Study: Bush Supporters Ignorant

[Matty]

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html

[ QUOTE ]
As the nation prepares to watch the presidential candidates debate foreign policy issues, a new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds that Americans who plan to vote for President Bush have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, on the other hand, are largely accurate in their assessments. The uncommitted also tend to misperceive Bush's positions, though to a smaller extent than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry's positions correctly. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments: "What is striking is that even after nearly four years President Bush's foreign policy positions are so widely misread, while Senator Kerry, who is relatively new to the public and reputed to be unclear about his positions, is read correctly."

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (70%).

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dynasty]

Seriously, what is the point of this post?

[Matty]

To share information.

[nicky g]

You don;t think it's at all important that a large proportion of Bush supporters think his positions on a rnage of prominent issues are the exact opposite to what they really are?

[Nicholasp27]

maybe bush supporters prefer being ignorant..and would rather not know that they are ignorant...

[wayabvpar]

[ QUOTE ]
Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (70%).


[/ QUOTE ]

Those are staggering numbers. I am sickened and embarrassed as an American that our electorate is so woefully uninformed.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The underlying message of this post, a the message is Bush supporters are drooling-slack-jawed-knuckle dragging Neanderthals. And therefore Kerry supports must be intellectually superior....

In short: We are smarter than you so vote for Kerry.

Sorry, I'm less than impressed by the source of your quote. Any professional pollster knows the phrasing of a survey question has a DRAMATIC impact on the answer you get. A pollster who is LESS than honest can phrase questions to get the answers they want. I would be more impressed if you quoted "Grimm's Book of Fairy Tales" than the organization you quoted... Who are you going to quote next? Dan Rather?

Your post reeks of arrogance.... State a position, give us supporting arguments, and dazzle us with your superior intellect. Quoting a politically partisan organization is less than persuasive...

George Bush can honestly be criticize for LOTS of things. I know I have MORE than my share of disagreements with the man. I'll be voting for Bush. I agree with 60% of what Bush says while about 10% of what Kerry says. Naturally I would prefer to vote for someone I agree with 100%. But I'll take 60% over 10% anyday.....

By the way the Kyoto agreement is dead.... I think ONLY two countries have signed it so far. I believe those countries are Romania and the Czech Republic. Russia has already said they would NOT sign it. If this treaty gets more than FIVE signatures, I will be shocked....

[meow_meow]

Which 60% do you agree with?
I've always had the impression (perhaps mistaken) that a large portion of republicans were primarily fiscal, rather than social, conservatives. I can't see how any fical, small government conservative can perceive this presidency as anything but disasterous.
The only people who's support for Bush I understand are social conservatives (which I read as "conservative Christians") - Bush is one of them, and shares their worldview, while the democratic candidate will never do.
Are there really enough of these people in the U.S. to re-elect the man, or am I missing something?
What I'm really asking is, if you are a bush-supporter, and not a conservative christian, what is it about Bush that you like?

[vulturesrow]

The only part of the Bush adminstration I have a beef with has been the discretionary spending. Overall, this administration has done a great job with an economy that was already sliding into recession before 9/11. Although I agree with a lot of the "social conservative" positions, it isnt the primary reason. And I am convinced that Bush is much better than Kerry when it comes to combatting terrorism and protecting American interests.

[meow_meow]

True, this recession was coming.
On the foreign policy front though - do you think the war in Iraq has made America safer? I think even a cursory examination of the facts suggests otherwise.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
On the foreign policy front though - do you think the war in Iraq has made America safer? I think even a cursory examination of the facts suggests otherwise

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely do. Every terrorist that crosses the border into Iraq is one that isnt crossing the border into the US. I cant fathom the fact that people honestly believe that all these terrorists didnt exist before we invaded Iraq.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Every terrorist that crosses the border into Iraq is one that isnt crossing the border into the US

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that Iraq was meant to be a terrorist magnet?

