DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Quote:

---

To that point ... the survey is of only 3146 Scientists ... only 77 of which are climatologists

---

I wonder how many climatologists there are on the planet? I know that we have an Association of Climatologists which is one representative climatologist from each state... so that's 50 and they have to represent others, so that's more than 50 and that's just in the USA...

Secondly I wonder how many of them are young and don't even really remember a time when "global warming" wasn't considered a fact by a lot of people. If I want to grow up and get into agriculture to fix the famine in Africa, the first thing I must accept is that there actually is famine in Africa... so if I grow up wanting to research and "fix" global warming, then I go into it accepting that global warming is something that needs fixed and something that can be fixed... pure science is predicated on objectivity but people, even scientists, aren't always objective.

Quote:

---

Makes you wonder where they conducted the survey as well.

---

California, Massachussetts, New York and DC...

I'm staying under the covers until someone explains how we get temperature readings from 2000 years ago when the first thermometer wasn't invented until like 1593,...let alone whenever records actually started being kept.

Right now, I just shoveled 10" of global warming off my driveway, so again, under the covers.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/06/brian-sussman-global-whining-vs-the-truth/

Excerpt...

"The world’s most thorough historical temperature record is found amongst the 1,221 official, government-sanctioned weather monitoring stations that have been recognized as a part of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). Most of the stations within this network have records that date back to the 1800s. The beauty of this system is that in so many cases the environs where the thermometer is housed has changed little over the decades, providing critical data to determine major long-term trends.

In some instances thermometers within the Network have been encroached upon by urban sprawl and their readings notably have trended upward. However, for the locations that have remained relatively stable, the temperature record hardly reeks of global warming.

A perfect illustration is found when comparing the USHCN temperature records from Central Park in New York City to those taken a mere 55 miles away at West Point.

Readings in Central Park have been regularly measured since 1835 when the city’s population had just surpassed 200,000. Today, surrounded by a metropolis of eight million people filled with some of the world’s tallest buildings, a massive underground subway system, an extensive sewer system, power generation facilities, and millions of cars, buses, and taxis, the Central Park temperatures have been greatly altered by urbanization. And, as one might expect, the Central Park historical temperature plot illustrates an incredible warming increase of nearly 4°F.

The West Point readings have also been meticulously maintained since 1835, but the environment surrounding the thermometer shelter has experienced significantly less manmade interference then the one in Central Park. The West Point readings illustrate a significantly lower warming increase of only about .6°F over the same 170-year period. This is remarkable given that the year 1835 is considered to be the last gasp of the Little Ice Age — a significant period of global cooling that stretched back several hundred years."

<later>

"Carbon dioxide accounts for only slightly more than 3/100ths of our planet’s atmosphere. And what percentage of the miniscule amount of gas is produced by the activities of man, including the utilization of fossil fuels? According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, only 3.207% — well within historical norms. And how much has CO2 increased in the atmosphere over the past 150 years? Approximately 35%.

< I love the next part >

In his must-read eco-thriller, State of Fear, Michael Crichton creates a brilliant visual to assist us in wrapping our minds around the components of Earth’s atmosphere. On page 387, he likens the atmosphere to a football field. The goal line to the 78 yard-line contains nothing but nitrogen. Oxygen fills the next 21 yards to the 99 yard-line. The final yard, except for four inches, is argon, a wonderfully mysterious inert gas useful for putting out electronic fires. Three of the remaining four inches is crammed with a variety of minor, but essential, gases like neon, helium, hydrogen and methane. And the last inch? Carbon dioxide. One inch out of a hundred-yard field! At this point I like to add, if you were in the stands looking down on the action, you would need binoculars to see the width of that line. And the most important point-how much of that last inch is contributed by man-made activities? Envision a line about as thin as a dime standing on edge.

Are you still worried about the dangers of CO2?

Me, neither.

And historically, CO2 has been significantly higher than today. In data primarily gathered from ice cores, we see carbon dioxide levels were 500 times higher during the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago. Many theorize that the dinosaurs were able to grow to such sizes because of the indescribable abundance of carbon fed foliage and overall atmospheric conditions present during that era. Certainly the SUV could not be blamed for those high levels of CO2. Dinosaur flatulence, perhaps?"
--------------------------------------------

So for this data...garbage in...garbage out.

Quote:

---

I'm staying under the covers until someone explains how we get temperature readings from 2000 years ago when the first thermometer wasn't invented until like 1593,...

