Canadian vs. US Attitudes on Climate Change

[waldo]

Canadian vs. US... versus UK attitudes on climate change:

re: recent ICM poll... the UK public's belief in global warming as a man-made danger has not significantly changed since the bogus hackergate denierfest and cold weather of the past two winters.

83% of Britons agreed that climate change is a current or imminent threat, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat. A large majority of people think that humanity is causing climate change, with 68% agreeing and 24% choosing to blame non-man-made factors

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

problem? Are you having a problem with those poll results, hey? One would think that if you have the time/inclination to drop Z's, you would also have the time/inclination to respond to the following repeated request... the one you keep dodging. Is there a problem?

but really, c'mon lukin... is there a problem? Is there a reason you won't/can't simply define your position... why you won't answer the most fundamental (and benign) questions that would allow you to relate, loud and proud, your positions on just a few of the most basic aspects. Again:

hey now lukin! ... this is really the point to get you to define your personal position. Outside of your overt denial, you've never actually qualified that denial, even on the most broadest of levels... just what is your position on AGW proper, on post 1850 warming, on the implications of rising atmospheric CO2... if you're not actually within the fringe of the fringe and you accept there has been significant warming, in the face of your AGW denial, just what do you attribute the warming to? C'mon lukin, inquiring minds need to know. Surely there's more to you than bluster/fluster and insults, hey? What are your positions on the aforementioned?

[lukin]

problem? Are you having a problem with those poll results, hey? One would think that if you have the time/inclination to drop Z's, you would also have the time/inclination to respond to the following repeated request... the one you keep dodging. Is there a problem?

boring...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[GostHacked]

boring...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

And there is my Sunday Morning Laugh ... thanks Lukin!!! That does seem part of the 'Lukin Way' as Waldo likes to trot out. (how do you get the TM thing there??)

[lukin]

And there is my Sunday Morning Laugh ... thanks Lukin!!! That does seem part of the 'Lukin Way' as Waldo likes to trot out. (how do you get the TM thing there??)

GH, you giving me a hard time?

[GostHacked]

GH, you giving me a hard time?

Quite the contrary my good man. I'm laughing WITH you.

[waldo]

and a chucklefest breaks out... apparently, these poll results are not quite to your liking - hey guys?

GostHacked, at least one can relate your misguided position to your complement of posted commentary... we're missing that with lukin, as the lukinWay™ provides his blanket cover from ever having to actually take... and state... a personal position. It's clearly some form of self-protectionism... isolationism... that reflects upon lukin's glaring inability to actually articulate his "thoughts" into any semblance of a cohesive position, one he could in turn support and substantiate without having to resort to his mindless pattern of simply dropping blind links, without commentary, to the wild-assed ramblings of the denialsphere... ala, the lukinWay™. Interesting that he continues to run from such a benign request:

hey now lukin! ... this is really the point to get you to define your personal position. Outside of your overt denial, you've never actually qualified that denial, even on the most broadest of levels... just what is your position on AGW proper, on post 1850 warming, on the implications of rising atmospheric CO2... if you're not actually within the fringe of the fringe and you accept there has been significant warming, in the face of your AGW denial, just what do you attribute the warming to? C'mon lukin, inquiring minds need to know. Surely there's more to you than bluster/fluster and insults, hey? What are your positions on the aforementioned?

[lukin]

and a chucklefest breaks out... apparently, these poll results are not quite to your liking - hey guys?

GostHacked, at least one can relate your misguided position to your complement of posted commentary... we're missing that with lukin, as the lukinWay™ provides his blanket cover from ever having to actually take... and state... a personal position. It's clearly some form of self-protectionism... isolationism... that reflects upon lukin's glaring inability to actually articulate his "thoughts" into any semblance of a cohesive position, one he could in turn support and substantiate without having to resort to his mindless pattern of simply dropping blind links, without commentary, to the wild-assed ramblings of the denialsphere... ala, the lukinWay™. Interesting that he continues to run from such a benign request:

Waldo, can you please refrain from posting until it is closer to my nap time?

Thank you for the attention, you know, your "lukinway' thing. I'm quite flattered by it.

Waldo, you are nothing more than a pimple;and inconvenient blotch.

Edited February 27, 2011 by lukin

[lukin]

Quite the contrary my good man. I'm laughing WITH you.