[vulturesrow]

I am suggesting that the fact that terrorists are going to Iraq to attempt to kill Americans rather than coming to the US to do so. I would rather have them coming at soldiers that are trained to fight vice my daughter's preschool.

That being said, I did read an interesting article a while back suggesting this very thing. Let me see if I cant dig up for you, ok?

[vulturesrow]

Check out this link:

Terrorist magnet (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/08/mil-030806-mcn02.htm)

To better answer your question, I honestly dont know. My feeling is that it may have been looked upon as a beneficial secondary outcome of the war. I really dont think it was an intentional ploy by the administration.

[meow_meow]

Yes, there are people flocking to iraq to fight, but the vast majority of those fighting against the U.S. forces are Iraqis who would never have posed a threat to Americans had the invasion not occurred. The war in Afganistan - justified but bungled. The war in Iraq - completely unjustified, and I can't fathom what they were trying to accomplish beyond personal vendetta / flexing muscle for all to see. Results of the latter: global goodwill towards U.S. post-9/11 squandered (and then some), 1000+ dead Americans, many thousands of dead Iraqis, resources diverted from the real "war on terror", regional instability (at least in the short term).
The whole "Saddam was evil, so we had to free the Iraqi people" argument just doesn't wash. The U.S. has, for more than 100 years, installed and propped up regimes just as despotic as Saddam's. So it wasn't about WMD, it wasn't about freeing the people, and it wasn't about oil (there just isn't enough of that to make it profitable). What the hell was it about?

[MaxPower]

This is a very biased poll. The issues chosen are fairly obscure and are all positive sounding things that most people will agree with. It just so happens that Kerry favors most of these. We could easily put together a poll that would show Kerry supporters to be ignorant.

There is another poll out today from Annenberg that shows taht Americans have no clue about the positions of either candidate.

Annenberg Poll (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040929/ap_on_el_pr/uninformed_americans_2)

[Knockwurst]

Here's the latest about Russia signing the Kyoto Agreement:

September 30, 2004
Russian Government Backs U.N. Accord on Global Warming
By SETH MYDANS
and ANDREW C. REVKIN

OSCOW, Sept. 30 — After years of unusually public infighting, the Russian cabinet approved the Kyoto Protocol on global warming today and prepared to send it to parliament, where its expected approval would allow the long-delayed climate change treaty to come into force around the world.

Rejection three years ago by the United States of the 1997 United Nations treaty had left the decisive vote to Russia, a major industrial polluter, where opponents have argued that it would harm the nation's economic interests.

The treaty, which orders cuts in emissions of gases linked to global warming, must be ratified by at least 55 countries that accounted for at least 55 percent of global emissions in 1990.

Already 120 nations have ratified the treaty or acceded to it but some large polluters have refused to do so, and Russia's agreement was needed to reach the required proportion of global emissions.

In 1990, the United States accounted for 36.1 percent of emissions, and Russia for 17.4 percent.

The treaty is widely considered a milestone of international environmental diplomacy. It is the first agreement that sets binding restrictions on emissions of heat-trapping gases that, for now, remain an unavoidable result of almost any activity from driving a car to running a power plant. The main source of the dominant gas, carbon dioxide, is burning coal and oil.

But many experts say that, at the same time, the protocol is just the tiniest step toward ultimately limiting the human influence on climate, given that its targets are small and that major polluters, including the United States and China, will not be bound by its terms.

The Russian parliament, or Duma, is dominated by supporters of President Vladimir V. Putin and although Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov predicted a "difficult debate," the president's wishes were expected to be final.

Mr. Putin made no public statement today. His top economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, a leading opponent, said that the decision had been taken for political reasons and that the task now would be to try to minimize what he called its negative consequences for Russia.

He said compliance would slow Russia's economic growth and make it impossible to meet the president's stated goal of doubling its gross domestic product within a decade.

"It's a political decision, it's a forced decision," he said, according to the Interfax news agency. "It's not a decision we are making with pleasure." He said the treaty was based on false and even deceptive scientific assumptions.

German Gref, the economic development minister, called the treaty "a progressive step" but said, "It will hardly be decisive in radically improving the environmental situation." He added that it was unlikely to undermine Russia's economic growth.

Vladimir Azkharov, director of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy, a local lobbying group, said the treaty "very, very probably" would be approved in parliament, although he said, "there is no guarantee."

President Bush rejected the treaty in 2001, saying it would burden the economy by limiting use of still-abundant fossil fuels and unfairly excluded big developing countries from binding curbs on emissions. The Senate had long ago signaled its opposition, as well.

China and other developing countries, while signing the treaty, only did so because it obligated established industrial powers to act first.

Last December, in what seemed a definitive rejection, Mr. Illarionov said Russia would not sign the treaty. In May, however, Mr. Putin pledged to speed ratification in return for support by the European Union for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

International environmental groups voiced satisfaction at the news.

"As the Earth is battered by increasing storms, floods and droughts, President Putin has brought us to a pivotal point in human history," said Steve Sawyer, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace International, in a statement.

"We are on the brink of securing the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush Administration is out in the cold and the rest of the world can move forward as one to start tackling climate change, the greatest threat to civilization the world has ever seen."

In a telephone interview from New York, Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, said, "What is significant is that it will be a market signal heard around the world, a signal that we are moving into a carbon-constrained future."

Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms will be put in place and businesses and developed economies will begin "a hunt for least-cost ways to reduce carbon," he said.

As reported by the Interfax news agency, today's cabinet meeting was contentious.

"The Academy of Science confirms its position that the protocol is not effective and gives us no advantages," the head of the academy's institute on climate change and ecology, Yuri Izrael was reported as saying.

Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov opened the meeting by focusing on Russia's international reputation, saying, "If we had denied ratification we would have been in the wrong. If the blame had been placed on Russia we would have suffered political and economic losses."

Mr. Illarionov presented the world from a different perspective in remarks earlier this week when he said pressure on Moscow to ratify was part of an "undeclared war against Russia" and based on "insolent interference in economic growth and the development of society."

Russia signed the treaty in 1997, as the United States did under President Bill Clinton, and expressed initial support for it.

Last December, in what seemed a definitive rejection, Mr. Illarionov said Russia would not sign the treaty. In May, however, Mr. Putin pledged to speed ratification in return for support by the European Union for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

The treaty, signed in Kyoto, Japan, set a deadline of 2012 for major industrialized countries, as a group, to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels.

Many of the treaty's weaknesses are a function of the time that has elapsed since its targets and basic architecture were hastily negotiated in December 1997.

Since then, economic activity and emissions have threatened to put Europe and Japan, its main proponents, out of compliance.

The treaty provides "flexible mechanisms" for countries to reach their targets without actually reducing their emissions at home. These include emissions trading, in which one country buys the right to emit from another that has already met its targets for reduction and has "spare" emissions reductions.

By declining to sign the treaty, the United States has removed itself as a major potential market for these sales.

In the cabinet meeting, Dr. Izrael of the Academy of Sciences said the sale of emission quotas would bring Russia no more than 400 million euros, or $490 million. "It's big money for me, but a trifle for the state," he said.

Prof. David G. Victor, a political scientist at Stanford and longtime student of the protocol, said that Russia had nothing to lose in moving ahead, given that it surpassed its Kyoto targets even before they were negotiated. After the Russian economy collapsed with the fall of communism, the country's greenhouse-gas emissions plummeted far below 1990 levels, leaving it with a bonanza of tradable credits earned when it surpassed its targets.

Russia's agreement on the treaty's terms in 1997 hinged on its getting what could amount to billions of dollars in revenue from selling such credits to other industrial powers, which could use them as a cheap way of meeting their obligations under the treaty.

For Europe, however, this bundle of credits is a markedly mixed blessing now, Mr. Victor said.

