How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

Yes, they successfully put us in a recession, but cynical as I am, even I don't think that was intentional.

 

So he did accomplish something.

 

who, barney frank?

 

Ive heard this so often about how there is a consensus and the science is settled.
I stumbled upon this page which refers to a poll, which I believe your above statement may have originated from.
Correct me if Im mistaken.Its point #3 .
BP Climate FAQs
[FONT=&quot]"In a recent survey of Earth scientists, predominantly from the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]United States[/FONT][FONT=&quot], participants were asked two questions: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?[/FONT]"

The way these 2 questions are worded I would also say "risen" and yes to both questions.
Obviously that does not mean that I agree with the IPCCs theory of runaway global warming ,nor does it mean that anyone else polled believes in runaway AGW.
But more importantly this poll had only 3146 reply out of a total of 10,000.
Do you suppose there was some bias amongst those willing to respond?
Of the 70% who did not respond would you suppose they did not support the claim?

Out of 10,000+ questionnaires only 76 of 79 Climate related scientists agreed with the questions.
So that translates into "97% of Climate scientists believe in AGW theory" ???????

Meanwhile a petition of 30,000 scientists disputing runaway AGW with a very specific statement is ignored?
Amongst those 30,000,there are far more climate related scientists than your poll of 79.
In Japan they polled a group of scientists and the result was 90% who did NOT agree with the IPCC report theory.
I guess the real number of climate scientists who believe the IPCC theory is 50% at best.
Im saying that your numbers are greatly exaggerated and derived from dubious origin.

 

Another troll on some right wing payroll. The tipoff is "theory". These dodos don't know the difference between theory and experimental observation. In other words, they don't understand science.

I'll say one thing: What global warming did NOT need was a politician like Al Gore as its self-appointed spokesperson. He couldn't get elected President after being part of 8 years of remarkable prosperity and balanced budgets. That says it all.

 

Brits, however, have an Official Secrets Act. We don't -- at least officially.

In Reno vs. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999), non-citizens lost and were deported. From wikipedia: "... many observers interpreted it as restricting First Amendment rights of all non-citizens, including legal immigrants."

Obama may agree, but that is good only while he is in office. When President Cheney or one of his disciples returns to office, kiss that one goodbye.

As for the Supreme Court, check out United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990. From Wikipedia:" ... a Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by US agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country." ... "The defendant's "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection."

In short, Mexicans in their own homes do not have 4th Amendment search and seizure protection against U.S. agents.

 

You do realize this statement is BS, unless you are qualifying it with "the last few years " .
Whats the difference if something was published in 2006 or yesterday?
Did Lindzen or Akasofu not publish since 2008 ?
Did Frederick Seitz death not meet your cutoff date?
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project
Heres a peer reviewed published study.Sorry it may be before your cutoff date of "a few years"

 

lol....and your sources are not even more dubious?? ;P

When I check out your link....I notice I can be one of those 31,000 "scientists" that sign the petition. All you need is an e-mail account and to promise you have at least a BS....no tenure or peer reviewed articles (in climate studies) needed. This is about as relavent as comparing a Fox News political poll vs some other random CNN political poll and then coming up with some other conclusion then what was asked.

Which Japanese scientists were polled, and what was the actual question?? Are "scientists" those who have a PHD in anything scientific....please don't say they're the same "scientists" as those in the petition project. If the only question asked was "Do you agree with all of the IPCC assertions?".....then that's a lot different then "Do you agree that man made pollution contributes to climate change?". I'm sure every scientist that actually does specialize in climatology will have different ideas about climate change....and it's not as sweeping as "man is going to destroy the environment in 113.3 years" vs "man is actually improving the environment by pumping out more CO2(which I notice is one hypothesis in your link)"

 

I believe Grumpy is a citizen of the UK and I don't believe they (UK citizens) are governed by our 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

Didn't GWB manage to finish reading "My Pet Goat"? :madgrin:

 

My wife had worked out that the first tower HAD to fall before the second plane hit the second tower. As an architect, she knew that the heat of the fireball had to weaken the steel beyond its ability to support the floors above. Once they fell, the impact could not be resisted by the intact floors below.

Knowing they HAD to fall did not make her day any better.

I know that huge government conspiracies that don't involve any leaks are fun , but having lived through Watergate, I believe the Russian proverb: Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

If you get past the challenges of every architect you meet disagreeing with you and no government employee wanting to make a quick buck selling out his masters, get back to me on this, OK?

 

Your question is a perfect example of irrelevant .
Of course man contributes to climate change .
So what if its an insignificant amount .
You didnt ask the relevant question.
Is man causing runaway global warming?
No.
(Ask an irrelevant question you get an irrelevant answer.
LOL)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656
"Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report"."

 

So wheres the qualifications of the 76 climate related scientists who represent 97% of the scientists in the entire world?
What are their peer reviewed articles or qualifications?

You probably didnt notice that the guy behind the denier petition was Frederick Seitz former President of the National Academy of Science

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz]Frederick Seitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

Well aparently not, because you still haven't supplied an answer. I assume the question you're talking about is "Which Japanese scientists were polled, and what was the actual question?? "

Your link says that there were just 3 Japanese scientists that question the "validity of the man-made global-warming model" [that the IPCC maintains]. Later, it states:

Was this an actual scientific survey, or was this Dr Maruyama's impression of what happened at the Geoscience Union Symposium?? Who knows....nowhere is this an actual published poll. At least Fox news does try to get actual polls....

You really should learn more about polling and making an informed decision. Of the main source you're using in your arguement that pollution contributes "insignificant" climate change...they don't side with your own opinion! They actually claim that CO2 levels are helping the environment: neither having any effect, nor disrupting it. And again, it's not 31,000 climate scientists who are against all of the IPCC assertions: it's apparently 31,000 online people promising to have at least a BS. Under their guidelines, I have as much right to say what's going on with the environment....I have a graduate degree in science: it might be medical, but it does meet all their requirements. And I'm sure many respondents didn't even read the bit about "promising" to have a BS.

 

You want verification of which Japanese scientists were polled???

Why The F*ck dont you ask for verification of which 79 scientists (who were referenced in the original statement) represent 95% of scientists in the world?

 

That's the best you can do? You're not even going to stick to your guns and find another petition that claims your assertions that manmade pollution has minimal effect on the environment? I thought this might be a fun debate....ohwell, time for bed for me.

 

Where do you suppose oil and coal deposits originated?

 

Please dont put BS in my mouth.
I never said" manmade pollution has minimal effect on the environment?".
Im an environmentally concerned person .
But I do not believe that co2 is a pollutant until its proven to be.
So go away and tell lies somewhere else.

 

Anyone .
Prove to me that 95% of climate scientists or even 95% of any scientists ,believe in the IPCC report.
Or else shut the f*ck up.

Im sick of the BS, put up or shut up.

 

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?