds me of the old phrase, "Only Nixon could go to China."

Now, I still maintain that the ones who stand to make more money are not the green folks but the oil & gas types who want to keep drilling, baby, drilling, despite the mounting evidence that they're helping do in the planet. Besides, I want my future house powered by solar and own a hydrogen car.

RR

 

[Arrqh]

Red Ranger said that those who deny global warming are doing it because they stand to lose a lot of money if the proposed changes are made. I was pointing out that many make the same argument about those who are proposing the changes saying that they stand to make a lot of money if those changes are enacted.

True, but the thing is... no matter what happens in pretty much any situation, someone will think of a way to make money off of it. There certainly are people, I'm sure, who argue for prevention of climate change who are doing it only because it is politically convenient or because they stand to make a buck... and same for those who argue against it. The science itself, however, stands on its own and is pretty clear.

Really the whole problem is just a PR problem. It absolutely doesn't matter what Gore does with his house... climate change exists regardless of his credibility. But by setting himself up as a spokesperson, such things become ammunition for deniers. Same with Copenhagen and the whole email thing... none of it changes the reality of the problem. It can however significantly change perception.

Somehow, science needs better marketing!

 

[Gertch]

That response makes no sense. What are you talking about?

Ummm, exactly what I typed.

I'm a fairly educated guy but I've no idea what you're trying to imply there.

Yes you are but I thought you were being disingenuous. I'm sorry.

You said that ratings didn't correlate to quality journalism (which I disagree with but that's another subject). I said that journalist who ignore important stories don't correlate to quality journalism. A journalists job is to dig and expose. They aren't doing a quality job if they aren't, like now.



EDIT: Looks like I'm late getting back here.

 

[John Picard]

http://www.slate.com/id/2237674/?gt1=38001

"subjects who made simulated eco-friendly purchases ended up less likely to exhibit altruism in a laboratory game and more likely to cheat and steal."

"In a second experiment, participants were again assigned to shop in either a green or conventional store. Then they performed a computer task that involved earning small sums of cash. The setup offered the opportunity to cheat and steal with impunity. The eco-shoppers were more likely to do both."

Rather fitting for this thread.

 

[Arrqh]

http://www.slate.com/id/2237674/?gt1=38001

"subjects who made simulated eco-friendly purchases ended up less likely to exhibit altruism in a laboratory game and more likely to cheat and steal."

"In a second experiment, participants were again assigned to shop in either a green or conventional store. Then they performed a computer task that involved earning small sums of cash. The setup offered the opportunity to cheat and steal with impunity. The eco-shoppers were more likely to do both."

Rather fitting for this thread.

Not at all... because people's opinions and behaviors have no bearing on the scientific reality of the situation. It certainly is an interesting psychological phenomena but has very little bearing on climate change.

 

[John Picard]

OOPS!
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming



Never mind. Since it contradicts the religion of Global Warming as preached by the Right Reverend AlGore, the article is clearly wrong

 

[Misfit Toy]

OOPS!
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming



Never mind. Since it contradicts the religion of Global Warming as preached by the Right Reverend AlGore, the article is clearly wrong

167% of Fox viewers agree with you.

 

[ST-One]

OOPS!
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming



Never mind. Since it contradicts the religion of Global Warming as preached by the Right Reverend AlGore, the article is clearly wrong

A scientist (a geologist, to be precise) who belongs to that group: http://www.plantsneedco2.org/

What a joke.