The European Union recently passed legislation creating an internal trading market under the protocol's terms, so that its richer member states, like Britain, could get credit toward targets by investing in emissions-cutting projects in poorer, more polluted, ones, like Spain, where the cuts could come more cheaply.

But under the treaty's terms, Europe, Japan, and other industrialized participating countries can buy credits from Russia as well.

If Russia now starts selling its credits to Europe, there will be little incentive for companies within the European Union to push ahead with emissions-cutting schemes that would be more costly, Mr. Victor said.

That could lead to big fights within Europe, where the Green Party holds significant sway in many parliaments. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have derisively labeled the Russian credits "hot air," because they don't represent fresh reductions in emissions.

Russia's accounting system for its credits also remains murky, Dr. Victor said, meaning "there could be a potentially infinite supply."

[TomCollins]

How could Kerry supporters know where he stands on these issues. I'm not even sure Kerry knows.

[MaxPower]

The thing is that Terrorists are not a finite group. New terrorists are created every day.

[andyfox]

A 1991 poll commissioned by the American Bar Association found that only 33% of Americans surveyed knew what the Bill of Rights was. A Gallup poll found that 70 percent of respondents did not know what the First Amendment was or what it dealt with.

A National Geographic survey “found that only about one in seven -- 13 percent -- of Americans between the age of 18 and 24, the prime age for military sedrvice, could find Iraq on a world map. The score was the same for Iran, an Iraqi neighbor. Although the majority, 58 percent, of the young Americans surveyed knew that the Taliban and al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan, only 17 percent could find that country on a world map.

Other findings: 70 percent cannot find New Jersey ... 49 percent cannot find New York ... 11 percent cannot find the United States ... three in 10 of those surveyed could not correctly locate the Pacific Ocean.

A May 1997 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that only 8 percent of the public could identify the name of Louis Freeh, the FBI director who presided over the most scandal-racked period of the nation’s premier law-enforcement agency. A January 1995 ABC News–Washington Post poll found that two months after the midterm congressional elections, only 39 percent of the public were aware of the “Contract with America,” even though it had been the hottest ideological issue in congressional elections in recent decades.

A 1996 Washington Post-Harvard survey found that only 26 percent knew the 6-year term of office of a U.S. senator and less than half the public knows that a member of the House of Representative is elected to a two-year term.

Political scientist Michael Delli Carpini, after analyzing thousands of voter surveys, told the Washington Post that there was “virtually no relationship” between the political issues that low-knowledge voters said “matter most to them and the positions of the candidates they voted for on those issues. It was as if their vote was random.”

That last sentence is particularly distressing.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
The issues chosen are fairly obscure and are all positive sounding things that most people will agree with

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar results were found by the same group regarding whether WMD were found in Iraq, and whether a link between Iraq and 9-11 was found. Read this PDF:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Check out the end where Fox viewers are found to be the most likely to hold misconceptions.

[jcx]

I would like to see the slick way these poll questions were presented. Probably trying for shock value, like how could anyone support evil, awful land mines? Even though without those land mines there certainly would have been another Korean war.

Really, isn't this poll kind of silly? Couldn't some right winger design a poll, call up a bunch of ignorant crack smoking inner city dwellers and get similar results for John Kerry supporters?

[MaxPower]

I did see that other poll and it is very disturbing. The fact that so many people think we found WMD in Iraq is most astounding. In tonight's debate Kerry should just read quotes from Colin Powell and the CIA indicating that we have not.

I don't doubt that many Bush supporters are ignorant of his views on issues, I just don't think that the new poll proves it beyond a doubt.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, what is the point of this post?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that Bush supporters are so misinformed on these issues, and the WMD and 9-11 facts, is significant because it makes me ask, "why are they misinformed". I think some of it is the sources of news, as the PIPA study showed. Fox viewers have been shown to be more ignorant on these issues, and no doubt conservative talk radio listeners are ignorant as well. I am shocked at how much these conservative commentators flat out lie. I think some of it has to do with a conscious effort by this adminstration to misinform citizens. Bush's statement that "we found them" re: WMD's. Cheney's insistance of a possible link between 9-11 hijackers and Iraq. These and similar lies are believed by Republicans.

