Shocking new poll about Americans' belief in global warming

// added October 22, 2009 // 95 comments //
Image...
tcmfan08

more from News:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/steep-decline-in-american_n_...

WASHINGTON — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.
Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.

In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from 77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. The number of people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.

The steepest drop has 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.

...More...
  1. groups:
    News,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Culture,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Culture,  Global Warming

95 comments // Shocking new poll about Americans' belief in global warming

  • Jenime
  • 2hellnwait
  • Jenime
    • 0
      Jenime  

    • There have been a number of films coming out against Cap & Trade, and Climate Hysteria. If there's one thing that's hurt the GW movement, it was the claim that the scientific community all agreed, and then these films come out with tons of scientists that disagree, and it shoots a hole in your credibility. Cap & Trade will be as unfair to underdeveloped nations as NAFTA was.

      "You'd rather save the birds and lose the people."

    • 3 months ago
  • Niccole_Osborn
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • Actually, Fox news is not telling anyone a lie. You are being manipulated. Yes, we should take better care of our environment, but, any signs of global warming are mostly cycles. However, some man-made signs are evident but they are from weather warfare devices not everyday humans warming the planet. HAARP aimed at the Glaciers could easily melt them and cause the appearance of global warming. China and Russia both also have the power to manipulate the weather. It is more reasonable to believe these countries are causing the appearance of global warming to use as an excuse to further regulate our lives. Before anyone attacks what I wrote do a little research on weather modification technology.

    • 3 months ago
  • hippyyy
    • 0
      hippyyy  

    • Fox news is corrupt. They have been proven to lie to the general public to twist American minds into believing whatever they tell them. Also, when discussing people "cooling towards global warming", it shows that these individuals need to be more educated about the facts. Mankind has done a number on our planet. All the "green house gases" (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ect) are trapping energy from the sun. This is causing our planet to heat up. For those people who say that "they don't care about global warming", "I'm not going to be alive when any of this happens", "There's no way any of this is true", think about posterity! Although it may be a hard concept to grasp because it is so major, Earth is the only home we have ever truly known. By helping to save it, you are helping to save the future generations.

    • 3 months ago
  • rickm8
    • 0
      rickm8  
    • hippyyy:

      Wait, one little statement there caught my attention. That fox news has been PROVEN to lie. Where is the proof? I don't remember any stories for fox that even hold a candle to Dan Rather's sad excuse for an attempt at forgery lol

      Call it like it is, you would have sat on the edge of your seat for every word a liberal media outlet spoke, and they lie too.

    • 3 months ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • OH NO the earth is warming and we're all going to stop it by our little selves.

      Yeah...no. There's NOTHING that anyone can do to stop this. NOTHING. You can try and when it does nothing you'll just say--oh guess we gotta do something else. ha.

      I don't litter. I don't have a car that spits out crap that kills anything. I recycle when it is possible to do so. I do what I can because I care about the Earth, but I am not naive enough to think that the governments care, for one, and two I am not naive enough to think that it can be stopped.

      I also love all the fear stories by people of what is causing what. Anything to be right....even if it's to lie about what is causing what...just as long as you're right that's all that matters.

    • 3 months ago
  • GoodGodGuy
  • hoosierdaddy
    • 0
      hoosierdaddy  

    • FOX is a problem, no doubt, but the deeper problem is that we've been conducting a war on education for decades. It's no wonder that people can't distinguish between a scientist and a witch doctor....

    • 3 months ago
  • rickm8
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • People you are being manipulated like rats in a lab. Global Warming is the projection on the screen that keeps you engaged in discussion and argument. If you answer the question right you get a biscuit. Meanwhile, the wizard behind the projection is taking your money, devaluing your dollar and giving away your sovereignty. It's all distractions. None of this will matter when you have no money and no freedom. Even the scarecrow, who you remember had no brain, eventually saw the wizard. Time to open your eyes, it's not a dream, this is your reality. You better do something about it before you wish it was only a dream.

    • 4 months ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • Monkey_Films:

      LOL------it took the dog to pull back the curtain and reveal the Great and Powerful Wizard for what he really was.

      ---------"Meanwhile, the wizard behind the projection is taking your money, devaluing your dollar and giving away your sovereignty. It's all distractions. None of this will matter when you have no money and no freedom."----------

      EXACTLY!!!!!

      Freedom is being able to chose. We've had the answers all along-------all we need is the freedom to choose.

    • 4 months ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  

    • Twohawks------just because there is a large volume of written material on a subject does not make it true.

      So, tell me in your own words exactly what your objection to biofuels is. I will answer your questions with the truth.

      Here is the answer to what seems to me to be your first and overiding objection.

      That biofuels will be putting "food into gas tanks".

