Public interest in climate change unshaken by scandal, but unstirred by science

May 20, 2014
Princeton University and University of Oxford researchers found that negative media reports seem to have only a passing effect on public opinion, but that positive stories don't appear to possess much staying power, either. Measured by how often people worldwide scour the Internet for information related to climate change, overall public interest in the topic has steadily waned since 2007. To gauge public interest, the researchers used Google Trends to document the Internet search-engine activity for "global warming" (blue line) and "climate change" (red line) from 2004 to 2013. They examined activity both globally (top) and in the United States (bottom). The numbers on the left indicate how often people looked up each term based on its percentage of the maximum search volume at any given point in time. Credit: William Anderegg

The good news for any passionate supporter of climate-change science is that negative media reports seem to have only a passing effect on public opinion, according to Princeton University and University of Oxford researchers. The bad news is that positive stories don't appear to possess much staying power, either. This dynamic suggests that climate scientists should reexamine how to effectively and more regularly engage the public, the researchers write.

Measured by how often people worldwide scour the Internet for information related to climate change, overall public interest in the topic has steadily waned since 2007, according to a report in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Yet, the downturn in public interest does not seem tied to any particular negative publicity regarding climate-change science, which is what the researchers primarily wanted to gauge.

First author William Anderegg, a postdoctoral research associate in the Princeton Environmental Institute who studies communication and climate change, and Gregory Goldsmith, a postdoctoral researcher at Oxford's Environmental Change Institute, specifically looked into the effect on public interest and opinion of two widely reported, almost simultaneous events.

The first involved the November 2009 hacking of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, which has been a preeminent source of data confirming human-driven climate change. Known as "climategate," this event was initially trumpeted as proving that dissenting scientific views related to climate change have been maliciously quashed. Thorough investigations later declared that no misconduct took place.

The second event was the revelation in late 2009 that an error in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—an organization under the auspices of the United Nations that periodically evaluates the science and impacts of climate change—overestimated how quickly glaciers in the Himalayas would melt.

To first get a general sense of public interest in climate change, Anderegg and Goldsmith combed the freely available database Google Trends for "global warming," "climate change" and all related terms that people around the world searched for between 2004 and 2013. The researchers documented search trends in English, Chinese and Spanish, which are the top three languages on the Internet. Google Trends receives more than 80 percent of the world's Internet search-engine activity, and it is increasingly called upon for research in economics, political science and public health.

The researchers found that searchers for the phrase "global warming hoax" and related terms correlate in the United States with Republican or conservative political leanings. They compared the prevalence of searches for "global warming hoax" with the Cook Partisan Voting Index -- which gauges how far toward Republicans or Democrats a congressional district leans -- for 34 US states (above). They found that the more Republican/conservative the state (bottom measurement), the more frequently people in that state looked up related terms. The bottom graph shows how often a state votes Democrat (low numbers) versus Republican (high numbers). The numbers on the left indicate how often people looked up "global warming hoax" based on its percentage of the maximum search volume at any given point in time. Credit: William Anderegg

Internet searches related to climate change began to climb following the 2006 release of the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" starring former vice president Al Gore, and continued its ascent with the release of the IPCC's fourth report, the researchers found.

Anderegg and Goldsmith specifically viewed searches for "climategate" between Nov. 1 and Dec. 31, 2009. They found that the search trend had a six-day "half-life," meaning that search frequency dropped by 50 percent every six days. After 22 days, the number of searches for climategate was a mere 10 percent of its peak. Information about climategate was most sought in the United States, Canada and Australia, while the cities with the most searchers were Toronto, London and Washington, D.C.

The researchers tracked the popularity of the term "global warming hoax" to gauge the overall negative effect of climategate and the IPCC error on how the public perceives climate change. They found that searches for the term were actually higher the year before the events than during the year afterward.

"The search volume quickly returns to the same level as before the incident," Goldsmith said. "This suggests no long-term change in the level of climate-change skepticism.

We found that intense media coverage of an event such as 'climategate' was followed by bursts of public interest, but these bursts were short-lived."

All of this is to say that moments of great consternation for seem to barely register in the public consciousness, Anderegg said. The study notes that independent polling data also indicate that these events had very little effect on American . "There's a lot of handwringing among scientists, and a belief that these events permanently damaged public trust. What these results suggest is that that's just not true," Anderegg said.

While that's good in a sense, Anderegg said, his and Goldsmith's results also suggest that climate change as a whole does not top the list of gripping public topics. For instance, he said, climategate had the same Internet half-life as the public fallout from pro-golfer Tiger Woods' extramarital affair, which happened around the same (but received far more searches).

A public with little interest in climate change is unlikely to push for policies that actually address the problem, Anderegg said. He and Goldsmith suggest communicating in terms familiar to the public rather than to scientists. For example, their findings suggest that most people still identify with the term "" instead of "climate change," though the shift toward embracing the more scientific term is clear.

"If in climate change is falling, it may be more difficult to muster public concern to address ," Anderegg said. "This long-term trend of declining interest is worrying and something I hope we can address soon."

One outcome of the research might be to shift scientists' focus away from battling short-lived, so-called scandals, said Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton's Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs. The study should remind climate scientists that every little misstep or controversy does not make or break the public's confidence in their work, he said. Oppenheimer, who was not involved in the study, is a long-time participant in the IPCC and an author of the Fifth Assessment Report being released this year in sections.

"This is an important study because it puts scientists' concerns about climate skepticism in perspective," Oppenheimer said. "While scientists should maintain the aspirational goal of their work being error-free, they should be less distracted by concerns that a few missteps will seriously influence attitudes in the general public, which by-and-large has never heard of these episodes."