---

Has something to do with ice borings then measuring the amount of CO2 and dust and stuff that is in the ice which allows you to measure what the temperature was.... seems kind of bizarre to me... I guess I could sort of understand that you could "ballpark" it that way, but we are talking about discrepancies of less than a degree....

Quote:

---

Again, remember that just 30 years ago we were all going to freeze to death soon.

---

Those scientists were wrong.. not like THESE scientists...

Quote:

---

Again, I don't really no what the number 650 means, unless I compare it to the size of the greater community.

---

This is the link to the Senate Minority Report. It is 233 pages long but it lists each of the 650 scientist and their credentials.

U. S. Senate Minority Report

Obama says we can drastically reduce temperatures by switching from Farenheit to Celsius.

He did not,..!! You're kidding.

Quote:

---

Right now, I just shoveled 10" of global warming off my driveway, so again, under the covers.

---

I haven't even touched mine, but if it will help I can go out and spray some aerosol and try to free up some ozone. At this point I am for some carbon debits if it would melt my driveway.

I try to stay on top of it throughout the whole snowfall,....sloped driveway and the wife works, so she has to have the mobility.

I'll be glad when this global warming starts.

Just a comment here.....if we can't change it for 1000 years, why worry about it???

In 1000 years, there will be some sort of mass kill off, so people aren't going to be a big problem anyway.


JMO

If people want to talk about making the planet cleaner and the water less toxic, I'm all for it. I do what I can every day. But warming theory has gone so far beyond that. It HAS become a religion. The science is, also, suspect at best. Ice core samples, why not just take samples of the oceans at certain depths and say the water at that depth was on top X number of years ago. Yes you "scientists" on here, think about it. Ice is not static, it's nearly as fluid as water, chemicals migrate, disipate and change, but some cling to that as the God's honest truth (yes I used the name of God on purpose). I could go on for quite a while, but it's useless. People cling to this "science" for a number of reasons, none of them are likely to repent any time soon.

Quote:

---

know you are kind of half joking, but global warming(or the lack of it,whichever it is ) is not the only reason why we need to be finding ways to live greener. I think some people,not talking about anybody in particular, think that because they don't believe in the theory of global warming, there is no reason to conserve and find cleaner(environmentally) ways of doing things.

---

"Greener"........what a joke.

Conservation and cleaning up the enviroment has been going on big time most of my life. In the early seventies pollution was massively worse than today. Smog and air pollution in big cities is just a fraction of what it used to be. These are fantastic things and should be done by all.

The problem with this "climate crisis", as it is being referred to by the high priests as of today, they are trying to say that changing climate is being caused by man. There is absolutely no proof of that,only theories written by people funded by organizations that look to profit from their "green" industries.

Answer this. If the move to electric vehicles with batteries, how will they be charged if you can't burn coal, oil, or have nuclear energy? What will happen with the expired batteries? And finally, what about the millions of gas powered vehicles in existence now? I'd like to know where that junk yard would be, seeing that some of them think this can happen in ten years (getting away from oil).

Funny how during the most polluted time in my life, there was no "global warming".

Finally, his chart ends conveniently at 2000. Reports I've heard say that the temperature has actually fallen since 1999, with last year being the biggest decline.

It's all about money....carbon taxes=money for these extremeists.

Quote:

---

I would also point out that pollution has gotten a lot better here in the States. Not so much in other areas of the world.

---

Which is exactly why we need to join Kyoto so we can continue to get greener and spend billions and lose jobs but many of the other countries of the world get a pass...

Wait... that doesn't make sense.

I live brown...always have, always will.

If they don't make the stuff I throw away or flush down the toliet cleaner, it isn't happening here.

jc

interesting article that just got sent to me...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/glaciers-and-sea-ice-melting-or-growing.html

Monday, April 7, 2008
Glaciers and Sea Ice: Melting Or Growing?
Here is a link to a good website which deals with the issue of glaciers and sea ice. Are they melting or expanding? We've been bombarded with pictures of melting glaciers and rising sea levels. We're told we're headed for catastrophe because of global warming. Is any of this true? Check out this website: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

For example:

Here's a (partial) list of the specific glaciers that are growing:
NORWAY Ålfotbreen Glacier Briksdalsbreen Glacier Nigardsbreen Glacier Hardangerjøkulen Glacier Hansebreen Glacier Jostefonn Glacier Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier, which has steadily increased in mass since the 1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 centimeters) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.) See http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.htmlClick here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers: http://www.nve.no/ Choose "English" (at top of the page), choose "Water," then "Hydrology," then "Glaciers and Snow" from the menu. You'll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway. (Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)

CANADA Helm Glacier Place Glacier
FRANCE Mt. Blanc
ECUADOR Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN Abramov
RUSSIA Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)
GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.
One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml
NEW ZEALANDAll 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where theygained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003) Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two best-known glaciers are still on the march - 31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier

SOUTH AMERICA - Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia) is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation, 30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile, is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier - Chile's Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere) is also growing.

