Poll: Fewer Americans Believe Global Warming Is Happening

[...] The new Washington Post-ABC News poll has only 72 percent of Americans saying that global warming is occurring right now. It’s an eight-point drop from last year, and it’s mostly driven by Republicans. …Read Original Story: Poll: Fewer Americans Believe Global Warming Is Happening – The Washingto… [...]

Let's see what the polling results might be when the CRU communications dump is common knowledge.

The inconvenient truth is that the Republicans participating in that ABC poll – like the proverbial stopped clock – have achieved that time of day when they're precisely right.

compare this # to the percentage of retards who agree with Inhofe on Creationism—–it's shockingly high…

[...] The new Washington Post-ABC News poll has only 72 percent of Americans saying that global warming is occurring right now. It’s an eight-point drop from last year, and it’s mostly driven by Republicans. …Read Original Story: Poll: Fewer Americans Believe Global Warming Is Happening – The Washingto… [...]

Global Warming would naturally occur over thousands or hundred-thousand years, but with human carbon output, perhaps over 200-500 years. By the time humans realized it was happening, the species would be doomed. Rather than trying to fight nature by preventing human deaths in 3rd World countries or preventing brush fires, we should realize that nature does not waste energy, so deaths will control population growth and planned burns of brush growth will prevent out of control wildfires that require the expenditure of assets. But, as water stored as ice melts, we can expect a very gradual wobble in the Earth, and an imbalance will cause the crust to migrate over the upper-mantle causing the pole-shift effect. It will be an exciting time for all. You can peel a tangerine the move the peel over the flesh to see the effect. After a few hundred or thousand years the crust will re-stabilize, and surviving species will continue evolution. Bottom line: The human species needs the Earth to survive, but the Earth will outlive the human species. Reduce global human populations by war or nature.

Sorry, but the data and analytical models used by the global warming priesthood (they can hardly be called “scientists” in light of the ClimateGate revelations) are now proven totally bogus. From unreliable information (collected from surface temperature stations improperly sited and operated) these individuals had begun more than two decades ago to arrive at erroneous conclusions for which they were (unfortunately) rewarded by those politicians and bureaucrats who scented an opportunity to exert greater domination over the productive portion of the population by stirring up a panic.

Given this incentive, and with recognition increasing their prestige and influence, these academics – like Professor Jones of the CRU and Dr. Mann at Penn State – began to concert actions to advance their errors in spite of their growing recognition over the past ten years that their conclusions were erroneous and that their methodologies were faulty to the point of unreliability.

They co-opted (perhaps “hijacked” is the better word) the editorial peer review process in almost all of the learned journals reporting on climatology so that colleagues examining the subject of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming were not able to publish their own findings in these periodicals, or at scientific conferences.

Then slime like Algore made noise (see his most recent interview on Charlie Rose, 4 November 2009) about how the “peer review” literature was all on his global warming alarmist side.

(AL GORE: “Science magazine did a review of every peer review article for the previous ten years, a large sample of more than 10 percent. None of them disagreed with this consensus.”)

With ClimateGate, the AGW alarmists fraudulence has come crashing into ruin. What you believe, borderraven, is the result of a concerted propaganda campaign that has been devised deliberately to exploit all your best intentions for the sake of destroying millions – indeed, billions – of lives, impoverishing every community on earth, and settling upon you and your neighbors a level of uncontrollable governance that can only be characterized as the most dreadful tyranny in America's history.

The CRU correspondents have used the seeming of science to sell a malevolent political agenda, and to do so they have perverted the error-checking mechanism that makes the scientific method reliable.

They are criminals, and you are very much one of their victims.

You're drawing vastly radical conclusions from the Climategate e-mails. The behavior of that group of researchers doesn't negate the research or findings of others. Basically, you are asserting that the behavior of pedophile priests means all Catholics are degenerate child pornographers, or that all fund managers are just Madoffs waiting to happen, or that all Christians are whack-job fundamentalists.

These emails demonstrate a deep disdain for global warming skepticism that does not befit scientists in objective pursuit of the truth. But disdain is a far cry from intentional falsification, which is what they’re being accused of. These scientists could — and maybe should — suffer consequences for presenting their findings, and those of their colleagues, in a way that jibes with their broader agenda.