Explore further: Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public

More information: Anderegg, William R. L., Gregory R. Goldsmith. 2014. Public interest in climate change over the past decade and the effects of the 'climategate' media event. Environmental Research Letters. Article published online May 20, 2014.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Research team studies 'regime shifts' in ecosystems

2 hours ago

The prehistory of major ecological shifts spanning multiple millennia can be read in the fine print of microscopic algae, according to a new study led by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

New policymaking tool for shift to renewable energy

6 hours ago

Multiple pathways exist to a low greenhouse gas future, all involving increased efficiency and a dramatic shift in energy supply away from fossil fuels. A new tool 'SWITCH' enables policymakers and planners to assess the ...

User comments : 100

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
1.6 / 5 (20) May 20, 2014
"While scientists should maintain the aspirational goal of their work being error-free, they should be less distracted by concerns that a few missteps will seriously influence attitudes in the general public, which by-and-large has never heard of these episodes."
A description of the propaganda plan already implemented by the media. The only place you can read about Lennart Bengtsson's travils is the overseas web.
verkle
1.7 / 5 (23) May 20, 2014
These PR articles are a big turn-off to many people who realize that most of this climate hype is stirred by a continuous purposeful indoctrination, and reject such as not being science.

This is probably why the public concern of climate change is at an all time low:

http://www.climat...up-poll/
aksdad
1.8 / 5 (19) May 20, 2014
positive stories don't appear to possess much staying power, either.

Anyone else notice the irony? In the world of climate alarmists, a "positive" story is one that paints a doomsday scenario.

climate scientists should reexamine how to effectively and more regularly engage the public

Here's a suggestion: apply the scientific method for a change so you're talking about facts, not fables. Physicist Richard Feymann said:

...If it (observations) disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

So far, all the dire scenarios proposed by alarmists are based on computer-generated climate models that have climate sensitivity to CO2 wrong but climate scientists won't publicly admit they've overstated the problem.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) May 20, 2014
"A new Gallup poll released on Monday shows that Americans consider unemployment/jobs, government corruption, and the economy as the three "most important" problems facing the country. Just 3% of those surveyed listed the environment/pollution as America's most important problem. "
http://www.breitb...-Problem

So the hardcore AGWite base has not changed at 3%.
Caliban
4.7 / 5 (13) May 20, 2014
Active concern over AGW is more likely being relegated to "background existential threat" status.

Everyone knows it's there, but what, exactly, are we supposed to do about it?

If the Yoonited States Gubberment itself ain't doing nothing about it, then why should I?

Plus, Glenn Beck says it's a buncha socialist propaganda.

aksdad
2.1 / 5 (19) May 20, 2014
results also suggest that climate change as a whole does not top the list of gripping public topics

Perhaps people have been discovering that the "problem" isn't nearly as dire as the alarmists say. And maybe they're also realizing that "climate change"/"global warming" is really a political subject, not a scientific one. Notice that the "solutions" proposed by alarmists are all government regulations of one form or another, with no thought given to the numerous economic problems resulting from those solutions or consideration for practical alternatives.

The fact that a study was done about climate alarmism's public relations rather than about the science behind their overblown claims speaks volumes about the nature of the "problem".

Ernest Benn identified the real problem a long time ago:

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (14) May 20, 2014
results also suggest that climate change as a whole does not top the list of gripping public topics

Perhaps people have been discovering that the "problem" isn't nearly as dire as the alarmists say. And maybe they're also realizing that "climate change"/"global warming" is really a political subject, not a scientific one. Notice that the "solutions" proposed by alarmists are all government regulations of one form or another, with no thought given to the numerous economic problems resulting from those solutions or consideration for practical alternatives.


And you both forgot

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) May 20, 2014
Rats are leaving the sinking ship:

"On MSNBC Monday night, Rachel Maddow highlighted the phony resignation of Undersecretary of Health Robert Petzel in response to the Veterans Affairs scandal.

Petzel was already scheduled to retire in 2014, and President Obama had already nominated a replacement.

Maddow highlighted the details of Petzel's resignation, pointing out that it was absurd that the White House offered it as a sign of accountability.

"If this was the big accountability moment to make it look like they were canning somebody in charge because that's what everybody was clamoring for, this was not that moment," Maddow said. "
http://www.breitb...ignation

I remember when Obama fellow travelers were praising the VA hospitals as wonderful ex-maples of govt health care.
Govt hospitals, death panels in action.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) May 20, 2014
Politicians are lecturing scientists on AGW:

"Gov Jerry Brown Tells Scientists California Is Epicenter of Global Warming"
http://www.breitb...-Warming

Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (15) May 20, 2014
@rggy

I get my medical care through the VA and I wish everyone could have the same quality of service I've received Same day appointments to see my PCP and quick referrals to see a specialists. Everyone is treated with respect and a caring attitude. Appointments are on time, if my appointment is for 9am that is when I'm seeing the doctor.

My experience with the VA is far superior than anything I've seen outside the system.

If the reports about the problems in Phoenix are even a little bit true it is disgusting but that hasn't been my experience.
aksdad
1.8 / 5 (16) May 20, 2014
For those interested in climate observations and trends rather than wild guesses, blame, and politics:

Global sea level from tide gauges, 1807 to 2001, 1880 to present (see graphs):
http://www.climat...els.html

Global sea level from satellite telemetry, 1993 to present (see graphs):
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Global temperatures from weather station thermometers, 1850 to present (see graphs):
http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

Global temperatures from satellite telemetry, 1979 to present (see graphs):
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

See if you can spot human influence on sea levels or global temperatures. Sea level trends don't appear to be accelerating despite dramatic population growth since 1940.

http://en.wikiped...pulation

Global warming from 1910 to 1940 was about 0.4 C higher than the 40 years prior, and warming from 1970 to 2000 was about 0.6 C higher than the 40 years prior.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) May 20, 2014
For those interested in climate observations and trends rather than wild guesses, blame, and politics:

Global sea level from tide gauges, 1807 to 2001, 1880 to present (see graphs):
http://www.climat...els.html

Global warming from 1910 to 1940 was about 0.4 C higher than the 40 years prior, and warming from 1970 to 2000 was about 0.6 C higher than the 40 years prior.
Those are great, thank you!
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (13) May 21, 2014
For those interested in climate observations and trends rather than wild guesses, blame, and politics:

Global sea level from tide gauges, 1807 to 2001, 1880 to present (see graphs):
http://www.climat...els.html


Why not just a single graph? Notice acceleration of rise after about 1940 vs pre 1940, and even more after ~1990.

Global temperatures from satellite telemetry, 1979 to present (see graphs):
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/


Where's the average/trend graph for the complete series?

Global warming from 1910 to 1940 was about 0.4 C higher than the 40 years prior, and warming from 1970 to 2000 was about 0.6 C higher than the 40 years prior.


See if you can spot human influence on sea levels or global temperatures. Sea level trends don't appear to be accelerating despite dramatic population growth since 1940.


Au contraire, pierre!

Re read my first note interpolated above. Very much accelerating sealevel rise.

Cont.

Caliban
4.6 / 5 (18) May 21, 2014
Contd.

Now do you see how transparently foolish it is to try to cherry-pick "supporting" data for your bullshit takedown of established, peer-reviewed, scientific understanding by trawling through your crackpot/pseudoscience/antiscience denier blogs?

You will inevitably present some(purposefully) lo-res data presentation as proof that AGW is a fake, only to have this "proof" blown up in your face, IN PUBLIC, when someone takes a few seconds to examine it a little more closely than you did.

Sometimes it doesn't even require a closer look --usually, it's something that has already been used for the same purpose, by the same people, and so many times, that it is instantly familiar.

I still have difficulty understanding how it is that you can continue to post bullshit like this.

Don't you feel even a little bit ashamed or embarrassed to have your blatant chicanery exposed like this?
marcush
5 / 5 (10) May 21, 2014
Too few of us have scientific training and too few of us even care about tomorrow let alone 100 years from now. Many reasons. Does not change the outcome.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2014
If the reports about the problems in Phoenix are even a little bit true it is disgusting but that hasn't been my experience.

It's a systemic problem and one you will see. It's the inevitable result of bureaucratic system where the incentives are not patient care but satisfying the system.
And the problem is not just in PHX.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) May 21, 2014
If the reports about the problems in Phoenix are even a little bit true it is disgusting but that hasn't been my experience.

It's a systemic problem and one you will see. It's the inevitable result of bureaucratic system where the incentives are not patient care but satisfying the system.
And the problem is not just in PHX.


http://www.navyti...sfaction
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2014
"If public interest in climate change is falling, it may be more difficult to muster public concern to address climate change," Anderegg said. "This long-term trend of declining interest is worrying and something I hope we can address soon."


Translation- We need to crank up the propaganda even more...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) May 21, 2014
Another example of systemic failure:
"A report that aired on Asheville, NC ABC affiliate WLOS on Tuesday detailed the plight of college student Shelby Higdon, who under ObamaCare was refused medicine because of a gender mix-up within the ObamaCare provider's system, which according to Higdon could not be fixed due to bureaucratic red tape.

"When it was time to get my medicine, they told me that they couldn't give it to me because on my insurance I was registered as a man," Higdon said. "
http://www.breitb...Is-a-Man
Hope the medication wasn't required to save her life.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2014
"Just a couple of years ago, Paul Krugman pointed to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as a "huge policy success story, which offers important lessons for future health reform." He gloated, "yes, this is 'socialized medicine.'""
"a letter touted by Physicians for a National Health Program trumpeted "the success of 22 wealthy countries and our own Department of Veterans Affairs, which use single-payer systems to provide better care for more people at far less cost.""
"How could a bloated government bureaucracy achieve such low-cost success? As we found out recently, it's by quietly sticking veterans on a waiting list and putting off their treatment for months—sometimes until the patients are far too dead to need much in the way of expensive care. "
http://reason.com...zed-meds
supamark23
5 / 5 (12) May 21, 2014
Another example of systemic failure:
"A report that aired on Asheville, NC ABC affiliate WLOS on Tuesday detailed the plight of college student Shelby Higdon, who under ObamaCare was refused medicine because of a gender mix-up within the ObamaCare provider's system, which according to Higdon could not be fixed due to bureaucratic red tape.

"When it was time to get my medicine, they told me that they couldn't give it to me because on my insurance I was registered as a man," Higdon said. "
http://www.breitb...Is-a-Man
Hope the medication wasn't required to save her life.


If you want to be taken seriously, never quote breitbart - it's nothing but a propaganda site (still glad it's founder is dead, he was a real POS).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) May 21, 2014
Breitbart uncovered voter 'liberal' voter fraud by govt funded ACORN that the 'liberal' media would not uncover.
If you want to be taken seriously,

By whom, 'liberals'?
'Liberals' who lie daily about the present regime, and their lies, and climate change to acquire more power while destroying the economy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) May 21, 2014
"Even inside the hospital, he says he was stopped from doing his job – investigating reports of missing drugs from the VA pharmacy. When the amount of a particular drug inside the pharmacy doesn't match the amount that the pharmacy is supposed to have, a report, known as a "discrepancy report" is generated. Normally it was his job to investigate the reports to determine if they were the result of harmless mistakes or criminal activity. But all that changed, he said, about two years ago.

"I was instructed that I was to stop conducting investigations pertaining to controlled substance discrepancies," he recalled.

He said he was personally told to stop investigating them by the hospital's chief of staff, Dr. Vincent DeGennaro.

"I have no idea why," he said. "He's the chief of staff he doesn't have to tell me why.""
http://miami.cbsl...t-abuse/

CBS can be trusted, they tried to elect AlGore.
Caliban
4.7 / 5 (12) May 21, 2014
Breitbart uncovered voter 'liberal' voter fraud by govt funded ACORN that the 'liberal' media would not uncover.
If you want to be taken seriously,

By whom, 'liberals'?
'Liberals' who lie daily about the present regime, and their lies, and climate change to acquire more power while destroying the economy?


When is breitbart.com going to run an expose on your lying liar lies, eh marjon?
You emit more lies per word than Goebbels, you lying filth. I guess that you can take comfort in knowing that you excel at something, at least.

And while you are lying your liar lies, don't forget

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2014
"CNN President Jeff Zucker declared his network would "not going to be shamed" into covering Benghazi and other stories without "real news value" at an awards dinner Monday."
http://dailycalle...enghazi/
The US consulate in Libya was attacked, 4 were killed, including the ambassador, on 9/11/12. No military support was provided during the hours long attack. Clinton and Obama lie about the attack to the families of the dead.
No news value?
No wonder CNN is tanking in the ratings.
"the threat of terrorism is alive and growing more dangerous. That's what the Army general who directed the National Security Agency for eight years until March warns in a new New Yorker interview."
http://news.inves...hief.htm
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (12) May 21, 2014
"CNN President Jeff Zucker declared his network would "not going to be shamed" into covering Benghazi and other stories without "real news value" at an awards dinner Monday."
http://dailycalle...enghazi/
The US consulate in Libya was attacked, 4 were killed, including the ambassador, on 9/11/12. No military support was provided during the hours long attack. Clinton and Obama lie about the attack to the families of the dead.
No news value?
No wonder CNN is tanking in the ratings.
"the threat of terrorism is alive and growing more dangerous. That's what the Army general who directed the National Security Agency for eight years until March warns in a new New Yorker interview."
http://news.inves...hief.htm


You forgot

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) May 21, 2014
"CNN President Jeff Zucker declared his network would "not going to be shamed" into covering Benghazi and other stories without "real news value" at an awards dinner Monday."
http://dailycalle...enghazi/


Err.
Am I missing something?
What's this drivel got to do with climate science?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) May 21, 2014
"What kind of stories? "Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention,
{REALLY? MORE attention?}
that we all talk about," he explained — though he lamented the fact that "when we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience's part."

But there are some stories Zucker is loathe to touch, like the House select committee on Benghazi scandal."
http://dailycalle...enghazi/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2014
"Fresh off promises from CNN boss Jeff Zucker that the channel will pursue more stories on global warming — whether their audience likes it or not — CNN anchor Carol Costello presided over a segment with two religious figures agreeing that to deny climate change is to sin against God."

Read more: http://dailycalle...2OCI1FPy

""Wheel of Fortune" host Pat Sajak had some harsh words for global warming "alarmists" last night. The TV game show host tweeted out that "alarmists" were "unpatriotic racists."

I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.

— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) May 20, 2014"

Read more: http://dailycalle...2OCtI8DD

I bet more watch Wheel of Fortune than CNN and earns much more money.
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (11) May 21, 2014
"Fresh off promises from CNN boss Jeff Zucker [...]CNN anchor Carol Costello presided over a segment with two religious figures agreeing that to deny climate change is to sin against God."

Read more: http://dailycalle...2OCI1FPy

I bet more watch Wheel of Fortune than CNN and earns much more money.


Yet more Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.

What you really need to be shouting is

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

Any old lie will do -just so long as it doesn'r refer to the actual subject matter of the article which you seek to derail any discussion of in this thread.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) May 21, 2014
subject matter of the article

"What kind of stories? "Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention,
{REALLY? MORE attention?}
that we all talk about," he explained — though he lamented the fact that "when we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience's part."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) May 21, 2014
subject matter of the article

"What kind of stories? "Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention,
{REALLY? MORE attention?}
that we all talk about," he explained — though he lamented the fact that "when we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience's part."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


And he is correct, too --how could anyone possibly be interested in the real threat which climate change represents-- after all, there are far more urgent threats to be dealt with, like

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) May 22, 2014
Recall it was CNN that covered up Saddam Husein's atrocities to keep CNN in Baghdad.

Just as the New York Times covered up for Stalin's murder of millions by starvation.

'Liberal' media will lie, cheat and support murder to get what they want.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (6) May 22, 2014
And people still don't see we need to change the conversation....

By all means continue to attempt to convince people that climate change is real while proposing policy that's completely incompetent, impotent, and threatening to the people you want (NEED) on board. Tell me if it's working any better in 10 years when we're baking alive....

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein-

Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (9) May 22, 2014
Caliban, runrig, vietvet, Maggnus, et al.

Would you argue with someone over the color of the sky? Why or why not?

If not, why do you do it constantly here?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) May 22, 2014
Caliban, runrig, vietvet, Maggnus, et al.

Would you argue with someone over the color of the sky? Why or why not?

If not, why do you do it constantly here?

Because otherwise ignorance wins.
Caliban
5 / 5 (13) May 22, 2014
Caliban, runrig, vietvet, Maggnus, et al.

Would you argue with someone over the color of the sky? Why or why not?

If not, why do you do it constantly here?

Because otherwise ignorance wins.


Piezackly.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) May 22, 2014
Caliban, runrig, vietvet, Maggnus, et al.

Would you argue with someone over the color of the sky? Why or why not?

If not, why do you do it constantly here?

Because otherwise ignorance wins.

Stupidity won when AGWites chose socialism as empirical data clearly shows socialist solutions fail and AGWites choose to deny that data.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) May 22, 2014
"Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist famous for his widely debunked book "The Population Bomb," doubled down on his climate change and overpopulation fear-mongering with HuffPost Live on May 21. Ehrlich warned host Josh Zepps that the dangers of overpopulation are growing, blaming Republicans and the media for failing to take action. While hawking a new book called "Hope On Earth," Ehrlich's co-author Michael Tobias praised Ehrlich's older, outrageously wrong predictions and said they underestimated the problem."
http://newsbuster...our-dead
From 2009 through 2010, demoracts controlled Congress and the Executive and could have passed ANY bill.
They chose to pass Obamacare, and do nothing about climate change and population.
Then again, with the VA's death panels, Obamacare death panels and pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, and negative growth policies, they are doing something to kill off the population.
supamark23
4.7 / 5 (14) May 22, 2014
Recall it was CNN that covered up Saddam Husein's atrocities to keep CNN in Baghdad.

