| | | |
.jpg)
Holo Lukaloa
|
10/22/2009 3:21:20 PM
More and more Americans foolishly believing oil company propaganda against global warming
WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years, according to a survey released Thursday.
The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008.
The steepest drop occurred during the past year, as Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to slow global warming have been under way. At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change – from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.
The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic's thermostat.
But while the evidence appears clear, only about a third, or 36 percent of the poll respondents feel that human activities – such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles – are behind a temperature increase. That's the first decline since 2006.
"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things," said Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see these issues as less grave."
Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.
"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.
DINA CAPPIELLO | 10/22/09 01:39 PM |
|
|
Frylock
|
10/22/2009 11:40:34 PM
How does your headline relate to the story you cited?
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
10/23/2009 1:14:33 AM
I was just assuming this is why so many have decided to dismiss global warming, because of the forces of bs out there.
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
10/23/2009 1:51:34 AM
The force of BS seems insurmountable sometimes.... but it is definitely not.
Rock on Holo.
THIS post, is a great example, and one of the reasons WHY I dig your shit.
|
|
|
10/23/2009 3:29:10 AM
---- Updated 10/23/2009 3:53:36 AM
I'm afraid I too don't see how your title relates to this story. People may fluctuate in their view of the fact of global warming or the reasons for it but surely you're not suggesting that this is due to oil company propaganda in most cases. There are healthy schools of thought from many other factions, some with genuine concern and others with vested interest. Maybe you haven't got the whole story and shouldn't be commenting on this topic.
No-one is arguing that the ice caps are melting and freakish weather patterns are emerging that is fact ... but the hysteria that mankind is responsible to any great extent for this seems to fluctuate according to the information, hype, at any given time. You can't rely on science while scientist are given briefs to create 'facts' to suit. But there are some genuine unbiased studies that seem to be independent, unfortunately they don't get the money or publicity. Maybe you think that the oil companies are more influential, but their field of interest is limited, there are many other groups, political, scientific, religious who fill the media with news and views on global warming.
You can't dismiss it as 'Oil company propaganda' in a negative way and assume it is wrong just because it's propaganda - and you can't accuse people of foolishly believing it if they have other sources of information and there is certainly a vast selection of Fact v Fiction debates around.
The World was subject to extreme cycles of climate change long before man made an impact.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
10/23/2009 5:01:14 AM
---- Updated 10/23/2009 5:05:48 AM
You are misinformed. There is a scientific consensus about global warming. If we don't rely on science we only guess.
Yes there are many individual quacks who argue against it. In the US tons of money is spent by the oil companies to cloud the issue.
Also the last paragraph relates to my title, you should read the whole thing. :>)
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
10/23/2009 5:20:33 AM
From Wikipedia
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion..
|
|
|
10/23/2009 5:58:43 AM
---- Updated 10/23/2009 6:03:15 AM
I remember reading a news article by "scientists" that predicted that we were going into a new ice age because of man made pollution. I thought it was true and worried about it for years. I followed every global climate article I got my hands on, until I realized they didn't have any way to truly support the claims they were making. Some of these same people are in the global warming business now.
Supporters of global warming will quote that the majority of scientists have the same conclusions but taking polls on the opinion of people whose income is tied to the existence of a problem is not science.
A poll of scientists from the year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the sun at the centre of our solar system. While there are quite a few scientists today claiming to "know" that man is causing global warming, they only know what they know and that is not all. This is an open science it's not something you can determine without testing every factor that may have an effect.
I think the confusion comes from how the actual amount of man's pollution is assessed compared to other factors like volcanic eruptions.
It might be YOUR title Holo, but all the rest of it is written by someone else isn't it?
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
10/23/2009 11:32:56 AM
Yes I know at one time they thought the earth was flat. :>)
However the superpowers of the world would not be trying to solve this problem if the evidence about global warming was marginal.
Larree I was going to tell you to go to a major city and smell the smog but you've lived in LA so long you are oblivious to the problem of gas emissions, which may contribute to your lack of brain power.
|
|
Sly Witt
|
10/23/2009 12:54:52 PM
did I read that right?
global warming is from oil and gas from Laree's ass?
(one of you drummers out there please give me a rimshot.)
|
|
|
10/23/2009 1:00:36 PM
People don't use the term Global Warming so much these days Holo. I'm sure everyone, scientist or layman agrees that we are subject to climate changes but the lobby for proving Man is the main cause has yet to convince me and many others, it seems the evidence is weak.
Nitrogen and oxygen are the main gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, they do not absorb infrared radiation only triatomic gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Water vapour the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere today, composing 0.25% its mass, followed at some distance by carbon dioxide and other minor atmospheric constituents. These are estimated to keep the earth some 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be. Venus, which has a dense carbon dioxide atmosphere, is some 400°C warmer than it would otherwise be because of the greenhouse effect.
The extra heating due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations since the pre-industrial period equates to 1% change in heating from the Sun. During the same period, the estimated increase in the Sun's heating is around 0.2% only one fifth of the influence from human activity.
Greenhouse gases become less effective as their concentrations increase because the main wavelengths at which they absorb and re-radiate heat becomes saturated. This does not mean that further increases in these gases have no further greenhouse effect; just that further increases become less effective at increasing warming. This explains why small increases in relatively scarce atmospheric gases such as methane and CFCS (chlorofluorocarbons) can have the same effect as much larger increases in carbon dioxide.
PS, The oil companies didn't tell me this, my physics professor did.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
10/23/2009 2:23:17 PM
That sounds like a cut and paste to me, I didn't know you were such an expert. :>)
Expert or not though, I believe since all the major scientific groups are on board with my viewpoint, that you are wrong and more than likely a victim of some skillful propaganda presentations paid for by big oil.
|
|
| |
©2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |