Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Newsweek is worried that Republicans are becoming more climate skeptic.
UNDER TRUMP, FEWER REPUBLICANS THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMANS
BY TIM MARCIN ON 3/28/18 AT 2:06 PM
More than a full year into the Donald Trump experience, Republicans have grown more skeptical about climate change compared with the year prior, according to new polling data from Gallup released on Wednesday.
Just 35 percent of Republicans believed global warming was caused by humans, compared with 40 percent at about this time in 2017 when Trump had barely taken office. A full 89 percent of Democrats, meanwhile, believed humans caused global warming.
…
There was, however, one area where GOP respondents were more concerned about global warming. Eighteen percent felt they would see effects from global warming in their lifetime, a 4 percentage point rise from 2017, according to Gallup.
…
The Gallup Poll is available here.
What I find most fascinating about this polarisation of opinion is the fact that people who claim to believe the world is facing a climate emergency are not making a serious effort to solve the alleged emergency. For example there seems to be no real effort by Democrats to embrace zero carbon nuclear power, despite the very real likelihood that a Democrat policy of nuclear advocacy would be supported by Republicans. The possibility that a few nuclear plants would suffer meltdowns is somehow a greater problem than the alleged imminent end of the world.
Translation: Under Obama the media refused to give air time to climate skeptics, in Trump the skeptics have a voice the media can’t avoid.
+10
Exactly…….”More than a full year into the Donald Trump experience, Republicans have grown more skeptical about climate change compared with the year prior,”…….absolute BS
The only thing that’s changed is….under Trump conservatives are not as fearful in participating in these stupid surveys
CO2 “theory” is over 100 years old….they have never gotten one single prediction right…
…what kind of moron does it take to believe it?
Virtue signaling, deluded, indoctrinated, neo-Marxist, blinder-wearing useful idiots? ;-D
LOL…..+1
“Virtue signaling, deluded, indoctrinated, neo-Marxist, blinder-wearing useful idiots? ;-D”
Yep, that’s me. Hit the nail on the head with that one. Except that I’m a capitalist. “Useful”! Woo-hoo! Don’t go piling on the praise, it might turn my head.
+10
A lot of people define anyone who isn’t an open communist as some flavor of capitalist.
Kristi, don’t get mad at us. You’re the one who believes the stupid crap. You’re the one who respects the “expert” opinions of experts who have proved their rent-seeking, tendentious bona fides. Tell you what, though. I want to be helpful. I want to be open minded that a whole cadre of “scientists are not all corrupt and self serving, and that you’re not just a useful idiot tool of a large and corrupt political machine.
If you want to prove to that you’re not a brainwashed dupe, the best way I can think of is by going through the 1995 IPCC report and from among it’s references, find the best single science paper on human attribution. That shouldn’t be too hard, should it?
Pick the best representative paper, the one that convinced Ben Santer to rewrite the summaries from “no apparent human signal found” to “oh, wait, yes, human signal found!” Mind you, I’m not interested in debating whether or not Santer unilaterally changed the sign of the working group’s conclusions without consulting his team of co-authors. That doesn’t interest me much. I’m only interested in seeing ONE GOOD PAPER that is so simple, compelling, and overwhelming that it convinced him (and today, convinces you) that CO2 from human emissions are driving the climate and warming us all up to dangerous levels. One caveat, your paper cannot be based on GCM model outputs, Monte Carlo spreads, which are nothing but hypotheses.. It will help if your paper makes concrete predictions, and if it isn’t full of weasel words. Most importantly, it should have some semblance of real-world observational testing of a falsifiable concrete hypothesis. You get extra points if your paper incrementally assigns some of recent CO2 increases to natural variation, respecting the natural process of ocean out-gassing due to a slightly warmer world. Points are subtracted if it says nothing on that topic. If the paper utilizes the correlation equals causation fallacy, even if the authors say they can’t think of anything else, it is disqualified summarily.
Find me a human attribution science paper that measures, not guesses, at the problem. Don’t just do it for me. Do it for yourself. You’re the one with the burden of proof. So, please humble me and knock my socks off, oh most indulgent lady of science. I’ll be here, waiting.
Democrats obviously along with ignorant journalists and every scientist who can make a quid out of it. Here in Oz the Labor party, the Greens and a fair number of so called Liberals (not the same as your liberals).
It’s also one more year during which the catastrophic predictions of the alarmists have failed to happen.
And one more late spring in most of the NH.
And Pop Piasa in the 4.5 billion years of the planet how late springs does make for most of the NH?
Thomas, is english your second language? Please reiterate.
More like under Obama the argument that climate scientists didn’t need to defend their theories in debate could be justified. They had nothing to lose.
Now under Trump they have everything to gain if they can crush their critics. Because they now have no political influence. And they claim that is destroying the planet.
But they still won’t debate.
It’s obvious why.
That destroys any pretence they have left of credibility.
M Courtney,
I imagine mainstream scientists think it’s a waste of time debating. The contrarians haven’t come up with anything new or intriguing. The arguments against AGW and the models are old and tired. And no amount of debate is going to change the minds of deniers committed to their cause, which seems to be a good proportion of them. So why bother debating?
“That destroys any pretence they have left of credibility.”
Nonsense. They have credibility with some and not with others, and it isn’t going to be affected by whether they debate. Perhaps in the past the debates have been interpreted by skeptics as they want to see them (“we won”!), another reason not to bother.
The credibility of mainstream science has been attacked for decades, and it’s impossible to prove to deniers that it’s bunk (look at Climategate, still a “scandal” despite the verdict of 8 independent investigations). Accusations of fraud, conspiracy, bias, corruption, collusion to support a political ideology, stupidity, “Virtue signaling, deluded, indoctrinated, neo-Marxist, blinder-wearing useful idiots”…how does one argue against baseless assertion? If I were a climate scientist I’d be so sick of it, I’d just ignore it and hope sooner or later the deniers finally look at the evidence and realize they’ve been manipulated, but the chances of that happening are vanishingly slim. It’s a terrible situation, a stalemate
But they have lost the political debate.
-No country is fulfilling even the feeble requirements of the Paris aAcords.
-The world’s largest economy is led by a government that thinks action on climate change is a waste of time.
-Every poll, from local level to the UN, puts climate change as the lowest priority for the electorate. The people don’t put climate change as a priority.
Yet climate scientists see no benefit in trying to change that by defending their opinions in debate.
It’s not a case of :
The reality is that the politics is won. Or is being won.
There is no sign that the views of the concerned climate scientists are not losing. Can you think of any?
If the scientists believed they could change this… and if they believed that this political situation is a real threat to the planet… they would dare to debate.