Just as the New York Times covered up for Stalin's murder of millions by starvation.

'Liberal' media will lie, cheat and support murder to get what they want.


Oh look, another a-hole who doesn't have a single fact on his side resorts to casting the other side as evil. You are a POS, and a perfect example of what is wrong with scientific discourse today - politicized by ignorant and hateful POS trolls.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) May 22, 2014
The public understands not all of the different factors have been accounted for, such as this;

http://phys.org/n...der.html

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (13) May 22, 2014
Caliban, runrig, vietvet, Maggnus, et al.

Would you argue with someone over the color of the sky? Why or why not?

If not, why do you do it constantly here?

Because otherwise ignorance wins.
@MM
runrig answered before I could but... it also is the ONLY answer, otherwise you get idiot comments like this
Stupidity won when AGWites chose socialism
where the blatantly stupid make claims & blanket accusations without data, proof, evidence, whatever you wish to call it, and then spread this stupidity around just because they think it makes them sound smart.
Given the lack of moderation at the site, it is imperative that people visiting and newbies not jump to the conclusion that only idiots, mindless morons, pseudoscience acolytes or conspiracy theorists post here. It is also to ensure people that reality still exists and the refute know fallacies, as well as support science and everything it stands for.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) May 22, 2014
Proof of socialism is the creation of the IPCC, artificial carbon 'markets', carbon taxes, subsidies and grant to crony socialists for wind, solar, electric cars, .....
Empirical data of the failure of socialist central planning are:
VA health care, Obamacare, 'War of Poverty', New Deal, USSR, Cuba, Zimbabwe, DPRK, DDR, ...............
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) May 22, 2014
Recall it was CNN that covered up Saddam Husein's atrocities to keep CNN in Baghdad.

Just as the New York Times covered up for Stalin's murder of millions by starvation.

'Liberal' media will lie, cheat and support murder to get what they want.


Oh look, another a-hole who doesn't have a single fact on his side resorts to casting the other side as evil. You are a POS, and a perfect example of what is wrong with scientific discourse today - politicized by ignorant and hateful POS trolls.

What facts are not on my side?
I can provide references where CNN admitted to covering up Iraqi atrocities and the NYT covered up for Walter Duranty's covering up Stalin's murders.
Caliban
5 / 5 (9) May 22, 2014
Recall it was CNN that covered up Saddam Husein's atrocities to keep CNN in Baghdad.

Just as the New York Times covered up for Stalin's murder of millions by starvation.

'Liberal' media will lie, cheat and support murder to get what they want.


Oh look, another a-hole who doesn't have a single fact on his side resorts to casting the other side as evil. You are a POS, and a perfect example of what is wrong with scientific discourse today - politicized by ignorant and hateful POS trolls.


What facts are not on my side?
I can provide references where CNN admitted to covering up Iraqi atrocities and the NYT covered up for Walter Duranty's covering up Stalin's murders.


The only fact "on your side" is that some years ago, some poor, long suffering woman was burdened by the birth of a squalling, spotty-bottomed troll.

Which then indecently refused to give up the ghost, even after being repeatedly dropped on the head.

howhot2
5 / 5 (11) May 22, 2014
"A new Gallup poll released on Tuesday showed that Americans consider religious tolerance, republican graft, teaparty stupidity, and the state of the economy post Bush republicanism as the three "most important" problems facing the country. Just 300% of those surveyed listed the environment/pollution as the most important problem."

In the mean time, mankind is on a destiny course with climate change extinction. Have fun young ones!
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2014
Alarmists do go on! LOL
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2014
Sanity from 'liberals'? A broken clock is correct twice a day.

"You know, I think it's a very dicey strategy by Reid. He has actually come out and called the Koch Brothers un-American. Now, that's kind of an absurd thing to say. And it's almost McCarthyite rhetoric. From my vantage point, I think the Democrats have really gone overboard in hammering the Kochs in the way that they have. I'm not sure that this is going to be a very successful election strategy."
http://dailycalle...rothers/
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2014
So ignorance wins if you don't think it's worth spending energy trying to convince someone the sky is blue....

If the position is weak enough in order to perceive the need for defense then it isn't settled yet. I think it is. A WHOLE BUNCH of people didn't believe the world was round not too long ago because of OTHER reasons. Now you can shout at someone about your reasons and continue to ignore theirs and get nowhere or you can talk TO them...not past them.

You're going to have to explain that one to me like I was a three year old because it makes no sense.

EITHER this is settled science and we now need to work on the political conversation or it isn't. Have cake or eat some.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2014
What science is settled?
Modernmystic
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2014
What science is settled?


Well none technically. A whole bunch practically...unless of course you think the world being round, the sky being blue, and the probability that Abraham Lincoln existed dubious enough to debate...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2014
The article is about 'climate change' and MM implies that ALL of climate science is 'settled' or just some bits, or ...?
I agree that climate changes and is changing.
How 'settled' are all the causes of change?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (10) May 23, 2014
Lemme put it to you this way rygg...

I HIGHLY doubt you'd care enough to learn about global warming one way or another unless someone was proposing higher taxes, more regulation of yet another huge sector of the economy, and forcing you to pay for higher energy bills because of inefficient and ultimately insufficient power production.

Tell me I'm wrong.

The ONLY reason you're disputing the science is because of the political ramifications if most people put it in the "sky is blue category"...which I DO, and most people in the world DO. So you'd better START having the other conversation or you're going to be frozen out of it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 23, 2014
No surprise here:
"This election year, Democrat and longtime Congressman John Conyers did not satisfy Michigan election law by getting enough valid signatures on his nomination petitions, so the state ruled he did not qualify for the ballot. Now a federal judge has vacated the state's decision and put Conyers back on the ballot. "
http://www.breitb...y-Ballot
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2014
The ONLY reason you're disputing the science is because of the political ramifications


Everyone should dispute science that is not correct and especially if the bad science is used to make bad law, empower the state, and destroy the integrity of science.