UNITED STATES - Colorado (scroll down to see AP article) - Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan) (scroll down to see photo of Mt. Baker) - California (Mount Shasta - scroll down for info) - Montana (scroll down for info) - Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard). (scroll down to see article on Hubbard Glacier)
Antarctic ice grows to record levels 13 Sep 07 - While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting,See Antarctic ice grows to record levels..
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back19 Feb 08 - A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.See Most snow cover since 1966..
Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day 25 Jun 07 - See Crater Glacier..
Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year September 20, 2004 - See Mount St. Helens
Glaciers growing on California's Mount Shasta! 12 Oct 03 - See Mount Shasta Glaciers Growing
Geologists Unexpectedly Find 100 Glaciers in Colorado 7 Oct 01 See Colorado Glaciers Growing
Washington's Nisqually Glacier is GrowingSee Nisqually Glacier
Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing 5 Oct 2002. See Glacier Park
Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thickerSee Antarctic Icecap Growing ThickerSee construction crane buried in the Antarctic Ice Sheet
* * *
Himalayan Glaciers Not ShrinkingGlacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming15 Feb 07 - See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking..Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting. I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino, a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams into South America.
It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt. But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.
With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.
I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.
* * *
Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in Göteborg, Sweden. http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf

.. Alaska Glacier Surges -17 Mar 06 See McGinnis Glacier ..Look at what's happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State. (Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)
This is a photo of my friend Jim Terrell taken onMt. Baker, Washington. Jim is more than six feettall. See the black line about six feet above his head?That's where the snow from the winter of 1998/99stopped melting. Above that, is snow that nevermelted from the winter of 1999/2000. Why isn'tthe media reporting this sort of thing?..Click here to read this in Espanol: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/articulos-3/PorHielo.html
Thanks to Eduardo Ferreyra, who translated this material into Spanish for the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology.)
Photo by Mazz Terrell19 July 2000
..See also Growing_Glaciers See also Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker and Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_Ice_Caps_are_Growing.pdf

http://www.iceagenow.com/California_Glaciers_Growing.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm lists of growing glaciers

Now that's an "Inconvenient Truth".

This is off a bit on an tangent here, but I have been seeing some adds for some excursions to the ice caps from the discovery channel lately. The adds go into the dwindling polar bear populations and melting sea ice. They have this marvelous footage of the ice breakers with glacial ice popping and falling into the sea. It got me wondering: Could these ships, and especially these ships being used as pleasure cruises, be as if not more responsible for the sea ice than a few degrees rise in temperature? Think about it, they cut a 20 foot wide swath through granular pack ice which is in the process of accumulating. That pack ice could compress and migrate toward the glacial sea ice and if not support it perhaps even merge into it. But with the void created, ice flows back to fill the void, releasing pressure from the surface ice and thinning the floating pack ice. Not to mention at the fringes of the ice field ice can be cut away to flow toward warmer water.

I know, just a distracted thought, but I find it ironic. Be interested to hear if anyone has ever heard of this being researched.

That doesn't prove a thing.

Those glaciers simply haven't gotten the "Global Warming" memos yet .....



I'm sure that they'll start melting away just as soon as they do.


Besides ... global warming can cause warming .... or freezing ..... or high winds .. or calm ...... tropical storms growing in intensity ..... or lessening ....... sun spots, hurricanes, tornados, huge cracks in the Earth's surface, and sneezing .... yes, uncontrollable sneezing with huge, gigantic boggers flying everywhere.



Oh ..... and global warming is also singlehandedly responsible for the current economic situation we find ourselves in ...... as well as GM's farts.



Just letting everyone know just how serious this is .....

Quote:

---

such as outlawing CFC's and removing Led from paint and gasoline as 2 examples). Yes we have made serious progress, and we will continue.