      First generation ethanol production began with the farm crisis of the 70's. There was so much surplus corn being produced that there was no place to even put it all. It was just piled in huge stacks alongside full elevators. It was rotting away----and the price of corn did not even equal the cost of production. Humans can not eat dent corn---it was grown to be fed to animals. Grain fed animals gain weight quickly---but the weight gain is all fat. Field corn has a protien content of about 2-4%----twinkies and ding-dongs for cattle. If you ferment the corn, and dry the remaining solids---the yeasts in anaerobic conditions convert the starchs to simple sugars(glucose) which they then metabolize to ethanol to produce metabolic energy. The yeast culture you produced this way has a protien content of 20-30%---much healthier to feed the animals(and the leaner animals are much better for humans to eat also). The ethanol must be removed, otherwise you have herds of drunk cattle or pigs. The resulting animal feed from the fermentation process is called DDG(dried distillers grain). Producing ethanol from corn provides food and fuel both.

      Of all the written material I've seen critical of biofuels, a common arguement seems to be "we can't replace all of our fuel needs with corn(or whatever other crop)----there isn't enough land to grow enough crops to replace petroleum. OK, where is it written in stone that we can only use one source? There are thousands of ways to make biofuels, and thousands of sources for raw materials. As long as it is ethanol, it is chemically the same, it can all be mixed together to provide what we need. And more and varied sources equals a more dependable supply. If you want to engage in speculation on future possiblities---compare biofuels that can be made from almost any type of organic material at all with the roller coaster market performance of petroleum available from only one source-----that requires extensive refining to be usable.

      It comes down to choice. We've had 100 years of petroleum/chemical/auto industries working to make only one choice available to consumers. Their product.

      Methane is a biofuel. We can make biomethane from sewage. We can run bi-fuel engine vehicles on methane as well as ethanol or petroleum. And methane(natural gas) costs about 1/3 to operate compared to petroleum.

      Fiat Sienna tetrafuel

      http://green.autoblog.com/2007/08/28/fiat-siena-tetrafuel-can-run-on-four-fuel-t...

      in production and on sale now.

    • 4 months ago
  • twohawks
    • 0
      twohawks  
    • Wetdog:

      Wetdog wrote: "Twohawks------just because there is a large volume of written material on a subject does not make it true."

      I presume this is in response to what TwoHawks wrote: "get your head up and read if you want to find out the larger truth"

      @Wetdog: 2 things..
      1) I totally agree with your statement. I also do not claim to be an expert on any of this.
      However, I do not see how what I wrote illicits that remark... for all I my statement urges is reading and searching and finding out more about 'other facts as well' in hopes of gaining a broader scope of understanding. Perhaps grasping "the larger truth".

      Maybe we cannot really 'know what the truth actually is', so yeah, if one wishes to nit-pick in a machiavellian manner, I guess you got me there.
      The larger thrust within what I wrote in this regard clearly indicates concern over listening to only one side --> the one you are spoon fed, as opposed to making a greater effort to find out more, and not be roped in, and decide for oneself.

      2) You yourself, seem to place some value on reading, and looking at facts... after all, you are presenting written information and urging folks to check it for themselves. (I receive this as 'a good thing'.)

      Is the information you present unavailble thru research and reading? Is it very available for others to investigate outside of reading? Does it make it more true or less true? Are you recommending people do not read because that would be futile to broadening their understanding?
      (Rhetorical questions, answers not expected. Hopefully the point is plainly made.)

      ==================================
      Wetdog said: "So, tell me in your own words exactly what your objection to biofuels is. I will answer your questions with the truth.

      Here is the answer to what seems to me to be your first and overiding objection.
      That biofuels will be putting "food into gas tanks"... "

      Anyone who can read will see exactly where I indicated objections, and that they are hardly "fixated" on 'objecting to biofuels'.

      As well, I have reviewed my posts and cannot determine where one might see that as my "first objection" either. The quote from the Economist shows up in my 3rd (not first, and not last even) post, if that is the catalyst for the 'fixation' here; and if one were to look at the collection of things I have been posting it should be plainly apparent that that clearly does not represent my 'overiding objection', although it does represent another area of controversy (so I shared that too).

      And it does not seem to me that the "common argument" you refer to actually represents the "dominant" argument as your presentation seems to indicate (although maybe it appears so in the mainstream, I do not know); and things I have spoken to or shared here do not represent that as a whole either (so please do not put words in my mouth).

      At this point..., I choose not to get roped into an argument where defending a side I am being painted as being on could only represent a contrivance (i.e., the argument you have is evidently not really with 'my opinion' but something you wish to put upon me, and I am not taking that on).
      - I feel my statements speak well enough for themselves, and
      - anyone with concern and a brain can go and search more for themselves, and
      - I do not wish to support improprietous labelling, personal bickering, or chaos... which serves no useful purpose.

      Sorry to dissappoint (you or anyone else thirsting in that manner, if that's how it is for you), but it is not in my interest to participate in that spirit.

      ====================================
      That all said, my experience here is we are sharing opinions and information... and hopefully learning along the way.
      I honestly appreciate that you care enough to be challenging, and to present other points of view, and information, with the passion you seem to have to protect the movement for bio-fuels.

