|
Posted on 11/13/2010 7:55:35 AM PST by Bullpine
Ya don’t say
Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center.
That is pretty damning stuff, I must say.
“prone to groupthink” This is the problem. The group is more important than the idividual....to these people. If they can grow the group to the point they over whelm the individuals, they will win.
Scientific American is now run by “new scientists” who write the conclusions and then go make up some data to support same, while demanding increased funding.
Well heck!
Now, we will continue to have varying summers and winters, separated by milder springs and autumns.
[Mother Nature is laughing, and so am I.]
Too bad their editorial staff isn't as smart as their readers.
Editorially, SA just doesn't cut the mustard.
I’m a little surprised they published the results of the poll.
You see the same thing in technical journals. My opinion is that folks who love to write in popular press just tend to be liberals. It’s kind of a genetic thing.
You see the same thing in technical journals. My opinion is that folks who love to write in popular press just tend to be liberals. It’s kind of a genetic thing.
BS, AGW has not been even remotely proven. The total contribution of human generated CO2 is miniscule and countered by human activity that generates extra particulate matter in the atmoshpere which blocks sunlight from coming in. AGW is a carefully constructed fantasy which apparently is extremely difficult to give up, like a lonely little girl and her imaginary friend.
Ping
|
So 69% of these leftists say we are powerless to stop global warming, only 7% of these leftists support cap-and-trade, 78% claim global warming is from “natural processes” and finally 80% of the leftists said they would pay nothing to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change.
The left doesn't seem to buy that people are causing global warming.
For this one, multiple answers are allowed. 26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% “natural processes.” (In reality all three are causes of climate change.)
BS, AGW has not been even remotely proven. The total contribution of human generated CO2 is miniscule and countered by human activity that generates extra particulate matter in the atmoshpere which blocks sunlight from coming in. AGW is a carefully constructed fantasy which apparently is extremely difficult to give up, like a lonely little girl and her imaginary friend.
****************
Besides the positive polling results, THIS ^^^ is what immediately caught my attention: they are still pushing the unproven claim that CO2 contributes to [formerly] “globull warming” - [currently] “climate change”, and further, the unproven claim, that man made CO2 contributes in any meaningful way to overall C02.
As long as this claim is used as a foundation, they will continue to push their humanity-controlling, green agenda, sustainability, money scam in some way, shape or form.
They NEED to claim that man has a direct role in the cause of so-called climate change in order for their green agenda to hold any water at all.
B.S., unless someone can show me proof of same to within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
There will be night and early-morning low clouds and fog along the coast; otherwise, hazy sunshine. 