Down to 57% of Americans, bad news for Algore

[TFG]

The FRAUD of Global non-Warming relies on cherry picking data, outright lies, a religious-like fervor of some greens, pure censorship of data refuting The FRAUD, and absolute demonization of those who would question The FRAUD. Alas, as the years go by and the planet doesn't warm, some begin to notice, and some repeatedly called "insane" or "oil funded" on boards all over the globe suddenly become popular. According to Pew, only 57% of Americans still think the planet is warming. That's way down from the 80% plus that has held since the mid 1990s.




http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/poll-americans-belief-in-169483.html

"The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People&the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer"

"That's down from 77 percent in 2006."



:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:




And indeed, an AP article on The FRAUD would not be complete without a blizzard of lies supporting THE FRAUD...




"mounting scientific evidence of climate change — from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer"

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........


We've been through this. Arctic ice has grown since 2007. Antarctic ice set its all time record in 2007. There has been precisely NO NET ICE MELT on Planet Earth for the duration of the FRAUD of Global non-Warming. And a "monthly high" in ocean readings is still part of a flat line that goes up and down and has not broken out at all. Ocean temps have not warmed at all for the past 50+ years, and that is why THE FRAUD has to frame it that way. If they could say "the oceans have warmed" they would. They can't. They can only cherry pick one month from a 50 year FLAT LINE CHART that goes up and down a bit.

[wild1]

That's quite a decline.

[TFG]

That's quite a decline.




The UK has actually been under 50% for some time. A "TFG" clone was on the BBC boards in 2004, and a pretty silent board became "too hot to handle" as raw data was linked and people started looking. Eventually, the BBC, which loves The FRAUD, shut that board down completely. It is easy to refute "the ice is melting" when 90% of the world's ice is in one neat compact place... and it has been growing.

Those who still believe are the ones most clueless about science, and are totally certain what they parrot from "their news sources" is true. Similar to the Cheney supporters on the "other side" of the US political question -

WHICH FORM OF SOCIALISM DO YOU SUPPORT, TRADITIONAL OR BIBLE THUMPING?

[Mile High Mania]

Better go count the polar bears...

[TFG]

Better go count the polar bears...



http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/


"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

[stevieray]

"today's forecast is a record low for this time of year....

this afternoon..look for 75% chance of BS, with some scattered reality throughout the evening."

"now to sports...vick gets cold shoulder"

[Velvet_Jones]

My father-in-law in Custer South Dakota has had 18 inches of global warming so far in October.

[Brock]

57 percent of the population are idiots, that's probably about right.

[frazod]

57 percent of the population are idiots, that's probably about right.

It's certainly higher than that, but you have to be a complete moron to believe in global warming.

[wild1]

My father-in-law in Custer South Dakota has had 18 inches of global warming so far in October.

We've not had the depth, but we have had 3 or 4 days of global warming accumulation as well.

The last time this talk happened here, someone came by to let us know all the global cooling was because of global warming, so I'm sure we just need to be straightened out.

[bkkcoh]

We've not had the depth, but we have had 3 or 4 days of global warming accumulation as well.

The last time this talk happened here, someone came by to let us know all the global cooling was because of global warming, so I'm sure we just need to be straightened out.

But doesn't it all average out?

[HonestChieffan]

Save the planet: time to eat dog?

http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e588340120a669d3c7970c-320wi



By TANYA KATTERNS - The Dominion Post Last updated 05:00 22/10/

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.

"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.

"The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."

Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options.

Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breederwho once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was "over the top".

Ad Feedback "I think we need animals because they are a positive in our society. We can all make little changes to reduce carbon footprints but without pointing the finger at pets, which are part of family networks."

Owning rabbits is legal anywhere. Local bodies allow chickens, with some restrictions.

YOUR PET'S MARK

The eco-footprints of the family pet each year as calculated by the Vales:

German shepherds: 1.1 hectares, compared with 0.41ha for a large SUV.

Cats: 0.15ha (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf). Hamsters: 0.014ha (two of them equate to a medium-sized plasma TV).

Goldfish: 0.00034ha (an eco-finprint equal to two cellphones).

Algore: He is way bigger than a German Shepard
http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e588340120a6132743970b-320wi

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog

[BucEyedPea]

That's quite a decline.

It shows, however, how many people will believe the MSN when something appears to have a consensus but never really did.