      We need challenge. And we need to think. So thank you, WD.
      I would urge others to

    • 4 months ago
  • twohawks
    • 0
      twohawks  
    • Wetdog:

      continued...
      I would urge others to consider that any single fact or opinion in any situation rarely has the capacity for representing the bigger whole picture. A lot of other folks here would seem to agree with that.
      So Consider that there may be more than the 'simple' facts being represented to us in this case. There are, indeed, other facts too. And taken as a whole you then need to ask yourself, "is it possible there is another truth here?" "If I step back and take these other facts into consideration, how does that affect the bigger picture?"
      Don't take anyone's word for anything, go check it out yourself.

    • 4 months ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • Wetdog:

      Twohawks-------I was not aware that I was attacking you in a "Machiavelian" manner----perhaps you are right, I'm so used to being attacked by self serving, right wing reactionary junk yard dogs, maybe it is just gotten to be an ingrained response. I'm sorry you took my response personally, it was not meant that way.

    • 4 months ago
  • twohawks
  • royulery
    • 0
      royulery  

    • this post has shown me that, i know less than i thought about biofuels. iv'e been working with solar designs for individual power stations. after seeing what the big guys are doing with biofuels, i'd better get busy. i want to be part of the solution, so i'm trying my best and it doesn't matter if i become a laughing stock. my inventions may turn out to be quaint fantasy, no matter. i think the solution is to unplug from the military industrial complex. follow ghandi's example. instead of making our own salt and clothes, we make our own energy.

    • 4 months ago
  • SB420
  • twohawks
    • 0
      twohawks  

    • Biofuels: Potentials, Problems & Solutions
      Honorable Richard L. Ottinger
      Pace University School of Law
      Biofuels1 have the exciting potential of mitigating the grave threats of global warming, reducing the world's dependence on imported oil from insecure sources and of reducing the skyrocketing costs of oil
      that are threatening to undermine the world's economies and devas-tating the people in non-oil producing, developing countries.2....

      [03/06/2007] MST Informa #129: Via Campesina’s Position on Agro-Fuels
      http://www.mstbrazil.org/?q=mstinforma129
      Quote from MST News Article in 2007 (Full text appears below)
      "An alliance has unified the interests of three great international capital sectors: a) oil companies; b) the transnational firms that control agricultural commerce and genetically-modified seeds; and c) automobile firms. The only goal is to maintain current patterns of consumption in the First World and high rates of profit for multinational corporations."

      ... These companies are after profit. They don’t care about the state of the environment, global warming, or the lives of people who work in the countryside. But their “production offensive?? in the area of renewable energy does allow them to loosen their dependence on oil imports from countries that now have nationalist governments, such as Venezuela and Iran.
      ....

      [ON AGROFUELS] Biofuels: The Five Myths of the Agro-fuels Transition. By Eric Holt-Gimenez
      http://www.mstbrazil.org/?q=holtgimenezonagrofuels
      Biofuels. The term invokes a life-giving image of renewability and abundance—a clean, green, sustainable assurance in technology and the power of progress. This image allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations, and even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to present fuels made from corn, sugarcane, soy and other crops as the next step in a smooth transition from peak oil to a yet-to-be-defined renewable fuel economy. Drawing its power from a cluster of simple cornucopian myths, “biofuels” directs our attention away from the powerful economic interests that benefit from this transition. It avoids discussion of the growing North-South food and energy imbalance. More fundamentally, it obscures the political-economic relationships between land, people, resources and food. By showing us only one side, “biofuels” fails to help us understand the profound consequences of the industrial transformation of our food and fuel systems—The Agro-fuels Transition.

      ...............
      The rapid capitalization and concentration of power within the agro-fuels industry is breathtaking. Over the last three years venture capital investment in agro-fuels has increased eightfold. Private investment is swamping public research institutions, as evidenced by BP’s recent award of half a billion dollars to the University of California. Behind the scenes—and under the noses of most national anti-trust laws—giant oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are forming powerful partnerships: ADM and Monsanto, Chevron and Volkswagen; BP, DuPont, and Toyota. These corporations are consolidating the research, production, processing, and distribution chains of our food and fuel systems under one colossal, industrial roof.
      ....................

      Google / Read / Learn /
      http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=...

    • 4 months ago
  • twohawks
    • 0
      twohawks  
    • twohawks:

      October 23, 2009
      China-India Accord to Scuttle UN Climate Treaty
      http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/chinaindia_accord_to_scuttle_u.html
      "The danger is that the West will draft a treaty that will only apply to America and Europe, crippling their economies. This was certainly the hope of the Nobel Committee when it awarded its Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. "Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting," said the Nobel proclamation.

      It was also on President Obama's mind when he accepted the award, "We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy," said Obama, whose alarmist rhetoric was almost verbatim with what he had said at the UN Climate Summit September 22. "

    • 4 months ago
  • twohawks
    • 0
      twohawks  
    • Image...

    • The pros and cons of biofuels
      Ethanol tanks

      Oct 22nd 2009 | LONDON AND NAIROBI
      From The Economist

      "ONCE upon a time, biofuels were thought of as a solution to fossil-fuel dependence. Now they are widely seen as a boondoggle to agribusiness that hurts the environment and cheats taxpayers. A report commissioned by the United Nations endorses neither extreme. It gives high marks to some crop-based fuels and lambasts others. Meanwhile, two papers published in Science, a leading research journal, provide further reasons for caution. One suggests that the knock-on effects of growing biofuel crops, in terms of displaced food crops and extra fertiliser (an important source of a greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide), make the whole enterprise risky. The other points out a dangerous inconsistency in the way the Earth’s carbon balance-sheet is drawn up for the purposes of international law."