Look at this study: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

and comment please.

[anatta]

I am no expert on polls or the oragization PIPA. I agree that polls can be misleading, and questions can be twisted. The link to one of their studies appears to be to be "scientific" if you know what I mean. I know that they are affiliated with the University of Maryland, and it looks like they are serious in what they are trying to do.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Already 120 nations have ratified the treaty or acceded to it"
*****HaHaHaHaHaHa!!! I love the word "acceded". An HONEST journalist would have written, 'Although 120 nations have acceded to the treaty, only TWO nations have ratified the treaty since 1997.' But...an honest journalist is hard to find.....

"Russia signed the treaty in 1997, as the United States did under President Bill Clinton, and expressed initial support for it."
****LOL !!! Oh really! If Russia has already signed the treaty then why is Russia sending it to parliment for debate? Mmmmmmmm.........????
Answer: The treaty was "signed" by junior diplomatics so they could have their photo op to justify this collosal waste of tax money. These "signatures" have as much validity as a six year old giving a promise ring to a school playmate....... The dirty secret of Kyoto was it was meant to be a bone thrown to enviromental whackos and their junk scientist lap dogs... I'm amazed that even TWO countries have ratified this treaty. If three countries have now signed it then I apologize...

"The treaty is widely considered a milestone of international environmental diplomacy..... "
***Mmmmmmm.....It is nice to know the writer is 'objective'. The dictates of this treaty have as much chance of changing the environment as beating drums and praying to Zeus. Junk Science is the #1 money generator for these 3rd rate "scientists". As for it being "widely considered a milestone", then I wonder why only TWO countries have RATIFIED the treaty.... Mmmmmmm....

Another typical DISHONEST article for the gullible.... Please....it is time to leave the world of make believe and think for yourself rather than what a 3rd rate "journalist" tells you to believe.....

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I am suggesting that the fact that terrorists are going to Iraq to attempt to kill Americans rather than coming to the US to do so. I would rather have them coming at soldiers that are trained to fight vice my daughter's preschool.

That being said, I did read an interesting article a while back suggesting this very thing. Let me see if I cant dig up for you, ok?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea spot on. Its obvious that if we concentrate americans in one place that isnt america all the terorrists will go there to kill americans instead of coming here.

So by making it realy easy to kill Americans in Iraq we have made sure that those terrorists leave us all alone here in America.

Bush is a genius, sometimes I suspect that most liberals dont have the intlectual depth to realy understand his sublime strategic planning.

[jimotto]

You are incorrect. All the terrorist were created during the Clinton administration.

[The once and future king]

Yea gloabl warming.

What a load of wank, so what if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of scientists now confirm it is as a scientific objective fact. Feck those liberal commie pinko subversives.

Now whatever you do dont accuse me of being a die hard support what ever bush said coz even that sell out Bush has had to admit that global warming (caused by man) is a reality, so the spliter didnt shout it from the roof tops but yea he quitelyt admited it and made sure it didnt get much press time. SO FECKIN WHAT you loser. OIL AND CARBON ROCKS. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Yea so like I can fink for myself and therefore its obvious that that one sciency guy I saw a few months ago saying its all wank is right.

Man you are an uber twat. The bridge between a wanker and a tuss.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I will say this, Andy. If most Americans(regardless of political affiliation) had to take the same test to keep their citizenship that immigrants have to take to become citizens, the USA would be a country of about 20 million citizens.

[Felix_Nietsche]

99.9999999999%.....When you make up numbers you should at least be a little more creative....

"scientific fact" ? There is no such term in science. There is hypotheses and if hypothesis is supported by numerous studies then one day it can become a THEORY. And a Theory is as about as good as it gets (not to mention 'scientific laws')...

