Freep a poll! (Sean hannity. Is Global warming natural? Manmade? False?)

www.hannity.com ^ | 2-19-07 | Sean Hannity

[dynachrome]

Do you believe in global warming?

Yes - manmade

Yes - natural

No

Maybe

[dynachrome]

Considering the weather lately, bring it on!

[dynachrome]

Thanks to Gopher Broke for da ping!

FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)

[dfwgator]

Not only "No," but "Hell No!"

[EndWelfareToday]

Results: Do you believe in global warming?

 

1.	Yes - manmade	6.37%
2.	Yes - natural	41.44%
3.	No	46.96%
4.	Maybe	5.23%

 

[johnny7]

Yeah it's manmade... made-up by a bunch of commies.

[metmom]

LOL. Too bad that they don't know about the qualifications of those who vote.

I'd like to see a poll of actual meteorologists.

[metmom]

ping

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on graphic for full GW rundown

---

Poll -- 'have at it'

[pissant]

Rudy want to aggressively go after the perpertrators of global warming. And I don't mean the phony scientists.

[george76]

1. Yes - manmade 6.37%

2. Yes - natural 41.47%

3. No 46.94%

4. Maybe 5.22%

[libertarian27]

Poll...
No
Thanks for the Ping

[Robert A Cook PE]

The fallacy of :polls" like this - REGARDLESS of whether Hannity, Rush, Boortz, or Creighton or Gore or the Man in the Moon is responsible! - is that the ACTUAL cause of what little global warming we have measured ISN'T a "opinion" question: it either comes FROM something, some physical process and IS causing a measurable change; or it DOES NOT come from some physical process or DOES NOT cause significant changes.

Second: IF (big IF) the change exists, and IF it comes from a physical process, the next question - again, NOT an opinion question! - is whether we can do anything to affect that physical process. (Note: The statement specifically is whether we "can do anything" NOT "should do" anything...)

Third: And, at this point, opinions can begin to be stated, but not until the first two are decided. "Should" we (America, most specifically and only, at least in the eyes of the liberals) do something?

We "can do" many things, but those things may, or may not work - and most will most certainly NOT have any worthwhile result on global warming. Almost ALL that the liberals want to do about global warming only destroys the US economy.

Third:

[dynachrome]

"Almost ALL"
I would remove the "almost"
Global warming is cover for the socialists to grab power.
(From the articles I have seen, I believe global warming to be part of the natural cycle)

[rottndog]

FReeped!

46% NO!

[4KennewickMan2Invent]

Yes - natural

[4KennewickMan2Invent]

We "can do" many things, but those things may, or may not work - and most will most certainly NOT have any worthwhile result on global warming. Almost ALL that the liberals want to do about global warming only destroys the US economy.

I agree, none of them mention thermo voltaic cells out on market and how much more efficient they are than photo voltaic. No mention about successful experiments in nuclear waste (specifically reducing the half-life) reduction in Germany or in California (super-collider experiment).

My favorite is the mentioning of how much C02 is emitted by man, but not what percentage it is of the atmosphere (about 0.0005%). Yet, "solar variance" is completely ignored because it would hurt their agenda.