Everyone who values the integrity of science should always be skeptical and should stand up to exaggerated claims that can't be supported with data.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2014
When the science is not trusted people die.
How many have died because they believed celebrities and did not vaccinate their children?
Or starve because of GMO bans?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2014
"Everything You've Heard About The Causes Of Rising Obesity Is Wrong"
"So we are kind of in a dilemma trying to figure out what really contributes to the obesity epidemic. We have a lot of hypotheses but we really don't have much data to support them at this stage."

http://www.scienc...g-136928
la7dfa
5 / 5 (10) May 23, 2014
ryggesogn2: You are either paid for posting your shit, or have a defect in the membrane.

You probably would claim smoking does not give people cancer too.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 23, 2014
"But Los Alamos switched from nonorganic to organic litter for packing waste in 2013, and the theory is that some kind of chemical reaction occurred between waste containing nitrate salts and the new litter. Officials said they are investigating who made the decision to make the switch and what process was followed."
http://www.breitb...ump-leak
I'll bet the switch was the result of some bureaucratic decision to 'go green'.

You probably would claim smoking does not give people cancer too.

Does everyone get cancer?
If not, why not?
One would think smoking anything is unhealthy, yet there is not the same critique for smoking marijuana.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2014
I am not surprised. Socialists must lie.

"Financial Times did some checking on the underlying data which French economist Thomas Piketty used to under-gird his bestselling book. What FT found was a series of errors and unexplained data selections which, taken together, seem to undercut Piketty's main thesis."
http://www.breitb...ity-Data

So why did the AGWites choose the socialist path to 'save the planet'?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (11) May 23, 2014
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2014
How wikipeida perpetuates lies:
"How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark"
http://www.newyor...ark.html
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (11) May 23, 2014
How breitbart.com perpetuates *actual* (i.e. deliberate and malicious) lies:
http://en.wikiped....22_Hoax

How ryggesogn2 perpetuates lies:
http://phys.org
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 24, 2014
Socialist pushes carbon taxes. What a surprise.

"Bernie Sanders Pitches Carbon Tax: No 'Freedom to Destroy the Planet'"
http://www.breitb...e-Planet
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 24, 2014
"Science shows the low-fat diet to be BS, and yet the American Heart Association keeps touting it as the 'heart healthy' choice. Why? The quick answer: money, honey."
" The AHA not only ignored all the other risk factors for heart disease, but it appointed someone with ties to Big Food and bizarre scientific beliefs to lead the guideline-writing panel—just the type of thing that undermines the public's confidence in the medical community."
http://www.thedai...iet.html
Another danger of 'consensus'.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2014
If we, the people of the planet, could drop what we're doing for a day or three, and all insist on a sensible policy based on transparency and verisimilitude, in terms of defining enlightened, collective and collaborative self-governance for the 21st century, even then it would take generations to fully recover from what has been inflicted, and is being inflicted on the societies of the world. I don't honestly know if Rygg is on the payroll or just part of the infliction.

Do you think a worldwide get-together is unrealistic, or utopian? Do you think its naivety? Wishful humanistic thinking? To change the current policy of propaganda and disinformation will require a concerted and vigilant effort on the part of all of us to counter the lies with truth. Most people haven't a clue as to how bad things really are. So here's a clue:
http://www.ihr.or...tti.html
And that's why correction will require everyone on the planet, together.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 24, 2014
Do you think a worldwide get-together is unrealistic, or utopian?

Yes, when imposed.
counter the lies with truth.

Too late. Trust must be earned and AGWites can't be trusted.
correction will require everyone on the planet, together.

Why do the AGWite socialists always want to impose from the top down? Well, because they are socialists and deny human nature.
Free markets and govts that protect private property rights work with the self-interest of human nature.
People who work together, trade together, in there own self-interest created the prosperous economies around the world today.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) May 24, 2014
error
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2014
Yes, when imposed.

Count the number of currently habitable planets in the system. Like it or not, we're all on this planet together. Consider it imposed. Simple physics. Now, are you going to help, or are you gonna keep bashing science?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 24, 2014
we're all on this planet together.

When you choose to use socialist central planning, there will be many fewer people on the planet as the socialist state will murder most.
But then that is what the green communists demand, no?
Funny thing, though, the fertility rate of prosperous, relatively free people is dropping below replacement.
Just what the socialist greens want. Oh, but they aren't being forced to do so by some tyrannical state are they?
Which means Ehrlich and the 'watermelons' are more interested in power and control than 'saving humanity'.
Socialist tyranny destroys an individual's humanity and destroys humans.
zorro6204
1 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
What really interests me is why we view global warming in a negative light. After all, we've been living at the top of a climate plateau these last few thousand years, it's typically been much colder the last few million. Too warm we can handle, yes, some disruption, loss of coastlines and so forth, over the next century we can adjust to that. Glaciers, several miles of ice, that we can not live with!

Every living thing that has dominated the earth affected the climate, we're just the latest. The earth does not stay static. Learn to love global warming, embrace it! It might be preserving our civilization.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
What really interests me is why we view global warming in a negative light.


Dig deeper into who the 'we' are and you will have your answer.
zorro6204
1 / 5 (4) May 25, 2014
Well, both sides do. The conservatives are in denial, and the liberals think it's evil. It's the same ethic that insists every single species of tiny fish must be preserved forever. Nature doesn't work that way.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
The conservatives are in denial,

In denial of what?
I, and many others have said, many, many times that climate has been changing for millions of years.
I know of no 'conservative' that wants to preserve nature. Conserving natural resources is supported by 'conservatives' as natural resources are the source of real wealth.
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
Rygg, when I suggest that the people of the world come together and exercise their collective will to design and implement a policy that respects the sanctity of all life, and fosters growth and prosperity, and is inclusive of all humans, why do you characterize that as Socialism? Then you further equate it with some kind of murderous, top-down tyrannical regime. It's a simple proposal for worldwide democracy at the grass-roots level.