      "....competition for land between fuel and food is hotting up. This competition is the subject of Jerry Melillo’s paper in Science. Dr Melillo, of the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, and his colleagues have attempted to model how an expansion of biofuels might change world agriculture during the 21st century. They concentrate on the likely future—cellulosic biofuels made from whole plants such as fast-growing grasses, rather than the food-cum-biofuel crops of today. They reckon Africa is the best place to grow biofuels, and the one that will lead to most carbon capture in the long run. But they also show that the widespread growth of biofuel crops is likely to cause a net global release of greenhouse gases during the first half of the century, as land is cleared and fertilisers are scattered liberally. In the right circumstances the CO2 account, they reckon, could move into profit by mid-century, but the nitrous oxide account never does."

    • 4 months ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • twohawks:

      Biofuels do not depend on food crops. We can make ethanol out of wood, or any other type of plant cellulose. When you gather up stover,(all non grain parts of the corn plant) and use it to make ethanol---you are not competing with food sources----you are simply making more efficient use of the energy stored by the plants.

      We can make ethanol from wood. And we have been able to do it for over a century. Before WW1, ethanol made from wood was the most important source of fuel grade ethanol. During WW2---butadiene, (artificial rubber) was made from ethanol, produced from wood at a plant in Wisconsin.

      Fischer-Tropsch process has been around for over 80 years, and can produce short chain alcohols or long chain hydrocarbons(diesel fuels) from any type of carbon source at all. Range Fuels is just now finishing construction and start up of a plant that will produce 100 million gallons/yr of ethanol from waste wood from logging and milling operations in Soperton GA.

      PetroSun is producing 4.4 million gal/yr of oil to be made into biodiesel from algae on 1200 acres of ponds in Rio Hondo TX.

      How much tree limbs and pond scum do you eat?

    • 4 months ago
  • twohawks
    • 0
      twohawks  
    • twohawks:

      Thank you for your reply, Wetdog.

      It seems to me that to simply state "Biofuels do not depend on food crops..." and then to point out things we can do, or even may already be doing, that 'may' arguably present reasonable bio-fuel alternatives (and I am not indicating any agreement or disagreement with the ones you address here, as this is not the focus of my response)...
      ...does not address the scope of, and in fact erroneously dismisses, legitimate concerns being raised by looking at the "greater picture" of what is actually going on, either now, or potentially later, as clearly indicated by all the factual information available in the public domain (as sited even by so many articles only in this meager thread).

      It seems to me from the reading I am able to do on the subject that a more balanced statement might read "Biofuels do not 'necessarily' depend on food crops." For just because its not necessary for such to be the case, that does not explain away or negate the facts related to where it 'is' having an impact, or where it will be having a greater potential impact on our food (or, for that matter, farmlands, carbon emissions mis-management, etc) based on the evident capitalistic thrust of investment ($$ and world legislation) being persued by large corporations and (qualifier here-) governments.

      The arguments I see posed by reasonable concerned parties (whether individuals or nations [Brazil for one]) do not appear to throw out 'all' or 'any' ideas surrounding investing in bio-fuels. I see openness to working on holistic understanding to what non-destructive methods (i.e., supportive for the land, the air, and lifeforms) may look like, while there is great concern over those who would rush in and do it in 'their' best way from a capitalistic standpoint with only "obligatory" concern over any negative potential impact their/our so-called advanced industrial methods might have, to the land or peoples.

      If you need to know what I mean by 'obligatory concern', just punch the words "ecuador" with "oil" into the current search bar, or google, to get a whiff of a clue.

      There is simply too much evidence for widespread self-serving agendas, whether you follow the 'big' money or legislative appointments and efforted actions (say, in the US for one), to be simply buying into what's being pushed upon the people, and this planet, without greater consideration to more than simply what we are being fed by 'the mainstream', or isolated situations.

      I do not see what I consider to be thoughtful and intelligent folks saying "no to bio-fuels". I see them saying .."no to the big corporate dreams of what that is (for themselves only)", and ..."get your head up and read if you want to find out the larger truth".

      And (this is not personally directed at you, Wetdog, I am saying this to all passers-by) don't just read a quote from an article someone posts... try actually going and reading some of these articles, and then follow down your questions that are raised ...by searching ..and try to look at various sides, not just one.

    • 4 months ago
  • Maven_25
    • 0
      Maven_25  

    • I definitely wasn't stating that there aren't serious environmental issues--what people are trying to tell you is that this latest Climate surge in the gov. has nothing to with Climate change. There is a Climate Change conference in December in Copenhagen. When that treaty is signed that is it for the US as we now know it. All people are saying is expand your horizons and research the North American Union. It's happening and some will finally get it and most wont and it will be too late.