But they don’t.
And one more thing I should have said.
Climategate was a scandal because it revealed the corruption of peer review. We have read the emails.
It was not absolved of guilt because every department involved performed an inquiry and said ‘please let us off’.
Yes, many nutters claim AGW is all a commie-reds-under-the bed-whakadoodle caboodle. They do more harm to the sceptic cause than to the climate science cartel.
That doesn’t change the fact that a small group of climate scientists have been exposed circling the wagons and suppressing alternative theories. We have read the emails.
There is no stalemate. There never was. They have never dared to debate.
Stalemate is when two opposing forces fight to a standstill where there is no way to resolve the issue.
Climate Scientists refuse to fight. They won’t even take the first move.
They would rather try to prevent alternative theories from being published. Rather than confront and defend their views they pervert peer review. They would rather throw the board over than play the game.
We have read the emails.
Kristi,
There has never been a genuine investigation of Climategate. The criminal collusion and conspiracy is blatantly obvious to any disinterested observer.
Kristi Silber – please note that in science, an argument does not become “old and tired”. On the contrary, an argument that stands the test of time gains credibility. So what you must look for is not tiredness but disproof. Given how useless all the climate models are at predicting climate, disproving some of those arguments is going to be very difficult indeed.
So statith did: Kristi Silber – March 30, 2018 at 1:03 pm
And just who are those “mainstream scientists” you speak of?
Are they, per se, scientists who limit their studies to say the Mississippi River rather than its tributaries such as the Missouri River or the Ohio River?
Who cares? Real scientists don’t care. So “DUH”, only the contrarians are interested in what the other contrarians think up that is new or intriguing,
That sounds like something that Pelosi or Schumer would say about the arguments against Hillary being elected POTUS.
“DUH”, ….. “the minds of deniers”, ……. Huh?
The public debates being called for are not for the purpose of changing the minds of the “deniers” of AGW, ….. but on the contrary, ……. are for the specific purpose of changing the minds of the “contrarians”.
Do you also wonder why they televise all those “debates” involving Candidates vying to be elected POTUS?
8 independent investigations
“a blinder well played”
Kristi, you are correct, the information about how bad the models are have been available for decades now.
It’s just that most warmists still don’t care.
There is no point in a debate. It would be for show, for the public, and therefore political. Scientists are generally not very interested in that, and have misgiving about taking a side because it could lead to accusations of bias. But the real problem with debate is that is would be scientifically meaningless. The issues are too complex. I don’t know, perhaps if it were focused on one aspect and there were written materials exchanged before they might get somewhere. The public might not understand it fully if they really got into it. That would be science.
A debate the public would understand would really be a debate about policy, even if it’s never mentioned. Most of the public debate comes down to partisan politics and economic ideology. That’s the line in the sand. It’s not an appropriate topic for scientists. They have to stay neutral. This is my own opinion; its debated within the profession.
Ach! Climategate AGAIN?? You’ve read the emails? All the emails? Have you talked to those who wrote them? Interviewed them and others? You know the story about the peer review? Oy, it’s a tale of CORRUPTION OF CONTRARIAN SCIENCE. If you ever allow others to interpret those emails, slicing bits out of the whole, you are letting yourself be manipulated. I’ve read those bits, too, and I’ve seen the conclusions drawn by Tim Ball or Balling (can’t remember now, have to go) Propaganda. Manipulation. Intent to mislead. Once you begin to see it, you realize how pervasive it is. Read about the psychology behind it.
“It was not absolved of guilt because every department involved performed an inquiry and said ‘please let us off’.”
Do you really think that? Well, no wonder you don’t believe it holds water! Sheesh, that’s ridiculous! You think the scientific community would allow that??? BS!
That’s denier material there. Total misplaced trust. Fed by criminally hacked emails that showed a tiny fraction taken out of context, and pre-interpreted. Wasn’t this site the one that “broke the story”? Weren’t they sent here?
Skepticism gives rise to knowledge, but knowledge is danger to the elites. We are in a modern “Dark Ages”.
No… we’re not quite there yet. But, we are fast sliding in that direction. The global rise in fundamentalist religion is a pretty good tell. People tend to fall back on religion to maintain the status quo.
Knowledge is never dangerous to the elites. It is quite dangerous to pseudo-elites
Skepticism gives rise to knowledge – yes, in the case of true skepticism, but that is very uncommon in my experience of climate “skepticism.” More often it seems to spread the gospel through unsupported assumption, outdated ideas, demonization, politics, ridicule and the threat of dire economic predictions should there be a transition to renewables (odd, since the transition is well on its way in America, without any obvious detriment to the economy).
What has climate “skepticism” contributed to science in the last 10 years?
What have we learned?
A realization that all the climate models have been wrong 🙂
WQow Kristi:
This and your previous comment.
Project Much?
“…demonization, politics, ridicule…” – the boot is undeniably on the other foot.
Moreover, “skepticism” has at least proposed various alternative explanations for climate change, not the one single narrow view of C02 decreed by the warmists. Most importantly, the latter have still, to my knowledge, not offered any explanation for the higher temperatures in eras hundreds (or thousands) of years before the present.
USA is fortunate to have limited the penetration of wind and solar into the electricity supply. The penetration of wind to 2016 was 6% and solar 1%. That is not “well on its way”. It is a minor contribution that has not threatened the stability of any networks yet.
South Australia has managed 39% penetration of predominantly wind onto the grid. At that level the effects are truly felt. South Australia has the highest price electricity in the developed world despite the State being able to get reliable power from neighbouring States through high power links. The remaining energy intensive businesses in SA are all on some form of government support. The latest enhancements to the grid such as the Tesla/Samsung battery, the diesel fuelled GTs and the diesel fuelled ICEs have all been paid for by government debt as costs could not be recovered from the consumers.
South Australia has the highest level of disconnections in the country due to power bills being unpaid. Those that can afford solar/batteries in their home are installing them to reduce their power costs. By 2024 it is forecast by the network operator that the minimum demand in SA network will be zero. That means all the grid connected wind and solar will not have any demand at those times. All those grid assets with diminished source of income.
The easy way to destroy an economy is to subsidies the connection of wind and solar generation onto a power grid. The German’s have wind and solar reaching 14% of their electricity market and that is beginning to cripple their economy. Energy intensive industries are closing down in Germany.
“the transition is well on its way in America, without any obvious detriment to the economy)”
That’s because it hasn’t progressed as far as it has in Ontario, with dire economic effects and the pending electoral loss by the government that implemented them. Alberta is heading down the same disastrous path, and the effects are beginning to show up. (For details, use the names of those provinces in wuwT’s search box.)