When you say the answer to all the problems is free markets and human nature, how does that differ from the teachings Confucianism? It differs only by adding a central authority to enforce the notion that things like land, methods and ideas can be "owned". And you don't see how that's the true path to tyranny? Rygg, the military-industrial complex has been globalized for over a century now and its only success is perpetuation of its existence using tyrannical propaganda that rewrites history to say it's the only possible way. War isn't growth, it's hell.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.2 / 5 (5) May 25, 2014
Stop arguing with these people and educate them guys. They view this as political, but it's like arguing about the water cycle, it just wastes everyone's time. If we explain, it's about science, as it should be.
Humans are responsible for climate change. Here is an example CO2 cycle:
Atmospheric CO2 get absorbed into plants, where it is then processed into carbohydrates (such as sugars like glucose), releasing the oxygen atom into the atmosphere. The plant dies, carbohydrates enter the ground were they degrade chemically into simpler hydrocarbons, like octane (8 carbon atoms surrounded by hydrogen). Octane is then burned in an engine where it is mixed with oxygen from the atmosphere (fire needs oxygen to burn right?), breaking apart that octane molecule into a bunch of CO2 molecules which are then released back into the atmosphere.
CO2 based climate change comes from a discrepancy in the amount of hydrocarbons being burned vs. the amount of CO2 being put back into the ground.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
when I suggest that the people of the world come together and exercise their collective will to design and implement a policy that respects the sanctity of all life, and fosters growth and prosperity, and is inclusive of all humans, why do you characterize that as Socialism?


You said 'collective'.
Which means a top down, centrally planned policy.

Even better would be be billions of individual solutions implemented from the bottom up.

And, "worldwide democracy "

They view this as political,

The AGWites view this as political. Why else did they choose a political solution?
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2014
when I suggest that the people of the world come together and exercise their collective will to design and implement a policy that respects the sanctity of all life, and fosters growth and prosperity, and is inclusive of all humans, why do you characterize that as Socialism?


You said 'collective'.
Which means a top down, centrally planned policy.

Even better would be be billions of individual solutions implemented from the bottom up.

And, "worldwide democracy "

They view this as political,

The AGWites view this as political. Why else did they choose a political solution?


How very good of you to put words into proto's mouth, rygsuckn'.

We read his comment, and note that you have perverted the sense of his words, and then given them back to him as if they were his.

One expects nothing but filthy little troll tricks from a filthy, spotty-bottomed, lumpy-headed little troll.

In that regard, at least, you never disappoint.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (9) May 26, 2014
The AGWites view this as political. Why else did they choose a political solution?
Because AGW can only be addressed politically. Economics on its own couldn't care less about diffuse externalized damage that slowly accumulates over decades and has repercussions centuries in the future. Economics on its own is only about beating the next quarter's analyst estimates. Economics on its own will opportunistically ravage and rampage, like a virus, until its host is dead.

I know, this runs against your religion. So of course you could never comprehend how "greed is good" was actually intended to be satire (and rather dark satire, at that) -- not a model slogan for neocons to pick up and proudly brandish as their new age ideology...
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2014
Economics on its own couldn't care less about diffuse externalized damage that slowly accumulates over decades


Pinky agrees with Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron who pushed hard for the passage of the Kyoto treaty.

How effective are those top down, socialist solutions?
jackjump
1.6 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
This article is missing the point, anthropogenic global warming is an ex-theory even if you call it climate change or climate disruption:

Cleese: It's not Pausing! It's passed on! This Theory is no more! It is deceased! It has ceased to be! It is on the Other Side! It's off the rails and in the gulch. It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Rigor mortis 'as set in. Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's not lost but gone before! It's six feet under. It's pushin' up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's fallen off its perch! It is at one with the cosmos! It is with Eywa now. It's kicked the bucket, it's handed in its dinner-pail, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain, lined up its 72 virgins, collected its 'arp and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! THIS IS AN EX-THEORY!

Christopher Monckton

http://wattsupwit...e-110149
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
A bottom up economic approach:

"Trumpeting the environmental benefits of a product also holds sway with customers. A promotional video for the European company Carpooling.com, which has moved hitchhiking into the digital age, doesn't emphasize that its participants can save money on gas and tolls; there's a higher purpose. "Oil and natural gas and goal are set to peak and go into decline in the next decade," the video (wrongly) asserts. "With rising energy prices in the back of our minds we either need to find new energy sources or share our resources more efficiently.""
http://reason.com...hy-phr/1
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) May 26, 2014
This article is missing the point, anthropogenic global warming is an ex-theory even if you call it climate change or climate disruption:

Cleese: It's not Pausing! It's passed on! This Theory is no more! It is deceased! It has ceased to be! It is on the Other Side! It's off the rails and in the gulch. It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Rigor mortis 'as set in. Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's not lost but gone before! It's six feet under. It's pushin' up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's fallen off its perch! It is at one with the cosmos! It is with Eywa now. It's kicked the bucket, it's handed in its dinner-pail, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain, lined up its 72 virgins, collected its 'arp and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! THIS IS AN EX-THEORY!

Christopher Monckton

http://wattsupwit...e-110149
Another loon!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2014
... unstirred by SCIENCE.
Now that's a punch line.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
"The EU's chief scientific advisor has admitted that eurocrats twist the way scientific evidence is gathered in order to meet their "political imperative."

Prof Anne Glover, appointed in 2011 to provide the European Commission with independent scientific advice, said in a speech in Brussels that political manoeuvring over evidence has reached into "countless examples" of EU policy, including on the safety of nanoparticles, the impact of biofuels on food prices and chemical substances with hormone-disrupting effects.