      Think about this. Most of us originally believed the European Union was created to establish a single Monetary system for Europe Nations to compete with the dollar. The dollar has been purposely run into the ground so that we will incorporate the Amero when we officially unite with Mexico and Canada. Think about why the gov. has not really cracked down on illegal aliens from Mexico--there is an open boarders/partner policy established with the three countries. It was in play for a long time and Bush signed off on this in 2005 with Canada and Mexico; to be completed by the end of next year. They're expecting riots.

      The Union of South America will begin in 2014--to be completed by 2029.

      Bottom line: The info is out there, look it up. That is why most people's opinion on this subject has declined.

    • 4 months ago
  • larrysnotes
  • Maven_25
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • No, I agree that pollution is bad but no real science not paid for by someone looking to profit shows that we can make a world changing difference. Come on, it is well known that we have the power to alter the weather. Why not just use HAARP to fix our damage if it truly is us causing anything. Yes, we can make the land and water dirty but climate change, absolutely not and nobody has provided and legitimate science to show this. Don't just comment to this, point me to a study proving we change climate not paid for by a corporation owned by Al Gore or someone he sleeps with.

    • 4 months ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • Someone tried to strike back at my post by claiming it to be a right wing conspiracy, blah, blah , blah. I don't believe in right or left wing Mr. blah, blah. The right and left wing are tools the government use to keep the people divided. Remember, United We Stand, Divided We Fall, genius? Look at it this way. We all agree both parties are corrupt? We all agree lobbyists have bought both sides, right? So, if the corporations own both sides, they work for the same team and it's not you. This fight is the people vs the banks and corporations that have purchased the government away from the people. It's a slick plan, they play the people off of each other so that nobody notices the man behind the curtain. Within two years the government will own most of the businesses in America. If you want a job, it will be for the government. The price of gold going up is really the price of the dollar going down. Gold stays the same but it takes more dollars to purchase it. We are being destroyed by design. They are basically following the plan of Revelation, changing the weather, inventing pandemics, and destroying the economy. They think they can manipulate the feeble minded by copying the end times right around 2012 to cause hysteria and confusion to aid in their worldwide takeover. I know, it sounds like a bad movie or some conspiracy theory but the evidence is right in front of you. There is even a guy at the UN, Benjamin Creme, claiming that Obama is the return of Christ, Krishna, Buddha and Muhammed all rolled into one. He calls this man, the Maitreya. Google Benjamin Creme and Maitreya and you should find it.
      http://www.share-international.org/maitreya/Ma_main.htm

    • 4 months ago
  • akamaial
    • 0
      akamaial [removed]  

    • Yep, disclosing the global warming hoax is a Fox News right wing conspiracy to actually expose the demoncrats maneuvers for the NWO...dontchaknow! !...Bwahahahahahahaa

    • 4 months ago
  • TheBrownKid
    • 0
      TheBrownKid  

    • "In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press..."

      ---

      In a poll of little numbers by we-don't-know-who-you-are. . .

    • 4 months ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
  • twohawks
    • 0
      twohawks  

    • Peter Taylor - Food Shortages & Global Cooling

      I don't think honestly concerned scientists arguing on either side think for minute that we should be unconcerned about our contributions to disparagements upon ourselves or this planet. There is a difference between peddling for a $elf-$erving agenda, and doing honest research and seeking the truth.

      And I do not think that truth seekers on the side of looking into the 'other' aspects are necessarily creationist, or otherwise, crackpots, but then I have as little factual resource on that presumption as anyone else may have otherwise ;^) So that's a mute point...

      Monkey_Films comment about carbon is substantive. Check out this point of view being investigated by Peter Taylor.

    • 4 months ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • Yes, Global Warming is man-made, just not by us. What I mean by that is Japan, China, Russia have all admitted to having the ability to control and influence the weather. The US hasn't admitted it but it's widely known that HAARP can be used for this purpose. So, either we use the weapons to convince the people that Global Warming is going to kill us...or, there is no or. You see, if that's not what we are using our weather modification technology for what is? If pollution is creating this then why aren't they using this technology to help stop or slow this. Ahhh, it's because then they wouldn't be able to carbon tax everything that moves or breathes. Are you people really going to fall for the same tricks decade after decade, war after war, empire after empire. Well, we, Americans, are the dumbest humans in recorded history. The funny thing is, so many of you think 'you have it all figured out'. Try putting the whole picture together or reading between the lines or just creative thinking, my God please save me from the simple minded.

    • 4 months ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • Are you kidding people! Al Gore says it's so and you believe it. This is all a scam to wipe out the sovereignty of the US. Just like the Wall Street crash and the bailouts. It's all a plan to get rid of the only obstacle to a world government,the US. The Cap and Trade bill will micro-manage and tax us until, combined with the falling dollar, we will all be too poor to revolt. Wake Up!