Recently, days ago, there was a thread here on how New England would have suffered a blackout in the latest Nor’easter had it not been for a coal-powered plant that is scheduled for shutdown, in the footsteps of 6 or 8 that have already done so.
Skepticism doesn’t spread any gospel ….. it is a healthy, very scientific demand for a higher level of evidence to support any claimed gospel.
AGW skepticism is no different. However, things do go sideways when the ones who ARE trying to spread a gospel, a.k.a. … that advocates of CAGW, refuse to provide the higher level of evidence, and then resort to calling skeptics such lovely labels as flat earthier, deniers, anti science, etc.
You say “in my experience”, …. may I suggest you evaluate your experience, as I am skeptical that it is free I’d ideological bias on this subject.
“threat of dire economic predictions should there be a transition to renewables (odd, since the transition is well on its way in America, without any obvious detriment to the economy). ”
How much do you pay for electricity? $0.11/KWh like I do in coal fired country? or $0.40 like they do in Germany where they have gone farther in your sacred transition to unreliable power sources.
“More often it seems to spread the gospel through unsupported assumption, outdated ideas, demonization, politics, ridicule and the threat of dire economic predictions”
Kristi, are you familiar with the term “psychological projection”?
“What has climate “skepticism” contributed to science in the last 10 years?”
It has forced climatology to come up with an explanation, or an “explanation,” for The Pause.
Nic Lewis’s work has forced climatology to somewhat temper its alarmism over climate’s sensitivity, by lowering it.
CMoB may have hit a home run recently that outweighs the entirety of orthodox climatology since Day One.
It has debunked numerous false claims, such as the Hockey Stick and Steig’s warming Antarctica paper. Debunkings are a very important part of making a contribution to science.
What has climate skepticism contributed?
Among other things, we have contributed evidence that the current warming is nothing unusual.
We have contributed evidence that over the last 10,000 years, most of that time the earth has been warmer than it is today, both without the benefit of CO2 and to the benefit of life on the planet.
We have contributed evidence that the so called climate models are incapable of actually modelling the climate.
For a start.
Of course being the true believer that you are, you will continue to deny the evidence of your eyes.
“More often it seems to spread the gospel through unsupported assumption, outdated ideas, demonization, politics, ridicule and the threat of dire economic predictions should there be a transition to renewables”
Sorry, foot in my mouth again. Broad generalization, and not a good one – there is a whole lot of intelligent discussion, too. But the above is all well-represented here, too. I spent a lot of time on Breitbart, where it’s rampant.
What “trillion dollars” have we spent on climate research?
Falsification is irrelevant to them.
Every time in ths palaeo record where there’s highish interglacial CO2 levels, the earth plunges into 100 k yr glacia periodl — first — BEFORE CO2 declines.
Falsified … a looooong time ago.
It’s never been about observations constraining what is considered true or false.
Fake truth and fake false are so much more useful to them.
Gallup seems to have eliminated or homogenized those who consider
themselves to be “Independent”… a fair sized number of the electorate.
This is not polling information on which you can base a mid-term election
campaign.
One major problem with polls is both the wording of the questions, and both poor sampling and response rates that differ among groups. The rise of cell phones makes sampling even more of a problem.
Conservatives use caller ID or hang up…..they don’t poll
….with liberals threatening to hunt them down…..who is that stupid to tell some stranger over the phone
Yup…This is Borsht Polling calling to conduct a survey poll about how wonderful President Putin is. On a scale of 1-5, how likely is it that you fully support our fearless dear leader?
Gallup is consistently biased 6-8 percentage points to the liberal / progressive side of things. Pew is a bit better, but not much, even Fox News polls are skewing liberal.
This is more nefarious than it looks. Notice that their question casts “skepticism” as believing that global warming isn’t caused by humans.
The real debate is whether global warming is catastrophic.
Letting them define the terms of the debate is giving up the game.
“What I find most fascinating about this polarisation of opinion is the fact that people who claim to believe the world is facing a climate emergency are not making a serious effort to solve the alleged emergency.”
Yes, absolutely right. This behaviour is universal. The alarmed do two things that are inconsistent with any seriously held belief in a climate emergency.
One, they advocate doing things that will make no difference because they are too small or too local or both Like, biofuels, turning off standby, wind turbines, moving to electric cars, and other steps which are tiny in relation to what they claim to be the size of the problem. Or like in the UK advocating tiny national reductions in emissions which cost a fortune but are too small to be even measurable globally.
The second thing they refuse to do is advocate measures which they ought to think are required and effective. Like, get the Chinese and Indians to make real reductions in tons emitted. Like, move everyone into high density housing, abolish cars, stop all shopping malls and close down the suburbs. Like, if you have to generate electricity, go nuclear.
You have a weird combination of people who claim to believe there is an existential threat to civilisation, but who refuse to advocate doing what they claim to believe is both effective and necessary to avert it, and who insist very emotionally on doing things at vast expense which on their own account cannot be effective.
The question you have to ask is, do they actually believe what they say? Inquiring minds have begun to suspect that what they really want, and all they really want, is the de-industrialization of the West, as an end in itself. And perhaps that they are as fine a collection of paid astroturfers as the world has ever known.
well of COURSE they’re not doing anything personally.. that’s what governments are for! they want Mommy Government to fix all the things for them, or tell them what to do so they know it’s the right thing to do
/face palm.
Meanwhile, they speed around the countryside throwing all their fast-food trash, cans, diapers, burning cigarettes, etc right out the window. Every place they hold a demonstration gets ecologically trashed from the herds of green sheep who gather to worship Gaia and block the progress of affluence in their society.
Michel: You’re absolutely right. The proof is in the pudding. Despite the trillions spent to date on renewables, we haven’t made a dent in atmospheric CO2 levels. The momentum and inertia of the existing energy system is so massive that it would take an impossible effort to even partially slow it down. The alarmist belief is that nothing short of such an effort is required. It’s a case of the resistable force colliding with the immovable object, and the outcome is obvious, inevitable and predictable.
Spot on. Perhaps they all need to be continuously exposed to their own self-delusion in order to get them to acknowledge the futility of pursuing useless “climate policies.” Even if the AGW pseudo-science was correct, the supposed “cure” would do nothing measurable about it, and would cause more harm than the alleged “disease.”
Michel, Ed Worall, and others: there is NO incompatibility or inconsistency here: primarily, enviro-whackos are neither interested in decreasing carbon consumption nor, in improving accessibility to any and ALL forms of increased-efficiency energy; rather, their PRIMARY GOAL, is in DECREASING DRAMATICALLY the human presence here on earth.