She said she found it difficult to disentangle the commission's evidence-gathering processes from what she calls the "political imperative" that is behind them. "
""'What happens at the moment, whether it's in commission, parliament or council, is that time and time again, if people don't like what's being proposed, what they say is that there is something wrong with the evidence."
http://www.breitb...idence-t
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) May 30, 2014
... unstirred by SCIENCE.
Now that's a punch line.
Ya, too bad it needs to be broken down into small words and slowly explained to you before you understand it!

And the resident anti-everything LOON is back it it. You must spend a great deal of your time while in your mom's basement reading up on all that myopic babble. You forget to take your meds again? Your mom is going to be pissed at you!
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
Rygg2 quoted out of context:
"The EU's chief scientific advisor has admitted that eurocrats twist the way scientific evidence is gathered in order to meet their "political imperative."


Did you bother to read the article? She is pointing at the anti-science groups in the EU. That would be your Rygg2. The example at the bottom of the article is about chemical pollution. We all know you want companies to be able to pollute indiscriminately. She is pointing at the anti-science deniers and you are just too dumb to know she was speaking about you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
No, it's not out of context.

"Glover used a fictitious example: "Let's imagine a Commissioner over the weekend thinks, 'Let's ban the use of credit cards in the EU because credit cards lead to personal debt.' So that commissioner will come in on Monday morning and say to his or her Director General, 'Find me the evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.'"

The Commissioner's staff might resist the idea but in the end, she said, "they will do exactly what they're asked" and "find the evidence" to show that credit card use leads to personal debt, even though this may not be the case in reality.

She said that a big challenge for the next European Commission will be to disconnect its evidence gathering processes from the "political imperative" that is driving policy proposals.

http://www.breitb...perative
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
Rygg2: You quote mining little devil. If you could read down toward the bottom of your own article you would see:

"For example, the EU's 2007 REACH policy (Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) generated 36 different impact assessment studies, many from within the chemicals industry warning of the disastrous costs of the policy.
Yet, said Glover, "A final impact study ended up broadly confirming the Commission's original assessment.""

That was not a fictitious example like the only one you wanted to pick out. In fact, your own example shows that she is questioning the bad science that comes from the likes of you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
She is questioning politically motivated 'science'.
Al Gore and other politicians promise billions $$ to 'study' AGW so what do you know, AGW is EVERYWHERE.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
"There are countless examples of topics where EU policymakers have bickered over the evidence, including on the safety of nanoparticles, the impact of biofuel crops over food prices or chemical substances with hormone-disrupting effects.

In fact, the battle over evidence extends far beyond the EU institutions and spills over to the private sector and non-governmental groups trying to influence policy, sometimes with the backing of EU member countries."
"Crucially, Glover says transparency in the evidence-gathering process would be key, so that every stakeholder - whether a citizen, a business, a politician, a scientist – can look at the reasoning that's behind policy proposals. "And that is all doable, it is not a fantasy. It would be quite easy to achieve," she says."
http://www.euract...s-302399
So transparency does not exist for policy proposals now.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
The loon is baiting to seek response and spout its anti-everything lunacy. It does not matter if it posts contradictory quote mines, as it is seeking only the means by which to preach and argue. Pure contrarianism is its goal, nothing more.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
The loon is baiting to seek response and spout its anti-everything lunacy. It does not matter if it posts contradictory quote mines, as it is seeking only the means by which to preach and argue. Pure contrarianism is its goal, nothing more
@Maggnus

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
no matter how much reality, empirical data, studies, proof or even meds you put down her throat, ryggy will continue to post contrarian non-sense
this is similar to the alcoholic feedback response. The alcoholic needs the negative feedback in order to reaffirm the general feeling of inadequacy that is a maker of life an so does ryggy. Ryg needs her negative feedback more than positive feedback... for with the negative, she reaffirms her uselessness and failures and prevent herself from gaining respect, knowledge or further learning
It is a vicious cycle that repeats... you will never see her get better, much like the career criminal. she only gets worse and elaborates more convoluted lies.
RYG=TROLL
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 30, 2014
Here we have eye witness testimony that 'scientists' that work for state 'discover' data that supports whatever the state wants supported.
Ever hear of Lysenko?

Instead of supporting the position of real, objective science, the AGWites here rush to the defense of state supported Lysenkoism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
""As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. "
http://polarbears...d-guess/
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2014
""As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. "
http://polarbears...d-guess/


But what rygsuckn' really means to imply with this quotemining is:

Who really gives a flying flip about Polar Bears, any way, when there's

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
... unstirred by SCIENCE.
Now that's a punch line.
Ya, too bad it needs to be broken down into small words and slowly explained to you before you understand it!

And the resident anti-everything LOON is back it it. You must spend a great deal of your time while in your mom's basement reading up on all that myopic babble. You forget to take your meds again? Your mom is going to be pissed at you!

Oh, did I touch a nerve Magganus. If I had only known that Turds have nerves.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2014
... unstirred by SCIENCE.
Now that's a punch line.
Ya, too bad it needs to be broken down into small words and slowly explained to you before you understand it!

And the resident anti-everything LOON is back it it. You must spend a great deal of your time while in your mom's basement reading up on all that myopic babble. You forget to take your meds again? Your mom is going to be pissed at you!

Oh, did I touch a nerve Magganus. If I had only known that Turds have nerves.


That'll do, auntiegriselda.

Nurse wil be along shortly to change your diaper.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2014
Yes Caliban, the nurse wondered what you were doing in my diaper.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2014
Yes, auntiegriselda, and well she should.

I was involved in a covert diaper consumption audit at the facility where you reside, but she caught on immediately to the fact that It was not auntiegriselda in the diaper --a fact quickly established, since your trollbottom is spotted in typical "unique as a fingerprint" troll fashion.

Nurse does know her auntiegriselda.