    • 4 months ago
  • PajamaDan
    • 0
      PajamaDan  
    • Monkey_Films:

      You must be joking. So,... when you see smog, or a car's exhaust, or a landfill, or hear of all the animals we've obliterated, or see garbage infested bodies of water, or use toxic chemicals, or touch furniture that was once a tree, or eat meat that was once living, or stand in a parking lot that was once a forest, or hear of widespread disease, or think of all the "natural resources" that have been sucked from the ground, or think about the world's population, or think of our greed,... you think "scam"?!?!?!?! Wow!
      So whatdya think? Earth is ours, do what we will? The aforementioned acts AREN'T hazardous? Earth doesn't have an atmosphere? It's okay to pave over the continents? God's will? Let future generations worry about things? Only the almighty dollar is important?
      And Al Gore didn't enlighten EVERYONE. Those with sense and those who could do the environmental math figured out that humans do very bad things many many many moons ago.

    • 4 months ago
  • GoodGodGuy
    • 0
      GoodGodGuy  

    • Is there a correlation between people who believe in creationism and people who disbelieve in global warming?
      Just thinking.
      Dudes look at Palin land. There is way less frozen tundra and the ecology there is so fragile and is being eliminated day after day. No, you may not see blinding changes in this climate for a while but it will be here.
      Your kids can plan on how to deal with it.
      Yeah leave the kids yet another burden as if the economy isn't enough.

    • 4 months ago
  • PajamaDan
    • 0
      PajamaDan  

    • GREAT! LESS AND LESS PEOPLE BELIEVING MEANS A FEW THINGS:
      - IT'S GONNA TAKE LONGER TO REALIZE, ADMIT, REDUCE, AND FIX
      - WE LACK BASIC EDUCATION
      - PEOPLE JUST DON'T CARE OR ARE TOO SELFISH
      - EARTH'S PROBLEMS ARE GONNA BE EVEN MORE INTENSIFIED
      - OUR DEMISE WILL COME FASTER

      SEE! MISINFORMATION AT ITS FINEST! IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CLIMATE, PEOPLE! IT'S ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION ITSELF --- NO MATTER THE CLIMATE FACTOR! IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT HUMANS HAVE HURT THIS WORLD AND/OR PROPELLED THE EXTINCTION OF MULTIPLE CREATURES,... THEN YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

      Humans have either covered Earth with poisons, garbage, disease or pavement. We have "unnaturally selected" our fellow Earthlings. We have overpopulated to the point of viability loss and intensified woes. The oceans have plastic within EVERY square foot. Trees get cut. Acid rain falls. We drill into ground, siphoning nutrients and weakening integrity. We DAILY use virgin materials to fulfill our conveniences. We enslave, poison and kill animals,... and then we gluttonously devour their meat. We create landfills, trash incinerators, floating garbage barges. We've created a ring around the planet -- of space debris. Neighboring planets are even experiencing our wanton conquest. We refuse to recycle.
      And these aren't technically scientific proofs,... they are observational proofs. DO THE MATH!

      But, what? Because Earth has natural climate fluctuations, NOTHING WE DO CAN HARM IT?!?!?!? WWWRRROOONNNGGG!!! The climate is only a fraction of our problem. Forget "warming" and "cooling" and "climate" --- think of the damage itself.

      I apologize for my broken record comments. This is the topic that gets me the most angered,... because IT'S THE BIGGEST AND MOST URGENT PROBLEM WE FACE!!!! And if we ignore it and continue it -- WE'RE SCREWED!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!

    • 4 months ago
  • PajamaDan
    • 0
      PajamaDan  
    • PajamaDan:

      I was about 10 years old, when I realized that HUMAN ACTIONS ARE BAD! Not good for us, not good for fellow Earthlings, and not good for the planet itself. Who can't see this?!

    • 4 months ago
  • twohawks
  • franksalot
    • 0
      franksalot  

    • WHat HAPPENED TO YOUR BEAUTIFUL DEMOCRACY?

      Hardly Shocking when you have millions of uneducated citizens who are unable to think for themselves, and who always vote against their own self interest so the wealthy and powerful can rape the earth.

    • 4 months ago
  • cwthomas
    • 0
      cwthomas  

    • Nothing like a denial of a "progressive" issue to start the mudslinging and f-bombing! And yeah, its really is just a way to transfer wealth morons! You really think Russia, Iran, Iraq, China or Venezuela are going to jump on the bandwagon? They are just biting at the opportunity to take center stage in world power! Also, great new documentary out. http://www.noteviljustwrong.com

    • 4 months ago
  • Mauzel
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • I think the questions they asked are a little misleading. I wonder if they asked the same questions years ago.

      Why not ask if people think that scientific eveidence shows that manmade CO2 levels are causing changes weather patterns. This is possbly more accurate, as not everywhere is consistentlly warmer, and it takes away weather/climate confusion that the lay person doesn't really understand.

      Also, I don't think CO2 really falls into the "pollution" category, because it is something we all exhale. When I think of the word pollution, I think of toxic substances not out of balance quantities of common substances.

    • 4 months ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  

    • Yeah, we got snow here in the hills in Pennsylvania last week! We're still waiting for our summer this yearr..bbrrr!
      Move North where it's getting colder!
      Just another trend like back in the 50-60's cold trend!