In general, from various and numerous papers, readily available online, it can be seen that they want to reduce — by one way or the other — the earth’s total population down to the 500 MILLION person range; and, for them, the sooner the better.
Greater amounts of cheaper and more efficient energy do NOT lend itself toward that population goal.
Ultimately, they want “total control”; where, the smaller the population, in their perverted mind’s view, permits them to more easily acquire such control. Plain and simple.
Leftists are brilliant at propaganda, deceit, obfuscation and changing the narrative.
The silly “Climate Change” Gallop poll is the epitome of Leftist misdirection..
“Do you believe in Climate Change?” Is an absurd question. Of course 100% of people should know earth’s climate is ALWAYS changing. Most people also appreciate that manmade CO2 emissions have contributed to some extent to the beneficial 0.85C of Global Warming recovery we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Littel Ice Age in 1850, but that’s not how the Gallop questionnaire was worded.
The proper question should be, “Will manmade greenhouse emissions at current emission rates generate catastrophic global warming over your lifetime or by 2100?”.
The answer to that is a resounding NO! as all empirical evidence and physics show ECS will be somewhere between 0.6~1.2C per doubling as best seen with this one graph:
The disparity between CAGW’s global warming projections vs. reality already exceeds 2+ standard deviations for 22 years, which is more than sufficent divergence and duration to declare the CAGW hypothesis disconfirmed.
Based on reality, the Gallop poll should ask, “Do you think it’s a good idea for world governments to waste $76 trillion (2008 UN estimate) to keep CO2 induced warming below 2C, when we could waste $0.00 and enjoy another 0.3C~0.9C of beneficial global warming, and increase crop yields by 33% by 2100 If we do nothing?” The answer to that question is, of course, NO!
Leftists are so duplicitous..
Not only that, they lie a lot.
…are night time temperatures a tiny bit warmer and a growing season a tiny bit longer beneficial or not?…..yes or no
Not just leftists.
Q – How do you tell if a politician is lying?
A – Her lips are moving.
As you point out it really matters which questions you ask. If you ask folks what is the most serious problem facing the nation, almost none will mention climate change. Two or three percent will mention environment/pollution. CAGW isn’t really on most peoples’ radar. link
The one thing from this spagetti plot that I find most interesting is that there is one apparent outlier model that is tracking measured values and trends much more closely than any of the other models. What is being done differently with that model that appears to be enhancing its “reality.”
After “ignorance” and “delusions” have been weaponized, are they then just thrown against the wall and used like a siege gun?
I believe that’s a Russian model.
blond or brunette?
It’s the Russian INM-CM3.0 model.
Indeed, and furthermore, you are assuming that 100% of the amount of alleged warming has been caused by CO2 level increases, which is demonstrably not the case, so the “do nothing” option is of absolutely no measurable consequence whatsoever.
And who said there is no good news?
It doesn’t matter wether a Democrat or a republican is president, I’m still skeptical about man made global warming or whatever the heck they call it.
Agreed. And it doesn’t matter what “political affiliation” I have either, since that will probably change with the particular “issue” being discussed. The AGW theory is garbage, since it doesn’t have any empirical support.
As a matter of Objective Reality, of course I agree with you. The problem is that your view is now an overtly political view, EVEN THOUGH you yourself say it is not, because the Left says that anyone who hold your views must be a vicious race hating white male misogynist who wants to destroy the world, and they will shriek and stick their fingers in their ears and chant “LA LA LA LA LA” if anyone tries to tell them different.
That’s what has happened to this entire issue – even though most everyone on the skeptic side tried to keep it from being a purely political fight, the Left has DEMANDED it become a purely political fight, because they dream of using Political Power to squash all of their opposition. Meaning people like you.
K-T and assorted clone diagrams of atmospheric power flux balances include a GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop of about 330 W/m^2 which violates three basic laws of thermodynamics: 1) energy created out of thin air, 2) energy moving (i.e. heat) from cold to hot without added work, and 3) 100% efficiency, zero loss, perpetual looping.
One possible defense of this critique is that USCRN and SURFRAD data actually measure and thereby prove the existence of this up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop. Although in many instances the net 333 W/m^2 of up/down/”back” LWIR power flux loop exceeds by over twice the downwelling solar power flux, a rather obvious violation of conservation of energy.
And just why is that?
Per Apogee SI-100 series radiometer Owner’s Manual page 15. “Although the ε (emissivity) of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”
Emissivity, ε, is the ratio of the actual radiation from a surface and the maximum S-B BB radiation at the surface’s temperature. Consider an example from the K-T diagram: 63 W/m^2 / 396 W/m^2 = 0.16 = ε. In fact, 63 W/m^2 & 289 K & 0.16 together fit just fine in a GB version of the S-B equation. What no longer fits is the 330 W/m^2 GHG loop which vanishes back into the mathematical thin air from whence it came.
“Their staff is too long. They are digging in the wrong place.”
“There is no spoon.”
And
Up/down/”back” GHG radiation of RGHE theory simply:
Does
Not
Exist.
Which also explains why the scientific justification of RGHE is so contentious.
Maybe it’s just that Republicans don’t take their marching orders from the Leftwing News Media. Over the years, Republicans have learned that the Leftwing News Media distorts to the truth in order to push their leftwing agenda.
I’m concerned about those 35 percent of Republicans who have bought into this CAGW nonsense. They certainly don’t have any science to back up this view, so they must be going along with the “consensus” the Leftwing Media has created. There are lots of sheep among humans, even among Republicans.
Republicans don’t take their marching orders from the Leftwing News Media, they take them from the Rightwing News Media. For example, Trump learns about world events by watching Fox and Friends If it weren’t for Fox, Breitbart, and AM talk radio, they’d be lost.
So you say what. Only left should control media. Oh wait sorry that’s socialism oppression
Ha! It’s amazing the similarities between what the leftist twits say about Trump now compared to what they said about Ronald Reagan. Same old tired worn out play book. It just isn’t going to work anymore.
At least Regan didn’t brag about grabbing women’s genitals.
Much worse than Hillary exposing classified information on an illegal private server and then obstructing justice by destroying the evidence. Worse than calling those that disagreed with her an opposed her “Deplorable”. Worse than working to sell the control of 20% of the US uranium supply for a massive “donation” to the Clinton Foundation. Same old play book. The difference is that the evangelicals have finally realized that the left has continually used their faith against them and their interests. And that is why that old ploy didn’t stop Trump from getting elected. Get a new play book because the old crap didn’t work in 2016 and it won’t work in 2020.
RAH, this isn’t about Clinton.. it’s about right and left wing media. (see posts above yours)
I read about an actor yesterday who proclaimed that any woman who supports Trum can’t think for themselves.
