Austraila wildfire proves climate change is anythng but a hoax

No all it showed was that they watched Fox and ere willing to swallow large doses of misinformation

 

No. Most did not watch fox exclusively and the average of all the republicans was higher than all the democrats.

 

being against propaganda it is not being triggered. And her act is a fraud.

people that want to use climate change in order to subvert due process make it into a political issue.

Even if global warming wasn't occurring, technology regarding solar panels, wind generated electricity, and more efficient vehicles would be good ideas.

Pushing them politically is political. The green New deal is strictly political. And it is unacceptable.

false claims are propaganda therefore it's a political issue. There aren't more hurricanes the hurricanes aren't more powerful. and they aren't occurring with any higher frequency than they ever have. Further I'm not so sure man has any control over that.

talk is cheap if that's all you're impressed by then I'm the greenest of the greenie weenie that ever existed.

arson coupled with drought absolutely is the cause of it that's proven there's nobody arguing that. They made over a hundred arrests for arson. Droughts have been something humans have dealt with for thousands of years. They're not uncommon. They predate the industrial revolution.

Further if China does commit to preventing climate change Australia will become a third world country. 100 billion dollars of their economy The Lion share, is they're because of coal and iron.

when your economy is built on one or two industries you cannot let that industry fail. Look at Venezuela.

but it doesn't though. A drought in Australia is Not unusual. your husband routes in many places throughout all of recorded history. And when arsonists set fire to underbrush during a drought fires absolutely can't be that devastating.

So you want America to control the world and be the imperial overlord? It is not in our hands to control climate change. If we went to zero emissions tomorrow is in every animal stops breathing tomorrow it won't make a dime's worth of difference

 

You seem to be doing the Conservative Two Step. You keep insisting that there was a study that showed conservatives to be better informed than liberals. Having repeatedly, for many years, been hearing conservatives espouse things that are outside of reality, I find such an assertion to be quite unbelievable.

So I searched the internet. I found dozens of sites that repeated your assertions. All of them referenced a Pew Research report but done of them linked to it. Any links were to other web sites that parroted the same story. All right wing sites. When I went to the Pew website, I could find no such study.

However, you did provide a link. But that particular link was to a different study. One that asked if certain statements were fact or opinion. Even though Republicans tended to score higher, the report did notice that some Democrats tended to rate false facts as opinion.

I did find lots of actual polls from places like Pew and Gallop that showed college educated people were significantly more informed than non college educated people. It seemed the consensus was that out of a possible 100, the college educated averaged around 80 while the non college educated averaged around 55. A divide that I would whole heartedly agree with.

 

I have no idea what all that was supposed to prove.

There were nine straight forward questions on events of the previous week. They were not opinion questions. They were straight fact questions. Republicans answered every question correctly more often than democrats. You can also take some of the tables and go through the calculations and republicans scored higher on average. I have seen no study which shows democrats are better informed.

 

Know what gets me? When a climate change denier uses local weather to point out that the worlds climate isn't changing and those that promote climate change say "local weather does not show whether there is climate change, you have to look at the WHOLE world and not just localized areas".....And then a climate change promoter comes along and says "LOOK! Australia's wild fires PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE!" or "LOOK! These hurricanes in the South East PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE!"

And note: This comes from someone that does believe that humankind does have an effect on the climate. But you all aren't helping your case any when you say one thing and then turn around and say another thing and those two things are in direct opposition to each other. Stick to something will ya. It will make it much harder for climate deniers to refute you.

Besides, the wildfires in Australia were caused by humans. Not Nature. That's not proof of climate change, that's proof that some people are stupid pyromaniacs.

 

Why is it that there is just one referenced study done in 2012? Surely if this was an obvious fact, would it not be revealed in more places. And if you look at the statistics that you quote, it is not significant issues. Like one of the questions was about the economic engine of North Dakota. More Republicans knew it was fracking. But it may be that it is an issue that conservatives are always crying about. Oil is a conservative issue. Like new technology is a liberal thing. In any case, most questions neither group scored better than 50%. I’m not sure what you are bragging about.

You should look for polls that show Trump supporters to be horribly misinformed. Especially in things like global warming.