    • 4 months ago
  • stephenthomson
  • royulery
    • 0
      royulery  

    • looks like we'll have to see. even this winter's el-nino will only convince a few for a short while. while i was studying geology i monitored a weather class, now that's a can of worms. there isn't enough computer power on earth to process all the data. linear equations, if you don't understand them, you won't fathom the extent of the problem.

      i just deleted about an hours writing,trying to explain weather to a 9th grade level. there is no way to explain short of a book. we are not smart enough, to understand weather, yet.

    • 4 months ago
  • Darevalo
  • CTZNWES
    • 0
      CTZNWES  

    • I definitely believe that we should cut down our pollution, but i also think that regardless of what we do to cut back on it will not stop mother nature from doing what she does. I mean, do we think we are more powerful than her? She will kill us all if she felt so and we are powerless to stop it. Also i believe the whole "warming" part of this epidemic is mostly caused by our sun ( solar flares and whatnot ) I don't need to hear scientist's explanations to know that the earth has changed numerous times since it's birth. We've only been recording weather for a few hundred years or so. So how do we know for sure that this isn't a cycle that happens every 10,000 years? Don't respond by saying "scientists say......." Because every year they say "this" then one scientist challenges "this" and the answer turns to "that". So I'll just believe in common sense and instinct over science.

      Also, i do not follow any political, religious or scientific views so don't try to blame it on any of that. I'm just a normal everyday person with my own uninfluenced thoughts.

    • 4 months ago
  • bc_f
    • 0
      bc_f  

    • it really annoys me how people need all of this ridiculous proof to start doing the right thing; like saving gas and recycling isn't beneficial in itself, you need some fucking scientist to prove to you it's worth it. and no, soccer mom, you dont need your stupid suv that gets 20 mpg. no, you really don't need to buy that bottle of water, you could probably just take a fucking glass out of the cupboard and turn on the tap. if you won't save the earth then you'll at least save a couple bucks. or is being thrifty going to hurt your cadillac tastes?

    • 4 months ago
  • Saladin
  • twohawks
  • Atalanda_Cameron
  • remanns
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • Listen to scientists, not fucking ideologues.

      Before you call off global warming as a "conspiracy," consider the fact that practically everyone that sees it that way has fiscally conservative views.

      Hmmm, what seems more likely? That an international board of science is falsifying evidence to support a global conspiracy to uh...um....raise taxes?

      Or that people's businesses have a direct interest in not giving a fuck about what they do to the planet?

      Just listen to the science, and nothing else, and then decide.

    • 4 months ago
  • Metanoia
  • carmalite
  • tcmfan08
  • Atalanda_Cameron
  • grassroutes
  • ksutherland27
    • 0
      ksutherland27  

    • This is sad very sad... ask the people in the Maldives "who believes?"
      Another "Inconvenient Truth" is needed... U Hear that Gore....This is your site....

    • 4 months ago
  • smallgod
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • How can you say climate change isnt real? Hell at least the "it isnt man-made" argument acknowledges the fact that the ice caps are melting at an unprecedented rate and the instances of peculiar and more intense storms are rising.

    • 4 months ago
  • hunzedog
  • clayjj05
  • fun_size
  • clayjj05
  • nursediesel
  • larrysnotes
  • larrysnotes
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • 1500 people polled out of MILLIONS? And people think this is credible? I swear some will use any excuse to continue sitting on their asses doing nothing. We are KILLING this planet and our ability to sustain ourselves and other species with toxic pollution in our water, our air, our FOOD, and it is killing us in return. And yet, people are still Bsing over whether global warming is real or not or manmade or not. READ about the glaciers melting worldwide and the pace of it. READ about the drought effecting 40% of our planet. READ about the rapacious pace of biodiversity loss. READ about the rapacious pace of deforestation and its effects on CO2 and other GHGs. Do the trees chop themselves down? READ about the sea level rises in places like the Maldives, the Carteret Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and places where climate refugees are already being seen. LOOK BEYOND YOUR OWN FRONT DOOR, turn off your damn TVS and READ. I swear, Americans are some of the most ignorant selfish people on the planet. If it isn't happening to THEM it just can't be happening. What a crock.

      Climate change deniers: not evil, just stupid.

    • 4 months ago
  • larrysnotes
  • JanforGore
  • larrysnotes
  • Atalanda_Cameron
    • 0
      Atalanda_Cameron  
    • JanforGore:

      You know, even if global warming turns out to be a lie, I dont see whats wrong with trying to make a more sustainable environment. Pollution is very real. you dont need a scientist to tell you that....

      Are we so lazy that we will only better ourselves if there is impending doom forcing us to? Global warming or not its still a good idea to evolve into a more eco friendly society. Its better for everyone in the long run.

      [[where were ya'll when captain planet was preaching?? haha]]

    • 4 months ago
  • JimboTheHippo
  • larrysnotes
  • galwayman
    • 0
      galwayman  

    • I suppose the melting solar ice is all a pipe dream and all the evidence showing that global warming has already begun is made up? The rich elite who run our planet don't want you to believe it might interfere with their greed for higher profits!