Yeah I know.

I least I finally found a use for waldo's incoherent babbling.

[bloodyminded]

Yeah I know.

I least I finally found a use for waldo's incoherent babbling.

But Waldo is making an effort at debating the thread topic and its offshoots; and you aren't.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[waldo]

But Waldo is making an effort at debating the thread topic and its offshoots; and you aren't.

of course, it's right out of the denier playbook - a part of a marginalizing strategy... one that purposely refuses to actually debate substance while drawing targets into mindless banter. Certainly, I could (and should) just ignore, 'he who will not define his position', but..... the mocking opportunities are just too enticing.

[lukin]

of course, it's right out of the denier playbook - a part of a marginalizing strategy... one that purposely refuses to actually debate substance while drawing targets into mindless banter. Certainly, I could (and should) just ignore, 'he who will not define his position', but..... the mocking opportunities are just too enticing.

You mean like someone who attacks every single person who writes an article against AGW??

Do you wear a cape, waldo?

[lukin]

But Waldo is making an effort at debating the thread topic and its offshoots; and you aren't.

Don't worry about me, BM.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf

Edited February 27, 2011 by lukin

[GostHacked]

But Waldo is making an effort at debating the thread topic and its offshoots; and you aren't.

The debate stops when he starts calling others idiots, deniers, ect ect ect ... he would do well to prove his point by simply refraining from being an ass. Just my opinion.

[Shady]

CBC

I found it encouraging that 58% of Americans believe the science. The political will to do something is now there, so what will happen ?

That's not what was asked in the poll. The poll asked people if they thought there was any evidence that over the past 40 years, the earth has gotten warmer. That's not the same as what you're suggesting. Why am I not surprised that alarmists are mischaracterizing things yet again. And you wonder why your credibility has been questioned.

[waldo]

no - any semblance of debate stops when, 'your ilk', takes exception to being called on your continued denier bullshit... whereupon you whine and snivel about being called... names! As for your examples, the last time I used the idiot label was Nov 2010 (of course, I just checked)... most certainly I've alluded to, a few times since, the idiocy displayed by certain posters - clearly, you've fallen smartly into that display on several occasions. Do you always use exaggeration to artificially pump up your failed whines?

as for the debate you lament, do you believe the lukinWay™ pattern of posting fosters debate? Just look at the continued sham lukin runs... just look at his last post where he, again (as repeated, over and over and over), drops a totally unrelated link without adding any commentary whatsoever. Of course, enforced moderation would take care of the lukinWay™ posts, as they are a direct challenge to stipulated MLW rules and guidelines on posting content.

you have little interest in actual climate change debate... you're too busy either admonishing others for your perceived slights in putting too much emphasis on CO2 over your favoured want to combat "toxic pollution", or you're beavering down some rat-hole flight of conspiracy fancy. The lukin guy clearly has no interest in actual climate change debate... he would sooner insult, trash threads and ply his lukinWay™ nonsense.

[lukin]

no - any semblance of debate stops when, 'your ilk', takes exception to being called on your continued denier bullshit... whereupon you whine and snivel about being called... names! As for your examples, the last time I used the idiot label was Nov 2010 (of course, I just checked)... most certainly I've alluded to, a few times since, the idiocy displayed by certain posters - clearly, you've fallen smartly into that display on several occasions. Do you always use exaggeration to artificially pump up your failed whines?

as for the debate you lament, do you believe the lukinWay™ pattern of posting fosters debate? Just look at the continued sham lukin runs... just look at his last post where he, again (as repeated, over and over and over), drops a totally unrelated link without adding any commentary whatsoever. Of course, enforced moderation would take care of the lukinWay™ posts, as they are a direct challenge to stipulated MLW rules and guidelines on posting content.

you have little interest in actual climate change debate... you're too busy either admonishing others for your perceived slights in putting too much emphasis on CO2 over your favoured want to combat "toxic pollution", or you're beavering down some rat-hole flight of conspiracy fancy. The lukin guy clearly has no interest in actual climate change debate... he would sooner insult, trash threads and ply his lukinWay™ nonsense.

Please don't call me a denier; rationalist is more appropriate.

AGW is a scam, and you, waldomir, are the stooge. Humans are not causing climate change. Unlike you waldo, I refuse to be a block-quoting puppet, who blames all the world's problems on big oil. This AGW scam is the only way for your ilk to try to get back at the so-called "evils" of big oil. It's as simple as that.