20,000 years ago ice covered much of Europe and North America. Did not "global warming" cause the ice age to end. Unfortunately for the environmental whackos and the "junk scientists", the internal combustion had not been invented yet. So therefore they're unable to blame this natural phenomenon on man. Now, we're suppose to believe that any climate changes that occur today are NOW caused by man... This is a rather arrogant way to think... Man is not as powerful as he thinks..

They can't have it both ways. If natural global warming caused the ice age to end, they can't claim that today's so called "global warming" is caused by man. These "scientists" can not explain the ozone hole over the south pole nor how long it has been there. It could have been there 100 years, 1000 years, 100,000 years, or a million years. No one can demostrate why there is an ozone hole over the south pole, yet none over the north pole...

Their 'reasoning' reminds me of the logical falacy that
(1)Crime is highest in the summer,
(2) Ice Cream sales are highest in the summer.
So therfore ice cream causes crime...

Substitute carbon dioxide for ice cream and "global warming" for crime and you to can be a modern "junk scientist".

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You don;t think it's at all important that a large proportion of Bush supporters think his positions on a rnage of prominent issues are the exact opposite to what they really are?

[/ QUOTE ]

Proof?

BTW the economist is good!

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that Terrorists are not a finite group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Max, being a poker player you certainly know this to be incorrect.

Jimbo

[The once and future king]

Ok let me rephrase that.

The vast overwhelming majority of the scientific community now believe in the concept that man made global warming is a reality.

I am not a meterlogist so must make most of my conclusions via the analysis of others.

1:I could go with the scientific community.

2:I could go with you.

Not hard is it.

Given that you are able to say something which is just patently absurd and franky hysterical, calling scientists in support of the global warming hypothesis "junk" scientists, it is obvious you have some emotional attachment to your beliefs that dosnt allow you to be objective and rational about this topic.

[nicky g]

"Proof?"

I was referring to poll. We can debate its accuracy etc but it seems like an important issue.

"BTW the economist is good! "

Glad you like it!

[elwoodblues]

That's the absolute truth. Often times new immigrants are "better" citizens than those of us born here.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Knowledge is generally classified in one of the following categories:

0. Absolute fact (impossible to achieve thru science)
1. Laws
2. Theories (requires extensive research)
3. Hypotheses (the least reliable)

Advances in science come through trial and error. College science books are constantly updated when previous hypotheses and occasionally EVEN theories are found to be flawed. My point is scientist have a long history of screwing up, realizing their mistakes(several years later), and correcting those mistakes. There have even been cases of deliberately falsifying research (e.g. cold fusion). I call these scientists "junk" scientists because they are failing to follow the scientific method and in some cases I believe they are falsifying data.

It would be generous to say the research done on carbon dioxides effect global warming meets even the level of being a hypothesis. The papers written on this subject have lots of fancy formulas but if look closely, these formulas rely on estimates and assumptions which have ZERO scientific basis. Remove these assumptions and the entire house of cards collapses.

With regard to global warming, can we **AGREE** that 20,000 years ago that is was **NATURAL** global warming cause most of the ice sheets to melt away over much of Europe and North America? We certainly can't blame mankind for this?

The "junk" scientists would have us believe the factors which caused the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago are not a factor in any current current climate changes. Again I'll repeat the illogical argument which the junk scientists are using.

1. Crime is highest in the summer.
2. Ice Cream sales are highest in the summer.
Therefore ice cream causes crime. Ice Cream = CO2, Crime=Global warming.

[The once and future king]

Yes or no.

Is the chief scientific advisor to the British Government a "junk" scientist.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'm not familiar him or his positions.

IF....he says that experimental data supports that greenhouse gases have caused modern climate changes, then yes I would call him a "junk" scientist with regard to that SPECIFIC SUBJECT..... Greenhouse gases and global warming is more of a POLITICAL and EMOTIONAL issue than a scientific one...