    • 4 months ago
  • nursediesel
  • theauthor
    • 0
      theauthor  

    • I love how scientific facts are open to subjective opinion based on economics. I guess the world gets flatter and gravity is weaker when the economy gets worse. This is why public polls are worthless...the public is stupid.

    • 4 months ago
  • macdontcare
  • masterzip
    • 0
      masterzip  

    • global pollution continues no matter if the temperature is changing fast enough or not..
      my lakes, rivers, and oceans are polluted
      my food is polluted
      my air is polluted

    • 4 months ago
  • Metanoia
  • threadpost
    • 0
      threadpost  

    • I agree, the team of Fox News and big oil backed deniers like Steve Milloy have played a roll in changing public opinion. What floors me is the idea that climate change can be evaluated as a belief. To deny it is to deny science and basic observation. There clearly is a growing opposition fueled by their hatred of notable green leaders (like Al Gore), their fear of change (partially brought about by the election of Barack Obama), and a general apathy propagated by dubious news organizations.

    • 4 months ago
  • grandavi
    • 0
      grandavi  

    • Just to correct everyone who thinks Global Warming is fact. You need to do some research on it first, who is pushing it, what do they want to do. what tax are they planning to implement on the world due to this hoax?
      For the record, there is such a thing as Global Change, it happens every season, and these people like to say the polars are melting, when they say this, they happen to be talking of the time that they actually are melting, but they never let anyone know that those ice back up.

    • 4 months ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • grandavi:

      So what tens of thousands of scientists are in on this hoax? Yeah because that makes sense. They have SO much to gain from having everyone believe that the climate is changing.

    • 4 months ago
  • Maven_25
    • 0
      Maven_25  
    • grandavi:

      He's not wrong... on the global change. You need to do research on the climate change treaty coming up. It will be the final stages of the North American Union. There is no hoax, no conspiracy, people are just too busy watching TV. You are distracted. Shut it off and start paying attention to what has been going on in the government and around the world. If they postpone the treaty this December it will be signed next year. Next year is the final implementation year. There are Ameros in production and have been sent to other countries. Just do research and then make informed opinions...

    • 4 months ago
  • macdontcare
    • 0
      macdontcare  
    • grandavi:

      The point is the ice melts earlier in the spring and refreezes later in the winter, meaning an altering of the patterns that have stood for millennia. Take a look at the North! Countries are fighting over land that no one has ever had access to. Keeping drinking the conservative kool-aid!!!

    • 4 months ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  
    • grandavi:

      Tens of thousands! where did you get that number? More and more experts are coming out with the truth that certain people are making money on this warming idea. They need to push it through so the UN gets control of the Americans Money to punish the USA for being financially successful. They want to spread your money around and into their pockets. Wake up sleepers! You're losing America very quickly. And once you LET it go we may never get it back.
      People don't relize how s**tty it is on the other side. But Wait If you do nothing for the next two monthes you may find out.

    • 4 months ago
  • PirateSauce
    • 0
      PirateSauce  

    • Shocking? Not to me, and not to many who know the 'man made global warming' scheme is a hoax. The world population is QUICKLY becoming more aware of the lies being fed to us on a daily basis, and this is one of the biggest.

      If you still have doubts about global warming being used to make billions just google 'cap and trade'

    • 4 months ago
  • larrysnotes
  • DrPhiloneous
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • I dont know about you but the weather where i live is getting a little strange. Last week it dipped into the 30's and snowed all across New York. Its not even Halloween yet. And now today its 70 degrees. Something is not right here...

    • 4 months ago
  • Ares
  • Atalanda_Cameron
    • 0
      Atalanda_Cameron  

    • I wonder where these people live.. certainly not here on the south coast (gulf of mexico). We have experienced powerful hurricanes and floods i dont think theres a soul here who would DARE deny global warming anymore...

    • 4 months ago
  • hunzedog
  • kurthsb27
  • cwthomas
    • 0
      cwthomas  
    • Atalanda_Cameron:

      Well my friend, just look at the history of the region and you'll see there have been strong floods and hurricanes there for hundreds of thousands of years! Thats what happens when you live next to large coastal bodies of water in low lying areas.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ihatethemall
  • thecoyote23
    • 0
      thecoyote23  

    • This is why Fox News is a problem. Fox news tells people not to trust scientific evidence. If Fox News was actual news they would report the facts. When was the last time you saw an honest two sided discussion about climate change on Fox, or even a single person who believes humanity has an impact on the environment? Why don't you see honest discussion and reporting about climate change on Fox? Because it will cost the Corporate Machine (who Fox is controlled by) a lot of money in the short term to refit their industries, cutting into their short term profit and thus their bonus checks. It doesn't matter that it will make the United States more efficient, more profitable, and less polluting in the future, because that won't get them this years bonus. Those Fox pundits will keep running their mouths and influencing the illiterate masses opinions for those corporate interests, and those same illiterate masses will continue thinking that the "liberal conspiracy" is out to get them, even though that "liberal conspiracy" will only benefit everyone in the coming future.

    • 4 months ago
  • carmalite

Add your comment

most popular
videos on current tv

current videos