Keith reminds me very much of that actor.
Funny, when talking about the right, Keith brings up Trump.
When confronted with left wing politicians that have done worse, little Keith retreats by declaring that this isn’t about individual politicians, it’s about right vs. left.
Once thing you can count on a leftist, is how good they are at moving the goal posts when their arguments are demolished.
And so you deny that media is politics? The media drives it as much as either party. And my reply was to THIS from you!
“Keith Sketchley March 30, 2018 at 10:46 am
At least Regan didn’t brag about grabbing women’s genitals.”
Seriously hilarious what you define as the media.
And BTW it is not up to you to declare what this is about. The fact is you cannot separate the general press from politics. Heck you can’t even separate almost all the so called “Scientific Journals” from politics anymore!
“Republicans don’t take their marching orders from the Leftwing News Media”..
Absolutely they do….the more the left wing lies and spins….covers up for the democrats…etc
…..the more solidified the right becomes
Keith Sketchley
March 30, 2018 at 10:46 am
At least Regan didn’t brag about grabbing women’s genitals
Keith Sketchley
March 30, 2018 at 11:22 am
RAH, this isn’t about Reagan or Trump.. it’s about right and left wing media. (see posts above yours)
There, fixed your second post for you
MarkW: “Funny, when talking about the right, Keith brings up Trump”
..
Better re-read the post, the subject matter was media not Trump.
RAH: “And so you deny that media is politics?” Politics is politics and media is media, One uses the other.
So Keith, why did you bring up a subject that even you admit wasn’t relevant?
Latitude March 30, 2018 at 12:26 pm
“Republicans don’t take their marching orders from the Leftwing News Media”..
Absolutely they do….the more the left wing lies and spins….covers up for the democrats…etc
…..the more solidified the right becomes
Yep! One can’t go wrong often if they follow this simple rule. If the legacy media says they don’t like it then you probably should. If the legacy media likes it, then you probably shouldn’t. If the Legacy media declares someone to have impeccable integrity, they are most likely as dirty as they come. If the Legacy media condemns someone then they probably are a good person.
Of course learning and research is the key but those are key indicators. IOW my bias is that the Legacy media lies and have their own agenda.
” IOW my bias is that the Legacy media lies and have their own agenda.”
No doubt about it, and they have done so for decades.
The Leftwing News Media is nothing more than a propaganda organ for the Left. One should assume they are distorting the facts unless and until/if proven otherwise. The Leftwing News Media are True Believers in the Leftwing cause and that’s the way they see the world. So not all of them are liars, some of them are just True Believers who only see what they want to see, because it fits their pre-conceived notions, and assume that is the way of the world.
The human perception of reality is a very interesting subject.
Seems to me that in general the segment that screams about the environment and climate change is the same as that’s trying to abrogate the 2nd amendment. It’s political/social having little to do with the real central issue or real science. Perhaps some here never heard of the case of Michael A. Bellesiles a history professor at Emory University who was forced to resign once it was demonstrated he had falsified research to produce his book ‘Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture .’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America which initially received much acclaim and received The Bancroft prize.
If only few “climate scientists” had their “work” scrutinized in such a manner. A few such examples of that type would send a very powerful message.
Keep in mind how badly Gallup was embarrassed by Trump in 2016. They went looking for evidence of his polarizing nature and by golly they found it.
Nonetheless I wish I could afford to do a wide ranging survey of one question. “What’s the temperature right now, right here?” I imagine the range of responses would be huge. So huge that climate zealot cries of “2° in 50 years!” will be met with “So what?”
The very first question in order to qualify the respondent should be “What percent of the atmosphere is made up of CO2?” (or better words to that effect). If the answer is outside a small variance to the truth then the survey ends with no further questions. (most people who respond say around 20%)
NOAA has apparently doubled down on sea level —
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt86_PaP_of_HTFlooding.pdf
Cover shows flagpole flooded almost to American flag. Analysis this week by WU who apparently did not read the report and stated– “According to the official NWS flood thresholds for stations along the coast with tide gauges, the most vulnerable locations to sea level rise are Charleston, SC and Corpus Christi, TX.
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/noaa-report-todays-damaging-floods-will-be-tomorrows-high-tides
Corpus Christ was built on a bluff, has a sea wall that I just drove along yesterday. Who is lead author W. Sweet? “Lastly, these results illustrate how close U.S. coastal cities are to a tipping point with respect to flood frequency…..” Does he know about subsidence? If WUWT covered this I missed it, nevertheless it needs to be throughly analyzed.
There is a problem and those of us living along the coast do not appreciate sloppy science and government. We just had a nearby tornado that tore off a second story repaired from Harvey.
Sea Level Sophistry In San Francisco; Climate Alarmists are Playing the Judge as a Fool
As stated in the court document, sea levels are rising due to “thermal expansion.” CO2’s only way to impact sea level increase is through thermalizing and reradiating LWIR between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate, or warm water. Additionally, those wavelengths are completely absorbed by the water vapor above the oceans, making CO2 irrelevant to warming the oceans or lower atmosphere. This effect could be demonstrated through experimentation. The Judge should demand the climate skeptics produce an experiment demonstrating that LWIR between 13 and 18µ can warm water, controlled for H2O.
Sea Levels can be altered by the shifting of land along fault lines, erosion, volcanos, and other natural landscape changes. The poster child of islands at risk for disappearing, Vanuatu, actually has some islands gaining landmass. Billions of dollars are being invested in the Maldives by countries that are using the climate change issue to trip up the US and its energy sector.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/sea-level-sophistry-in-san-francisco-climate-alarmists-are-playing-the-judge-as-a-fool/
Three sister planets:
Venus – 95% CO2 atmosphere
Earth – 0.04% CO2 atmosphere
Mars – 95% CO2 atmosphere
which of these is facing catastrophic runaway warming due to CO2?
Venus’ High Temperatures Aren’t Due to the Green House Gas Effect; More Climate Sophistry
One of the favorite arguments of the climate alarmists is that CO2 will cause CAGW, similar to what is currently happening on Venus. This argument demonstrates an ignorance of biblical proportions regarding the GHG effect. Venus’ atmosphere is 97% CO2, but has a pressure of 93 bar or the pressure equivalent of 3,000 ft below the surface of the ocean. The … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/venus-high-temperatures-arent-due-to-the-green-house-gas-effect-more-climate-sophistry/
Until they can explain what stops CO2 and temps from rising….why every time CO2 falls to levels where it is limiting…..there’s no global warming theory at all
The surface of Venus also receives all but no solar irradiance. One of the Russian missions measured it at just 4 W/m2. Compare that to planet Earth where under clear noon day skies at the equator the surface receives circa 1100 W/m2.