Let me ask YOU two "Yes" or "No" questions.

1. Will you concede that these scientist MUST PROVE that the natural factors, which caused the Ice Age to end, are NOW not in play with any current climate changes?

2. And if they can't rule out these factors, THEN they would have to admit they just don't know?

[The once and future king]

1. You seem to willfully ignore the hypothesis that man made actions are speeding up natural processes. This is the dominant paradigm as we speak. Yes global warming does/may be occuring naturaly but man is interacting with these processes and thereby exacerbating them.

2. We dont have to prove 100% that man made actions are creating/excarbating global warming. If the global scientific community establishes this as a reasonable possibility then we would be fools to go well look you may be 99% sure, but until you are 100% sure feck off were burning carbon until the cows come home.

My new question to you is.

What exactly is your PHD in. Its just that the years of reasearch, study and time spent on the ice flows drilling for the historic carbon record lead me to assume that those PHD guys have got this one right and maybe you dont even begin to have the inkling of a clue of a hint about the topic we are discussing.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that Terrorists are not a finite group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Max, being a poker player you certainly know this to be incorrect.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I used the word finite incorrectly. There is not an infinite number of terrorists.

My point is still valid.

[Wake up CALL]

What an ignorant woman you are. The exact opposite of what you are stating is true. The vast majority of scientists do not believe global warming is even real much less exacerbated by man. Below is a link to an article that shows why the majority may be mistaken but it is far from conclusive evidence. So now what? Since the majority of scientists say you are a liar are they correct?


Scientific American Article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000C9535-EF02-1C5A-B882809EC588ED9F)

Another (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html)

And Another (http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/gwarm.htm)

Yet Another (http://www.transtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm)

[The once and future king]

LOL.

1. Im not even a woman. I think that makes you ignorant.

2. Type global warming consensus into google and get back to me.

3. This is the first line from you first link. [ QUOTE ]
Although MOST scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a FEW still harbor doubts

[/ QUOTE ]

Only someone with a rigid and inflexible ideological emotional comitment to the idea that global warming is false could hold your opinion.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL.

1. Im not even a woman. I think that makes you ignorant.

2. Type global warming consensus into google and get back to me.



[/ QUOTE ]

Only someone with a rigid and inflexible ideological emotional comitment to the idea that global warming is false could hold your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I don't know much about global warming but I am able to identify a liar. Either that or your grammar is terrible.


The King says "As a married American woman" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=1080313&Fo rum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main =1079892&Search=true&where=&Name=14496&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post1080291)


And
King says "I look for a man" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=1080313&Fo rum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main =1079892&Search=true&where=&Name=14496&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post1080313)

Or perhaps your clock's pendulum swings in both directions.


Jimbo

[The once and future king]

HA HA HA.

Jimbo you are such a dumb ass and I now officially own you you moron.

Please read the threads you highlight again. This time find some one with an iota of inteligence and borrow their sarcasm detector.

Man I spell it out loud and clear in that second thread and it still goes 100,000,000 miles above your head.

LMAO what an idiot. Classic /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Trainwreck]

LOL!

Dynasty, You MUST be a BUSH supporter.

LMAO!

and NO I will not explain what my point is... LOL!

>TW<

[Abednego]

This from the folks who believe Michael Moore and Oliver Stone.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see the slick way these poll questions were presented.

[/ QUOTE ]There is a link to the questionairre on the pipa.org homepage.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
This from the folks who believe Michael Moore and Oliver Stone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This from the guy who believes God is actively working to secure Bush a second term.

Seriously, you should seek psychiatric help.

[Abednego]

Do you not believe God is active in the affairs of human history to bring about his purposes or is it that you don't believe in God?

[tolbiny]

No, the more relevent question is do we believe that somehow, out of the billions of people on this earth- You somehow understand what those designs are.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the more relevent question is do we believe that somehow, out of the billions of people on this earth- You somehow understand what those designs are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.