[Michael Hardner]

That's not what was asked in the poll. The poll asked people if they thought there was any evidence that over the past 40 years, the earth has gotten warmer. That's not the same as what you're suggesting. Why am I not surprised that alarmists are mischaracterizing things yet again. And you wonder why your credibility has been questioned.

Good eyes. When I find a poll suspicious, the first thing I look for is the background on the questions asked, methods etc.

In this case, others must have been asking these questions as the article was updated. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we should hope that an informed public does. Good for the skeptics on this one.

""From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?""

I think you're right that it is different from asking if the science is sound, and I stand corrected. I hope you don't think that I try to deceive with my arguments. That's not my intention.

[waldo]

Please don't call me a denier; rationalist is more appropriate.

no, there isn't anything... absolutely anything about your posting history that shows reasoned and/or logical and/or analytic and/or intelligent thought. Yes, you are a denier.

Humans are not causing climate change.

excellent... we finally get you to actually take a stand, state a position - was that... so hard? So... you accept there is climate change... that the world has warmed and continues to warm. What is causing it? If not humans - if not attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 levels (anthropogenic sourced), then what? Substantiate your claim... waiting...

[lukin]

no, there isn't anything... absolutely anything about your posting history that shows reasoned and/or logical and/or analytic and/or intelligent thought. Yes, you are a denier.

excellent... we finally get you to actually take a stand, state a position - was that... so hard? So... you accept there is climate change... that the world has warmed and continues to warm. What is causing it? If not humans - if not attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 levels (anthropogenic sourced), then what? Substantiate your claim... waiting...

Climate change is always occurring. The world warms, the world cools...the world warms, the world cools...that is the pattern. Humans have no effect on this natural phenomenon. It was warmer in the 1930s than the 1980s.

Big green wants big money and the AGW scare is how they planned to achieve their goal of massive wealth.

[waldo]

CBC

Respondents on both sides of the border were asked their opinion on a range of issues on climate change, starting with whether they believed it was real.

In Canada, 80 per cent believe in the science behind climate change, compared with 58 per cent in the United States.

I found it encouraging that 58% of Americans believe the science. The political will to do something is now there, so what will happen ?

When I find a poll suspicious, the first thing I look for is the background on the questions asked, methods etc.

In this case, others must have been asking these questions as the article was updated.

if your "neutered shift" reflects upon the much touted "facilitator-in-waiting" role, I look forward to some of the more partisan booster club (also) taking on that role

let's see... what the actual findings were:

Key findings include:

* Belief in climate change among Canadians substantially outpaces belief in this phenomenon among residents of the United States:

- 80% of Canadians believe there is solid evidence of global warming compared to 58% of Americans

- 91% of this group believe it is a serious problem

... solid evidence of global warming?... based upon what? Right... the science. If not the science... then what is the solid evidence based upon? Surely, you're not going to suggest the "solid evidence" is based upon some "dumbed down" anecdotal musings, hey? Is anecdote solid evidence... is anecdote a serious problem?

* Majority of Canadians believe that both the federal and provincial governments should take actions to reduce global warming.

- 40% felt that municipalities have a great deal of responsibility in addressing climate change

... just what kind of actions could be taken to reduce warming? Oh, that's right... CO2 emission reductions. Or... is there some way for a government to reduce anecdotal evidence, hey?

* Canadians respondents expressed a higher degree of willingness to pay extra money each year in order for more renewable energy to be produced

- 73% percent of Canadians indicated a willingness to pay at least $50 per year in extra energy costs, compared to 55% of Americans who reported the same

... is this just some inherent "greening" predilection... or... would it be tied into peoples perception/understanding that sustainable energy is a means to offset increasing CO2 emissions?

* While most Americans do not support cap and trade and carbon taxes, a majority of Canadians indicated that they would support such policy options even if they imposed increased costs of up to $50per month in energy expenses ... what? A willingness to support policies to reduce... anecdotal evidence? Really?

[waldo]

Humans are not causing climate change.

excellent... we finally get you to actually take a stand, state a position - was that... so hard? So... you accept there is climate change... that the world has warmed and continues to warm. What is causing it? If not humans - if not attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 levels (anthropogenic sourced), then what? Substantiate your claim... waiting...