This fact alone demonstrates that if there is a radiant GHE on Venus, it has to operate very differently to that claimed to operate on Earth.
Central to the radiant GHE theory is that Earth’s atmosphere is largely transparent to the short wavelength of incoming solar irradiance, but is significantly opaque to the outgoing long wave radiation which has been reradiated by the surface following absorption of solar insolation by the surface.
On Venus, the atmosphere is not transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance, it is almost entirely opaque to incoming solar irradiance and that is why only 4 W/m2 of solar irradiance reaches the surface. There is therefore little incoming solar irradiance to be absorbed by the surface of Venus and thence reradiated by the surface at a longer wavelength.
Not only is Venus a problem for the theory, but so too is Mars, since the Martian atmosphere contains, on a numerical basis, more molecules of GHGs than does the Earth’s atmosphere and yet there is no measurable GHE on Mars.
Further to my above post, this comment from Wikipedia is quite telling:
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
Note nothing to do with GHGs. Simply that due to the lack of mass of the atmosphere, the atmosphere cannot store or retard heat loss. The Martian atmosphere lacks thermal capacity and thermal inertia. All classical physics.
It is interesting to note that if one were to remove all the non GHGs from Earth’s atmosphere, eg all the nitrogen, oxygen, argon one would be left with an atmosphere of similar mass, density and pressure as that of Mars.
The substantial difference between the Martian atmosphere and that of Earth’s atmosphere is that Earth’s atmosphere contains a lot of nitrogen and oxygen, whereas mars does not have the benefit of that.
Thanks co2islife; Latitude; & richard verney
” … there is no measurable GHE on Mars … ”
Precisely!
Don’t forget the difference in H2O atmospheric content ….
And if NY libs don’t like you, they sludge you….
WSJ today….
New York City’s Sewage Shipment Runs Afoul in Rural South
Alabamans want human-waste deliveries to local landfill to stop; ‘We didn’t produce it. We don’t want it here.’
The shipments have been coming to Alabama for a year and a half, drawing plenty of complaints from locals upset by the odor. The cars recently got stranded in Parrish, Ala., as a result of a legal dispute.
Excellent. Looks like “The Spiral of Silence” is beginning to break down.
See: Rupert Darwall: “Green Tyranny” Ch. 23.
And – it is the time to make it happen – there’s hope this green bubble will say “Boom !!” R.I.P.
Sanctuary Cities and States Should Not Be Allowed to Sue in Federal Court; Trump Should Nullify California vs Exxon
Only in California would they make a policy of ignoring Federal Law when it suits them, and then turn to it when it benefits them. California has made a habit of picking and choosing what Federal Laws it chooses to enforce, undermining our union, violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, and making a mockery of the rule of law. Today, the Sanctuary State and some Sanctuary Cities in California are suing Exxon in Federal Court. President Trump should simply invalidate all rulings of the 9th Circuit and redirect all cases to other Circuits. American simply can’t have unlawful States and unlawful Courts making the rules for the rest of this law-abiding Nation. Allowing the 9th Circuit to make rulings that impact the rest of the Nation erodes the public’s confidence in the Judicial system.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/sanctuary-cities-and-states-should-not-be-allowed-to-sue-in-federal-court-trump-should-nullify-california-vs-exxon/
I don’t know which is more bizarre…..them doing it in the first place, or getting away with it at all
It’s like Mississippi decided to have open borders….Wyoming declares war on Italy…Utah decides to do away with passports and visas
If they knew how to do surveys, the headline would probably be “Rising Climate Skepticism Resulted in the Election of Trump.”
Well, that plus “Anybody But Hillary.” ;-D
It would have been “anybody but Bernie” too, I’m thinking.
From the labor folks I know and have asked, 2016 marked a defection of lifetime Dem voters for POTUS. I remember hearing in school that LBJ having signed the Civil Rights Act had caused a mass-defection then for the Dems. I wonder if the party has become too socialist even for organized labor, who’ve received little more than rhetorical support from them for decades, now.
What is Newsweek? /s
Yes, what is Newsweek? seriously
It’s what I end up sitting on in the waiting room of whatever appointment I made.
That could cause cancer in California.
Undoubtedly.
Even the illegal migrants on the Titanic tried to escape!
Ha ha
Who actually even “believes” that it’s warming? Those with a vested interest in a warming paranoid world?
No matter how they got there, the bottom line is that the CAGW warmunist ideology is dying. It may take a while to root out of governments, government-funded organizations, schools, and the MSM, since they have gone all-in and have vested interests in it, but it will happen, slowly but surely.
The chart showing “forecasts” and actual from satellite and balloon postings needs to be updated.
At least to 2017.
Hey Univ. Alabama at Huntsville!!!
TKS,
Bob
In a related story … A CA Judge just ruled that coffee causes cancer. Coffee drinkers shrugged.
“Coffee is a rich source of disease-fighting antioxidants. And studies have shown that it may reduce cavities, boost athletic performance, improve moods, and stop headaches — not to mention reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, colon cancer, liver cancer, gall stones, cirrhosis of the liver, and Parkinson’s diseases”
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-buzz-on-coffee#1
Exactly, I have had to moderate my consumption in recent years, but there is no doubt that the effects are positive as you state.
Not really, he ruled that since coffee has a by product of roasting that is on the cancer list it must be disclosed on labeling….not that I agree with it.
Another warning label that people ignore. If it were a serious concern CA would close down every Starbucks in the state. ‘Nuf said.
Yes, and from the Department of Unintentional Humor comes this brilliant line –
“Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Wednesday that the coffee makers hadn’t presented the proper grounds at trial to prevail.”
The jokes write themselves! ;-D
Things that percolate doubt must have been presented.
They must have been steamed.
I think the objection to more nuclear power now is because the renewables are considered the perfect replacement of fossil fuels long term. Building more nuclear, in this view, merely delays the best action, as well as having both the accident potential AND the waste disposal problem.
I disagree with this view. Renewables are not sufficently effective, economically good, reliable and geographically applicable for the purported use. But I agree we shouldn’t place expediency ahead of better solutions for the longterm. The refusal to provide adequate disposal sited for nuclear wastes – by citizens as well as politicians – alarms me. I’d like that situation resolved before we had more being pumped out.
Besides, we know the end-of-the-world scenario is not seriously believed except by fringe players. The rest won’t admit this, as it is a useful fiction, but their behavior – like DiCaprio’s – demonstrates it.
Doug: Disposal of nuclear waste is a political problem, not a practical one. We know how to glassify the waste and know of stable formations where the cylinders can be stored forever. Uneducated people fear the radiation potential, which is nil.