I believe the common use saying is:
“One bad apple does not spoil the bunch.” This old adage holds when the people who have spoiled agree with your or disagree with you.

Actually, the common saying is: “One bad apple can rot the whole barrel.”

Exactly the opposite of the point you're trying to make.

It appears that you're deliberately missing many of the points made in my post above, and this is in itself a fundamentally malicious duplicity on your part.

The CRU correspondents – which include effectively all of those in climate research responsible for securing, collating, and archiving the data upon which the AGW hypothesis had been predicated – had not only lied about the qualities of their data and the unreliability of their computer modeling programs but also had denied access to that data (most of it collected at taxpayer expense and therefore subject to Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] demands in both the United Kingdom and in the U.S.) .

In so doing, they not only each separately engaged in criminal conduct but also joined in a criminal conspiracy to violate these FOIA requirements. Dr. Jones at the CRU is certain to face criminal indictments, and so should Dr. Mann here in America, and all of their other co-conspirators.

I like the “pedophile priest” analogy, though. Let's expand on that.

In their actions, the CRU correspondents were very much like the operators of daycare centers scattered all over the developed world, in America, in Britain, in Europe.

And now we've learned that for 20 years and more, they've been secretly running the world's largest sadomasochistic child sex ring, complete with opportunities for their clients to engage in “snuff film” activities concluding with their victims' agonized deaths.

Worse. Such a ring of child molesters could have, at most, a few thousand suffering innocents on their consciences.

As I've observed above, Dr. Jones and Dr. Mann and their confreres have already worked their evil upon millions of people, and with the measures planned for the upcoming Copenhagen conference they would have managed to impose upon billions of people now living (and yet to be born) unspeakable poverty, hunger, and tyranny.

You're drawing vastly radical conclusions from the Climategate e-mails. The behavior of that group of researchers doesn't negate the research or findings of others. Basically, you are asserting that the behavior of pedophile priests means all Catholics are degenerate child pornographers, or that all fund managers are just Madoffs waiting to happen, or that all Christians are whack-job fundamentalists.

These emails demonstrate a deep disdain for global warming skepticism that does not befit scientists in objective pursuit of the truth. But disdain is a far cry from intentional falsification, which is what they’re being accused of. These scientists could — and maybe should — suffer consequences for presenting their findings, and those of their colleagues, in a way that jibes with their broader agenda.

I believe the common use saying is:
“One bad apple does not spoil the bunch.” This old adage holds when the people who have spoiled agree with your or disagree with you.

Actually, the common saying is: “One bad apple can rot the whole barrel.”

Exactly the opposite of the point you're trying to make.

It appears that you're deliberately missing many of the points made in my post above, and this is in itself a fundamentally malicious duplicity on your part.

The CRU correspondents – which include effectively all of those in climate research responsible for securing, collating, and archiving the data upon which the AGW hypothesis had been predicated – had not only lied about the qualities of their data and the unreliability of their computer modeling programs but also had denied access to that data (most of it collected at taxpayer expense and therefore subject to Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] demands in both the United Kingdom and in the U.S.) .

In so doing, they not only each separately engaged in criminal conduct but also joined in a criminal conspiracy to violate these FOIA requirements. Dr. Jones at the CRU is certain to face criminal indictments, and so should Dr. Mann here in America, and all of their other co-conspirators.

I like the “pedophile priest” analogy, though. Let's expand on that.

In their actions, the CRU correspondents were very much like the operators of daycare centers scattered all over the developed world, in America, in Britain, in Europe.

And now we've learned that for 20 years and more, they've been secretly running the world's largest sadomasochistic child sex ring, complete with opportunities for their clients to engage in “snuff film” activities concluding with their victims' agonized deaths.

Worse. Such a ring of child molesters could have, at most, a few thousand suffering innocents on their consciences.

As I've observed above, Dr. Jones and Dr. Mann and their confreres have already worked their evil upon millions of people, and with the measures planned for the upcoming Copenhagen conference they would have managed to impose upon billions of people now living (and yet to be born) unspeakable poverty, hunger, and tyranny.