I think it might be more reasonable to ask why Gallup phrased the question like that. You could be deeply concerned about all of those issues and still not 'worry ... a great deal' or even a 'fair amount' about any of them.
It's still stupid. Linking climate change with prostitution is extremely stupid.
Global warming is way overblown, not because I think it can be a threat, but because alternative energy will accelerate in a parabolic curve and solve that problem within a generation.
The damage is already being done and has been for some time with little meaningful action.
Let me guess, Iwog is still going to claim he won the argument.
And with good reason.
Bigs, where are you???
What do you want me to say? Americans worry the least (from a short list) about an environmental issue with a scientific consensus that will have enormous implications for the planet... and what? You're proud of that?
Nope I don't know the particulars of that time frame. But to post one graph and proclaim that it explains the entirety of slavery at that time is absurd.
Let me guess, you're still going to claim you won the argument.
And again, how does that invalidate a body of work so large and so overwhelmingly one-sided that it is now almost entirely left to people with no actual awareness of the science involved to try to contradict the findings? There isn't an equivalence between that and the examples you quote. The people you mention were proposing new ideas that advanced prevailing knowledge. That is not what the tiny handful of climate change sceptics are doing. They are simply denying the data. And based on what? Where is their solid body of research?
I usually do, which is more than I can say for you mutts.
You do? Hmmm... You seem to make a real habit of starting a paragraph with a few of your own words and then copying the work of someone else verbatim thereafter (minus the acknowledgement of course). Your last two comments are perfect examples.
And what is it with you and your mutt comments?
No just the process.
Except it doesn't invalidate the process. Look around you.
You really should give credit for your copy and paste comments.
Dan, prostitution due to poverty is a fact, especially in 3rd world countries. The reasoning Barbara Lee uses is still stupidity beyond belief, and i'll tell you why.
Poverty is caused by a million different reasons. Lack of education, stupidity, natural disasters, fire, car accidents, death in the family. A lightning strike on a bread winner can cause poverty, so what are we gonna do about it? There is no one more concerned about pollution, and more supportive of alternative energy than me, but let's use the right logic and common sense in solving our problems. Prostitution due to poverty, which is due to climate change, which could happen way out in the future is far fetched and silly. If her goal is to end prostitution, it's not gonna end by controlling the climate.
I would add stupid politicians that waste our money cause the most poverty. Let's get rid of them starting with the most stupid of all - Barbara Lee.
Did you actually read the resolution? This is the summary:
Recognizes: (1) the disparate impacts of climate change on women and the efforts of women globally to address it, and (2) the need for balanced participation of men and women in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts.
Encourages the use of gender-sensitive frameworks in developing climate change policies.
Affirms Congress's commitment to: (1) support women who are particularly vulnerable to prepare for and adapt to climate change impacts, including a commitment to increase education and training opportunities for women to develop local resilience plans to address the effects of climate change; (2) empower women in the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of climate change strategies; and (3) include women in economic development planning, policies, and practices that directly improve conditions that result from climate change.
Encourages the President to: (1) integrate a gender approach in all U.S. policies and programs that are globally related to climate change, and (2) ensure that those policies and programs support women globally to prepare for and adapt to climate change.
And the full text doesn't quite have the thrust that Breitbart's headline aims for (and for very obvious political reasons).
Women in todays world are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. They are more educated, and make better managers. I wonder if Barbara Lee has an IQ better than my dog.
You make it sound like all women's circumstances are equivalent across the globe.
Did you watch the video? He said the arguments of both the right wing AND the left wing are wrong.
Yes, and the solution he proposed, which was empirically proven to work by Portugal is to decriminalize all drugs and redirect the money wasted on the War on Drugs to social help to reintegrate drug addicts into society.
That comment was directed at Curious as his response seemed to indicate that he hadn't even watched the video (which his subsequent response then confirmed).
How do you explain the articles I linked to and the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed articles that contradict your claims? Posting up that stupid little graph is moronic in the extreme in the face of scientific consensus (not to mention that you keep omitting the end of that graph... why is that? Oh yeah, you're a trolling imbecile). Oh, and sorry me, I forgot, you didn't answer that question about the scientific consensus. You first...
And interestingly enough, I'm not a heart surgeon, so I don't operate on hearts. I'm not an architect, so I don't design buildings. Why is it that I should be the one to explain the problems with your graph (problems that I'm sure you are fully aware of but that wouldn't be good to mention for your trolling purposes)? But hey, feel free to point out the errors in this:
I'm not sure what purpose that giant cut and paste job has Cap'n, but are you trying to say that that somehow invalidates tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles?
By who, Dan??
Ha Ha Ha...
Type the petition name into the internet...
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.....
Thank you. You just demonstrated my point. 39 climatologists.
I'm done with your trolling... I hope you got your post count up for today!!
Yeah, you're certainly adding to your trolling count.
I take it that you have, of course, not even got round to clicking on these links let alone read them:
Is it possible that there is more than ONE contrary article published? Any possibility that the 31,000 scientists that reviewed and signed the petition above have done their own research written their own contrary articles?
Nah, not possible...
Then link them, but seeing how few on that list actually have a background in climatology, we may be waiting some time.
And you still haven't answered my earlier question. Is there or is there not a scientific consensus on this issue?
Try this, but I know you won't read it..
You've posted that up numerous times before. It's strange that the thing you keep referencing has been widely debunked. Remind us all how many people on that list actually have a background in climatology.
And what about those two articles I linked? Have fun reading those.
What fucking survey.. He read a a bunch of cherry-picked articles and posted his opinion... What the fuck is wrong with you???
Except you haven't demonstrated that he cherry-picked anything. He clearly states what he did and what he did wasn't cherry-picking.
The guy studies ROCKS, you're going to base the whole scientific Global Warming Hoax on the opinion of ONE guy but refuse to read a peer-reviewed research article showing that it's false, which was reviewed by 31,000 other scientists??
So what? It isn't his research on anthropogenic climate change that is being held up. He simply ran a search. And how about those two other articles?
What do you think scientists reputations are built on?
Keeping their gravy train and funding rolling in....
Do you understand what peer-reviewed means? Do you understand that a scientist who carries out research that goes against the norm and is proven to be correct will be the scientist who makes a real name for himself with all that that entails?
Anyway, you obviously didn't like the Powell survey, so why don't you read these two articles?
What do you think scientists reputations are built on?
No, just YOU are...
I notice you haven't made any attempt at trying to disprove the contents of his survey...
The internet created Global warming. Careers can be destroyed instantly in real time if your ideas, vary the slightest from the establishment.
All you are I tweet.
Utter nonsense. What do you think scientists reputations are built on?
If I got paid what Neil De Grasse Tyson get's paid to sing chicken little, I would say the moon is going to crash into the earth and it's all because people smoke ciggarettes.
Oh, OK, and what about all those scientists in the related fields?
Nice job again Bigs!!! Your sources are just as good as Dans....
Oh, no, a copy and paste error. Whatever next? But seeing as you find his survey totally irrelevant, what does it matter? Just get back to posting your links to that ridiculous petition.
But here you go anyway:
And whilst you are at it, why not read this:
I just posted it for you, but just like I predicted, you didn't read it..
I know you are a trolling idiot, but that isn't considered a scientific consensus, is it?