It’s not certain there is a climate problem, but assuming there is, the surefire solution would be to develop advanced nuclear such as fusion, LFTR or LENR, This will likely happen in due course anyway.
The reason the Greens are trying to create a panic over GW is so as to push governments to implement those solutions which are available right now, even though they are not very satisfactory, instead of waiting for better ones.They are doing this because they have backers in those industries.
We’ve seen this before with the CFL lightbulb – Promoted at massive public expense, only to be made obsolete by the development of bright LEDs. The same scenario threatens to arise with battery cars. After the industry has been forced by Green legislation to switch to manufacturing them en masse, a better solution will come along. For example, fuel cells. There will then be another monster junkpile to pollute the planet. If they’d waited… but then they don’t want to wait because again, vested interests are funding them to push this agenda hard. It’s called wastemaking, and the Greens should be ashamed of what they’re doing.
Unfortunately, the problem is that there is no time for these processes. The only viable route is LENR.
Here in the Northeast, a plan to bring down hydro power from Canada, called “Northern Pass” was killed, after several years of wrangling, and one of the “concerns” was that it would hurt renewables. If it isn’t wind, solar, unicorn farts or pixie dust, the carbonastrophists aren’t interested.
Nuclear waste doesn’t need to be sited, it needs to be reprocessed.
The renewables aren’t and will never be the perfect replacement for fossil fuels EVER. Only idiots believe this, or “useful idiots” that have the intelligence to determine the truth but don’t engage it because they’re too busy virtue signaling. The amount of land use necessary to meet electric power generation needs would be staggering, and “renewables” are not reliable or consistent and will never produce power on demand, as needed. They are therefore only useful in small scale, not as fossil fuel replacements – and even then need fossil fuel “backup.”
So, like children who are timid and cowardly, the Republicans only stand up if they have a human shield in from of them?
since liberals have a bad habit of hunting them down, threatening them, etc etc
The libs can stand up because they have the MSM as their shield.
The movement of Republicans was very small compared to Independents. Fake News Week buried the lead.
Look.
We are in an interglacial period. If the earth were not warming I would be very concerned that we were about to enter another cooling period with resultant ice age.
Can we agree that even skeptics believe in “global warming”? We just do not believe that CO2 is the driver.
We do believe that CO2 is a proven significant driver.
That should cover anyone who’s studied the science.
You can believe what you like. I want to see some hard facts and evidence.
I meant the opposite, “We do not believe that CO2 is a proven significant driver.”
I was trying to add nuance and missed the critical word.
Whew, you had me worried for a minute.
The paradox of why today’s socialist progressive Democrats don’t support nuclear energy to “Save the Planet” from their claim of imminent fossil fuel calamity can easily be solved.
One simply must realize that saving the planet from climate change isn’t their true goal — it’s just a Trojan Horse carrying inside it their poison pill of neo-Marxism.
Once realizing that, then understanding why the neo-Marxists don’twant inexpensive, reliable energy for the masses resolves the apparent paradox.
“For example there seems to be no real effort by Democrats to embrace zero carbon nuclear power, despite the very real likelihood that a Democrat policy of nuclear advocacy would be supported by Republicans. The possibility that a few nuclear plants would suffer meltdowns is somehow a greater problem than the alleged imminent end of the world.”
Not completely true. Mike Shellenberger is running for the Democratic nomination for governor of California as an environmentalist who believes in anthropogenic global warming, and nuclear power as the only realistic way of stopping it without wrecking modern civilization. You may not agree with his premise, but he’s consistent.
We have done this already
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/28/gallup-left-became-more-militant-about-global-warming-under-trump/
Maybe time and more scrutiny caused it instead. But polling groups don’t even recognize that dimension.
The people who promote the global warming hoax are basically the same group who opposed nuclear power and weapons even before global warming became a prominent issue. They are the modern-day Luddites who believe most humans should live as impoverished peasants subject to the nomenklatura
Note how the label-makers are putting equal signs between ‘conservative’ and ‘skeptic’.
I swear, you could change the Democrat mascot to ‘Zebra’.
With, of course, the obvious irony that you CAN put equal signs between ‘progressive’ and ‘warmist’.
This is how the left lost independents.
I think we will see effects of global warming my lifetime, I think we will see less global warming then we have seen lately. Which means the lefties will have to find another end of the world theme for their religion.
Since progressive are anti-progress, I would guess the overpopulation worry will switch to the doom of future under population. Surely a government program can cause more human breeding.
And after the inevitable government failure, it will require a lot more effort to be a lefty.
To be a climate change skeptic has labeled us as ultra-conservative even if you are like myself, usually straddling the fence. I put that into a song back when Obummer was still king.
Science, Politics and Fear
Our President (Obama) just called me a denier,
He told his followers to put my “feet to the fire”!
Engaging in ridicule, spin and vicious mirth,
Proposing that “doubters live on a flat earth”.
Claiming that “To wind and solar power we must turn”-
Preaching that we’re doomed by all the fossil fuel we burn.
Refrain:
Science, politics and fear…
They tell us “hell on earth” will soon be here
So get out your ‘Humboldt County grown’ and I’ll go get some beer;
Here comes science, politics and fear.
While telling this, I wonder just how long it might be,
Before those “men in black” come sneaking ‘round to visit me.
While I accept the theory of that “greenhouse effect”,
The common sense my daddy taught me’s making me suspect…
There’s much more to climate change than carbon trapping infrared
And the people have by “new progressive science” been misled.
Refrain:
Science, politics and fear…
The end of all free nations could be near.
So, let’s protect the sovereignties we all hold dear
From science, politics and fear.
Instrumental verse & refrain
The panicked fight on climate is a challenge to surmise,
After decades now with just El Nino temperature rise.
Those models, they get further from reality each year
Yet, consensus of opinion of the future mongers fear!
But, I fear global governmental centralization:
U.N. bureaucrat controllers of a world enslaving nation.
Refrain:
Science, politics and fear…
Hey, ‘1984’ is almost here!
An unholy trinity’s replaced the Holy one, its clear-
Science, politics and fear!
Climate science, politics and fear
Nicely put.
Although “just El Nino temperature rise” assumes that El Nino is unaffected by CO2. There’s no reason to think that’s untrue. But if you reverse the null hypothesis then it can be evidence for the end of the world.
The poem begs the question of whether we should abandon the scientific method to save the planet or instead be sceptical.
And as for mislabelling, just try being a ‘newsworthy climate change’ sceptic at the Guardian and also a Socialist here.
The labels are entirely inconsistent, except with respect to their opprobrium.