 

I have no idea why there was only one study done in 2012. I have no idea what you are talking about the economic engine in North Dakota. There was one about the Keystone pipeline. Generally the issue was whether it was a safe.

 

You are saying that because on one day in 2012 more Republican identifying people answered 10 random questions than Democratic identifying people proves for all time that Republicans are better informed. A third of of Republicans still question Obama’s place of birth.

The thing that I always wonder, is if the misinformation is through ignorance, guile, or malice.

You have to know that Trump did what he did and the truth will eventually come out. You can deny that fossil fuel burning is warming the planet, and you can pretend that Trump has a coherent foreign policy. You can look the other way as Trump cozies up with Russians, even adopting their propaganda as his own. But the hard fact that he got caught soliciting a foreign government to assist him in his re-election bid is not going to go away.

 

We repeatedly hear about how democrats are smarter than republicans with no proof whatsoever. I found that it was wrong. Show me your poll.

 

https://thenextweb.com/media/2018/1...-likely-to-believe-political-falsehoods-poll/

By the way I primarily get my news from NPR.

 

Yeah, 25 years and still not a shred of credible evidence that we influence the climate in any way.Ever since Michael Mann’s fantasy “hockey stick” temperature graph was thoroughly discredited and since Climategate outed institutional scale phony climate data a decade ago, the existence of actual global warming has been rendered null. The same is true for the impact of CO2 on climate. No experiment can confirm its impact, models can’t predict its influence and collateral data (sea level, animal populations etc.) do not confirm a correlation. None of the narrative is based on objective science. It is a massive hoax and maybe the biggest con job in history. All the classic elements of a con job are present; the victim (mostly liberals and other virtue signalers), the play (appeal to environmental issues), the rope (emotional foundation and persuasion – the world is coming to an end), the convincer (the way it will work to your benefit – eliminate carbon and all is well) and so on. The dangled payoff is saving the world. As in all con jobs, the con artist gets what he wants and the mark gets nothing.

 

I get my news from multiple sources including NPR. But none of that has a thing to do with the fact that republicans beat the pants off the democrats in that study.

 

Why don’t you lead the way?

 

Still amazes me that the authors did not come to the same conclusion you did

 

Actually it wasn’t

I was another Benghazi - lots and lots of republicans screaming there Apia’s a misdeed multiple investigations proving no wrongdoing

And it has since been independently verified

 

The authors did not address the relative performance of the democrats and republicans. They only analyzed the impact of news sources.

I could give you a very long list of articles disputing AGW. But, what is the point? I suspect I am already more familiar with the subject than you are.

 

That sounds nice but who verifies the verifiers???

 

What makes you think that we don't affect the weather? We're cutting down hundreds of acres of trees every year alone. Trees that convert CO2 to O2. And we put tonnes of CO2 into the air every year. 7.7 billion people on a planet, 90% use some form of technology that at one point or another put CO2 into the air in either being made or used or both. Do you really think that we DON'T have some sort of negative impact?

 

I have given this speech many times. Man does affect the weather, It would be impossible not to. Most likely that affect is to increase the temperature because there is virtually no way we could cause a reduction in temperature. The issue is not climate change. The climate changes continuously. The issues are: How much influence has man made had? How much can we change that influence? And how accurately can we forecast those changes? We really do not understand any of the three questions.

 

Peer review

Now Bower sits back to watch with amusement the attempts to build a conspiracy theory that takes in every major academic facility, every meteorology department, every tinpot denialists on the web all at once

 

No he does not affect the weather and no one is suggesting that

He can and has affected the climate

Learn the difference



You know if you had actually read the IPCC reports you would know these answers

 

Please do

I am betting most will either not be peer reviewed, be published in the much discredited “energy and environment” or have been written by one of a shrinking number of denialists scientists most of whom are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry

 

Masterful summation my friend

 

Suppose there were a number of conservative scientists with "evidence" that climate change is not influence by human activity and their findings were validated by their peers would you trust that consensus? Remember it was leftist kooks that invented this "crisis" and it's only supported by other's of the left why would anyone trust something so obviously biased? Pretty pictures and colorful graphs are not evidence of anything BTW.