Climate change is always occurring. The world warms, the world cools...the world warms, the world cools...that is the pattern. Humans have no effect on this natural phenomenon. It was warmer in the 1930s than the 1980s.

your written word does not substantiate... anything.

for reference: GISS - 5 year and 11 year running mean global land-ocean temperatures

the science shows that the relative warming of the 30s can principally be attributed to increased solar activity and a reduced cooling affect due to lower volcanic eruptions… GHG’s were increasing, but were not a principal factor relative to the periods solar and volcanic influences… neither of which, solar or volcanic, are considerations for the accelerated post 1980 warming.

your unsubstantiated claim is pattern denial… suggesting that current warming is simply a part of a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. Certainly, natural variations are a consideration and are factored by climate scientists. In any case, we finally have you taking a position, actually making a statement… albeit one that is vacuous, hollow and unsupported. You accept it’s warming, attributing the accelerated increased warming to a “natural cycle”… but… you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

additionally, you have the burden of explaining why the dramatic increase in CO2 emissions does not affect the global temperature… effectively, you must refute the greenhouse effect and basic, fundamental physics. Where is your model… your theory… to suggest CO2 does not affect temperature? Where is your evidence of some natural forcing, one you can attribute today’s accelerated warming to?

[lukin]

Wrong again, batman.

At least try to understand things waldo.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/Robinson_Soon.pdf

Edited February 28, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

your written word does not substantiate... anything.

for reference: GISS - 5 year and 11 year running mean global land-ocean temperatures

the science shows that the relative warming of the 30s can principally be attributed to increased solar activity and a reduced cooling affect due to lower volcanic eruptions… GHG’s were increasing, but were not a principal factor relative to the periods solar and volcanic influences… neither of which, solar or volcanic, are considerations for the accelerated post 1980 warming.

your unsubstantiated claim is pattern denial… suggesting that current warming is simply a part of a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. Certainly, natural variations are a consideration and are factored by climate scientists. In any case, we finally have you taking a position, actually making a statement… albeit one that is vacuous, hollow and unsupported. You accept it’s warming, attributing the accelerated increased warming to a “natural cycle”… but… you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

additionally, you have the burden of explaining why the dramatic increase in CO2 emissions does not affect the global temperature… effectively, you must refute the greenhouse effect and basic, fundamental physics. Where is your model… your theory… to suggest CO2 does not affect temperature? Where is your evidence of some natural forcing, one you can attribute today’s accelerated warming to?

At least try to understand things waldo.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/Robinson_Soon.pdf

oh my!!! Here lil' buddy... here's the brainthrust that published that bullshit from the "Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine"... here's Cletus, BillyBob and Jethro outside the, uhhh... "institute". You know... the barn in the north-forty!!!!

so... let's not lose the opportunity to highlight you, once again, simply dropped another lukinWay™, "ta da" link without offering any accompanying comment, none whatsoever. That PieceOfShit has no credibility, none whatsover... if it actually had any substance to it, if it actually overturned the consensus science (as it claims), it would be the single-most, smoking gun, silver bullet, AGW-killer out there. Game over! Climate scientists may as well pack it in... the UNFCCCC, world-wide National Academies of Science, world-wide scientific organizations, scientific associations, world-wide research foundations, etc., ... they all need to revise their positions and recognize fundamental principles of physics have been overturned... by Cletus, BillyBob and Jethro!!!

let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight you failed to provide the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. As I stated, "you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?" ... well... what is it?

you truly are a waste of time...

[lukin]

you truly are a waste of time...

Yet you've spent HOURS responding to my links that prove how wrong you are....HOURS formulating massive, useless, mundane block quotes.

Waldo, if bullshit were money, you'd be a millionaire. :lol:

[waldo]

you are so clueless... you actually think you're relevant. There isn't a single thing... not one thing... that you've been correct about. Then again, what have you actually attempted to be right about with your incessant lukinWay™ pattern of dropped links, added without any relevancy and/or attached commentary? As for time, don't worry... it quite literally takes a minute to dispense with any tripe you parrot.

here... you can run... but you can't hide. Is there a reason you're avoiding this:

let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight you failed to provide the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. As I stated, "

you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

" ... well... what is it?

well... what is it?