Posted on 12/12/2014 3:29:27 AM PST by wtd
"Six in 10 Americans, including half of all Republicans, said they support regulation of carbon dioxide pollution, although they weren't asked how. Nearly half of Republicans said the U.S. should lead the global fight to curb climate change, even if it means taking action when other countries do not. And majorities across party lines said environmental protections "improve economic growth and provide new jobs" in the long run, a popular Obama administration talking point."
[snip]
The AP-NORC Center survey of 1,578 adults was conducted online Nov. 20-Dec. 1, using a sample drawn from GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I also find it funny that sample polling by Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung (GfK) could ever be designed to be “representative of the US population” in any capacity.
I back carbon limits for China.During my several visits there (a couple having occurred in the last couple of years) I can report that the air there,even on the clearest day you’ll see,is so disgustingly dirty as to be absolutely inexcusable.The best day I’ve seen there has been far,*far* worse than the worst day I’ve ever seen in LA,NYC,London,Germany or Japan.
[ NRC (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change . National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.] Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming. The historical record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.
Do you see the words in bold? This means they do not have any proof. If there was definite evidence humans are causing climate change the "scientists" would use definitive words. Indications and likelihoods are not facts.
Does one say "It is likely the sky is blue."? No. We can see the sky is blue and use definite speech to declare it.
Does one say, "My studies indicate when I add 4 cups of sugar to a quart of water it will taste very sweet."?
No again, because we have clear evidence adding sugar to water makes the water sweet. We do not use "indicate" or "suggest" or "it is likely" when the facts are clear.
Do not be fooled by the global warming buffoons. I am certain there is a long term goal in mind, most certainly the result being a loss of freedom, a loss of constitutional rights such as: "You exhaled the pollutant carbon when you used that speech, so to avoid pollution you must not use that type of speech anymore."
I know that sounds utterly stupid but that is the kind of stupidity coming from the liberals these days.
Something stupid and hateful towards our freedom is on the way if we do not stop the AGW garbage soon, mark my words.
I could be wrong,but I believe there is much evidence to show that the largest “climate changes” occurred before the Industrial Revolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.