---

I appreciate you using my example, but the CFC thing is garbage too. The hole in the ozone has always been there, and it grows and shrinks constantly. The removal of lead from paint and fuel is a good thing, but CFC's had nothing to do with air pollution.

Quote:

---

My point was simply some people dont want to be bothered to do the right things for the planet, so they use a disbelief in global warming as a excuse to be selfish.

---

I think most people nowadays do try to do the right things. I remember being younger and seeing the trash along the roads. Now people seem not to do that type of thing.

The "global warming" thing is a farce, and should not even be mentioned when talking about true conservation. It is a political ploy to create income (carbon tax) for politicians and the lobbys that push it. Today it is like the way everybody wore the yellow ribbons to welcome home troops, it's a fad.Uninformed students listen to left wing professors as they spew false facts. Then it becomes "cool" to be down with "global warming". It makes the feel like they are part of something.

Gore used this movie to premote a new industry that he is invested in, and used his political capital to push it. It is being used the same way Micheal Moore's movie was used to attack Bush. Moore's movie is full of made up facts, but he knew that a large part of the population was on the "hate Bush" bandwagon. He made a lot of money and the press treated his BS as if it was fact.

Ever ask someone why they hate Bush? Evar ask someone why they believe Gore? You will probably find that most don't really know why, but it seemed like the "in" thing to do.

Gore blamed Bush's victory on the Supreme Court, but many overlook the fact that it was his idea to take it to the court. Funny thing is the court at that time was more of a liberal majority.

Gore lives by telling the same lie enough times, eventually someone will think it is fact. The guy is a buffoon, who never worked a day in his life. Career politician who got his foot in the door by his father being a politician. Him being an authority on anything is a joke.

Quote:

---

but CFCs were toxic

---

CFC's are not toxic, they even use them in asthma inhalers. They were said to breakdown the ozone layer. That myth has also been debunked. The hole in the ozone is always there and always will be.

THE GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT ISN'T ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By Neal Boortz


I've been telling you this for years, folks. This whole global warming scam is nothing more than a front for wealth distribution and anti-capitalist activism. Democrats have come up with a great way to do accomplish those goals .. carbon credits. Charge companies and/or people for their carbon output and then let the government use that money to redistribute as it likes.

Now, thanks to California Senator Barbara Boxer, we have a clearer picture of what that could mean very soon. Boxer released a letter detailing the basic principles that will be included into this absurd global warming legislation. Plans are for Congress to take this on soon. We are talking weeks, not months. Democrats know they need to move on this while a substantial portion of the American people still buy this man-made global warming nonsense. Some people actually think this is a crisis, and you need to remember that the Obama Administration believes that no crisis should be allowed to go to waste. So now let's all take a look at these principles for global warming legislation:

1. Reduce emissions to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming. (The science, of course, will come from government-paid scientists who know that their funding depends on continued global warming alarmism.)

2. Set short and long term emissions targets that are certain and enforceable, with periodic review of the climate science and adjustments to targets and policies as necessary to meet emissions reduction targets.

3. Ensure that state and local entities continue pioneering efforts to address global warming.

4. Establish a transparent and accountable market-based system that efficiently reduces carbon emissions. (No .. establish a system that efficiently redistributes wealth and weakens capitalism.)

5. Use revenues from the carbon market to:

- Keep consumers whole as our nation transitions to clean energy;

- Invest in clean energy technologies and energy efficiency measures;

- Assist states, localities and tribes in addressing and adapting to global warming impacts;

- Assist workers, businesses and communities, including manufacturing states, in the transition to a clean energy economy;

- Support efforts to conserve wildlife and natural systems threatened by global warming; and

-Work with the international community, including faith leaders, to provide support to developing nations in responding and adapting to global warming. In addition to other benefits, these actions will help avoid the threats to international stability and national security posed by global warming.

6. Ensure a level global playing field, by providing incentives for emission reductions and effective deterrents so that countries contribute their fair share to the international effort to combat global warming.

Oh yeah ... just had to include that "fair share" phrase in there. A real favorite for Democrats. It means nothing, but the great unwashed really like it.

