I quote the above to refute: 1 - haroki's claim that Trader Zones must be misrepresenting his ideology, and 2 - drjekyllus' characterization of folks who have been convinced about climate change being "cultists". ET seems to specialize in far-right cults, for some reason. It's a specialty of extremists (both sides of the aisle) that they try to paint the mainstream as being not mainstream. AAA's characterization of the average voter as having the intelligence of a gerbil should put paid to the notion that he, dj, or haroki represent anything approaching a majority on this or any other question, of course. Source: the non-partisan (although the columnist isn't, and is honest enough to say so) Hill.com: http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/catching-up-on-global-warming-2008-06-03.html BTW, just to refute up front what I know our local cultists are going to come up with, a separate poll I looked at showed one-third of Republicans being firmly convinced both of climate change and of the need to take action on it. So the chances of Trader Zones being both conservative and convinced of the need for action on climate change are very much within the realm of reasonable probability. Haroki probably doesn't get out much. Wotta surprise.
Are you illiterate? It's smack in the middle of the post. Either your post was a joke or you're a joke. We report, you decide.
1- Liar. I never said anything about whats-his-bucket's politics. I merely stated as fact that people lie on the internet about their politics cuz they think it will bolster their views. IOW, I'm skeptical. And by your own numbers, I have a pretty good chance of being right. 2- he's right. MMGW believers are like the 9/11 wackos. There is no denying that a whole bunch of folks cited in the IPCC report have requested that their name be removed from it, and have issues with it. This is clear proof that it's not as cut and dried that opinions have reached a concensus on the issue. To deny this proves your own stupidity. Oops, you already did that with the horse shit comment. Too late for you now.... All this means is that the liberal media is in bed with liberal politicans, and that they have done their part to convince Republicans. Wotta surprise. Besides, what does it matter? According to dave, unless all these people are climatologists, their opinion means nothing.
Just to refute trefoil. Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...t/only_34_now_blame_humans_for_global_warming Date Human activity Planetary Trends Other Reason Apr 09 34% 48% 7% Mar 09 41% 43% 7% Feb 09 38% 45% 7% Jan 09 44% 41% 7% Dec 08 43% 43% 6% Apr 08 47% 34% 8% Nice try. Do you still believe man invented the car to deal with horseshit?
Holy crap, you actually did research. See what you can do when you're motivated? Of course that's only one poll. I found a lot more than that in five minutes of Googling. That's the only one that shows that result. But you knew that already. Now, just for shits & giggles, how about you look at all the data that's put out there for you, all by yourself, to manipulate in any way you wish, and see if there's anything like a correlation between temps and CO2, see whether temps lag CO2 or vice versa, and while you're at it, read up on all the stuff out there about horseshit, a thing you spew regularly, after all. It's actually not that hard. And it'll train you to use your mind sometimes.
CO2 lags temp according to research at the Vostock Station. They compiled data of the last 420,000 years. Yes that topic has already been covered. Its only one poll? It is recent and it is was done by the most accurate pollster. I just love how liberals work. If the data does not support their view they dismiss it on some bogus claim. You are actually telling me to use my mind? Does that mean just blindly accepting everything the media tells me and not questioning anything? You seem good at that.
I see a couple of clear trends here. 1-Nobody even attempts to refute the fact that a whole bunch of CLIMATOLOGISTS cited in the IPCC report have requested that their name be removed, and that this clearly proves that there is no where near a concensus on the issue. And yet, they keep on saying that there is a concensus. Cognitive dissonance on display for all to see. 2- Neither do they refute the fact that NASA has called Hansen's work crap. And that all subsequent work was also crap, since it is based on his temp info. Instead, NASA says that solar activity has increased since the mid 70's, and is a factor in GW that the IPCC followers ignore. Imagine that......
I'm still the one who sat and did correlations with the public domain data to figure out, for myself, whether you were right about CO2 lagging. The data proved you were wrong. And, one more time, because every time you repeat it, I'll point out how you cynically mislead: the report says CO2 lags when temperatures are decreasing. When temperatures are increasing, they're coincident. As I pointed out way back, in data covering thousands of years, there would be no way of knowing if CO2 leads when temperatures are increasing if the lead only amounts to a few years, because obviously you're not going to be able to see that. Which is why I went to the far more granular data that has been collected since the mid 20th century on CO2 and temperatures. As for haroki, everything he and AAA comes up with amounts to an elaborate ad hominem. For once, deal with facts instead of character assassination. Just once. It might actually do you some good.