Same old same old. Correlation is not causation. Maybe we have just got a year more data
They don’t make money polling and extolling with such talk.
I wonder how many folks in Russia agreed with Kruschev and came out from under the rug to help depose Lysenkoism.
Many of us Republicans have never believed in Climate Catastrophe .
We just wish the leaders of our party would not believe if either .
I was shocked, yes shocked to find Newsweek selling in my CVS store for $10. Huh? Last time I bought one (or Time Magazine, forget which) it cost $1.25.
I thought the magazine had gone digital only. Maybe the expensive item you saw was a “special” of some sort.
There’s a wild book (by a now-dead wild author) about Newsweek ten-plus years ago, called The Last Magazine.
What about the skepticism of the ability of the NSA to protect its hacking tools?
What about the skepticism about the counter intelligence of the US? The analysis for (alleged) hacking attacks?
What about the skepticism of the ability of the fed agencies to protect critical databases?
When the raw data is available, at what point does all of the averaging, baseline, and anomaly-generating, and then more averaging, and so on and so forth, become detrimental to understanding what the data is saying? I’ve been looking at and analyzing the USCRN station data, which is supposed to be the best raw data we have. With time resolution of 5 minutes, these state-of-the-art stations are supposed to be well-sited recorders of multiple lines of temperature, precip, and various other measurements. Their only downfall is that they only have 18 years of dtata at the best.
Plotting the raw daily data for the KS Manhattan 6 SSW station is revealing. First, I did the most basic analysis; I plotted in Excel the TMAX, TAVG, and TMIN values for the entire 18 years of the station record, plus the trends of the plots. The TAVG trend was positive at 1.1°C/ decade, while the TMAX and TMIN trends were at 0.38°C/ decade and 0.22°C/ decade. Those seem pretty steep trends to me, as that TAVG trend works out to 11°C/ century if it lasts. These are straight plots of the raw data, with nothing done to them at all. It seems impossible to have such quickly increasing average temps with nearly flat max and min temps over the years.
I worked some numbers I hadn’t seen before, using this station’s data, wherein I calculated the maximum monthly average for each year. I also calculated the minimum monthly average temp for each year of the range. What I ended up with was a plot of the warmest and coolest monthly averages in each year of the entire station record. Some of those had very steep trends as well, both negative and positive. These trends are what I had plotted on the Google Maps plot here.
https://www.sandbistro.com/uscrn/desktop/index.html
Finally, I did some additional calculations to attempt to come up with more traditional-looking anomaly plots. None of the data plot are longer than 18 years, which makes finding an AGW signal hiding within problematic. I did what I could using 10-year baselines to get averages, but I know it’s not correct. Here’s the link to the plot, which has a slider so that you can easily move from one plot to the other.
https://www.sandbistro.com/uscrn/KS_Manhattan_6_SSW.html
It’s late, and the graphics aren’t as clean as they could be. The left axis is always in degrees C. I got the trends by multiplying the slope in the equation by 365.25 days to get the yearly rate, then multiplying by ten to get the decadal. You can see how a running average would smooth the curves, but it seems to me to be throwing away information about the natural variability of the temperature. And that brings me back to my original question: at what point does the blending, homogenizing, averaging, etc, really begin to hide the real information in the raw data?
As much as I love a good destruction of a fake news or bad journalism article, rags like Newsweek and the Guardian, probably get thousands of ad hits from WUWT articles, these rags are dying, I would think we’d like to speed up their demise by never ever clicking on a link to their sites.
I never ever click Guardian links for example. Hate clicks still generate ad revenue 😀
Agreed. I do sometimes click on links to The Grauniad, but am sparing for that reason.
There are someplaces I will never go, such as the website that cannot be named, because I regard them simply as outright liars, or fake news as it is called in modern parlance. But even WUWT leaves them alone much of the time now, so it is less of an issue.
I am now adopting similar policies now with BBC articles if they don’t allow comments. There are plenty of those, but the BBC also often doesn’t initially allow comments on some of these articles, enabling comments later at some undisclosed point. Sneaky. If that doesn’t reflect a political approach to their comment sections then I don’t know what does. Apart, that is, from the multitude of no-comment-macht-frei inflammatory articles that might otherwise allow licence-fee payers to give their opinions on, say, immigration, Trumpthe alleged gender pay gap, or the religious affiliations of terrorists. You probably get the picture by now, even if you don’t live in the UK. They do allow occasional comments on Brexit, probably because they know there are simply too many politicians who would be on their case if they didn’t.
Interestingly, as an aside, the BBC seem to have largely abandoned reporting many things from Israel/Palestine. Someone has had a word or two in their ear. But that doesn’t mean politics and those who regard it as their primary focus disapperared from the BBC. They just go elsewhere, into subjects they can pretend are apolitical, like environmentalism, and then they spout the same neo-Marxist ‘solutions’ from a differnt pulpit.
They failed to headline the fact that independents had become even more sceptical than Reps but it is still a great shame this has become mainly a partisan issue. Science should not be partisan. Perhaps the only way forward is to debate the effectiveness (or not) of climate policy and just what are we getting for all the money spent. Maybe we can reach common ground there. Liberals though really have to explicitly consider which is the lesser evil; nuclear power or fossil fuels and then act on that consideration because wind and solar are just not up to the job and we are collectively in real danger of doing more harm than good through bad policy.
Of the 6 questions in the poll, I would describe three of them as “lazy” at best. That is you don’t really learn much from them because they are phrased in a way that doesn’t really address people’s feelings about the matter or could be interpreted in different ways.
Who cares what I think most scientists think? Why not ask me what I think, and if I think it is significant warming, either on a basis of statistical significance or physical significance?
Like the effect called “warming” such as was nearly asked in the last question? You’d like to talk about some other effects? Then ask me about them, not some vague question, dimwit.
Like 1%, or 100%, of the “warming” such as was nearly asked in the question before last? Stoopid.
Only six questions, and they seriously bungled three of them. I also note that 5 of the 6 questions all started from the basic postulate that global warming is worth discussing at all.
They also make a statement about Trump possibly having an effect, but there were no questions about Trump. So, just Galloping political opinion, right?
But I do find a few interesting points: One of the worst ‘performances’ among self-identified Democrats was still “Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime”. Yet their highest ‘performance’ was still in the first question, where only 4% of them thought that they “Think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated”.
Perhaps they should have had a seventh question, “How often do you think you think you contradict yourself on Gallup surveys”.
And maybe an eighth question, “Do you think Gallop can tell the difference between their arse and a hole in the ground?”
OK, I now see there is more to this “survey” because Gallup didn’t list all the questions before they started commenting on their own survey.