I hope that you noticed three particular parts of this letter. First of all, the fact that revenues from this government-created carbon market will go towards protecting species that are threatened by global warming. Why do you think the environmentalists were so insistent on declaring polar bears a threatened species due to global warming, even while their numbers are increasing? That would be because now they will have a steady source of income in which to fuel their efforts! Also, this government-created carbon market will be used to aid other countries. Here we go with the wealth redistribution - carbon revenues from companies in the United States would be collected and redistributed to "provide support" to developing nations. And if #6 on this list doesn't convince you .. then you don't know your head from a hole in the ground.



http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html

Sorry Jules, I'd buy it if he weren't as bad as the people he's "fighting" against. He just comes off as being snarky and not willing to listen. He's just cherry picking his idea of the worst parts.

Quote:

---

5. Use revenues from the carbon market to:

- Keep consumers whole as our nation transitions to clean energy;

- Invest in clean energy technologies and energy efficiency measures;

- Assist states, localities and tribes in addressing and adapting to global warming impacts;

- Assist workers, businesses and communities, including manufacturing states, in the transition to a clean energy economy;

- Support efforts to conserve wildlife and natural systems threatened by global warming; and

-Work with the international community, including faith leaders, to provide support to developing nations in responding and adapting to global warming. In addition to other benefits, these actions will help avoid the threats to international stability and national security posed by global warming.

---

If, and thats a big if these days with the current politician stock, they use the money to support some of those ideals, such as converting our power grid to a non-oil based one and conservation, it would be money well spent IMO. The conservation aspect I support due to the educational aspect of it. The the change over from oil/coal power will only make our country more self sufficient by further building our infrastructure. However, left to our own devices, I don't believe the populace is willing to do it on it's own, we need the government to set the tone, and lead.

Anyone who can't see this is heavily money driven is either an ostrich or has succombed to this new found religion. Excuse me if that sounds snarky.

Quote:

---

6. Ensure a level global playing field, by providing incentives for emission reductions....

---

So, we're going to rob our own businesses to provide incentives to foreigners?

plant life on Earth and climate have always had a relationship

just not enough for the majority of dawgtalkers, at least not a strong relationship for this particular conversation.

not enough forcing.

54% Say Media Hype Global Warming Dangers
Friday, February 06, 2009

More bad news for the media.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. Only 21% say the media present an accurate picture, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Thirteen percent (13%) think the media make climate change appear to be better than it truly is. Twelve percent (12%) don’t have an opinion.

No wonder 23% say it is at least somewhat likely that global warming will destroy human civilization within the next century.
Common to all surveys about the media, Republicans are more critical than Democrats.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of GOP voters say the media paints a darker picture of global warming that the reality merits, and 63% of voters not affiliated with either party agree. Democrats, however, are much more closely divided: 27% say the media make it look worse than it is, 22% better, and 34% say they present an accurate picture.

Men are more skeptical about media coverage of global warming than women. Younger voters question it more than their elders.

Whites are more than twice as likely as African-Americans to say the media make global warming look worse than it is.

One beneficiary of positive media coverage is former Vice President Al Gore who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-global warming efforts. But only 36% of voters believe he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the environment and global warming.

Still, 64% of voters think global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 41% saying it is Very Serious. These numbers are down slightly from earlier surveys.

But voters are shifting away from the idea promoted by Gore and others that human activity is the cause of global warming and are viewing it instead more as the result of long-term planetary trends.

The majority perception that the media aren’t playing it straight with global warming matches similar Rasmussen Reports surveys last year in which doubts were raised about news coverage of the presidential campaign and the problems in the economy. Public unhappiness with this coverage comes at a time when newspapers, magazines and broadcast media are all dramatically downsizing, thanks to shrinking audiences and advertising revenues.

In a survey in mid-November, 46% of Americans said most reporters and media outlets try to make the economy seem worse than it really is. This was a slight improvement from July, however, when 50% said the media was guilty of painting a worse economic picture than the facts merited.

Just before last November’s election, 68% of voters said most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 51% believed they were trying to help Democrat Barack Obama. Just seven percent (7%) thought they were trying to help his Republican opponent, John McCain.

The number of those suspecting a media tilt toward Obama had grown since June when just 44% believed reporters would try to help him get elected. At that time 13% thought they would work for McCain’s benefit.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...warming_dangers

It's hard for me to take "Climate Change" people serious when they spout stupid stuff. I was watching a rerun of Monster Quest last night and they brought up climate change as a possibility for the reason that Greenland Sharks are moving up rivers and near the shore.

The thing that makes this so silly is that Greenland sharks are thought to be deep water fish that live in the frigid temps under the ice caps. Why would warming waters force them to go in shallower water where it is not as cold?

The real reason did come out..."Maybe they have been here all along."