I just love to read all these blow-hard opinions of so many "experts" on climatology. I love how people read the headlines and don't look at the actual data.The Gallup poll asked do you believe increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century are due more to -- the effects of pollution from human activities (or) natural changes in the environment that are not due to human activities?The Doran poll asked Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?These are distinctly different questions. What is significant? 5%? 25%?If you say that "significant" is any number less than 50%, then it is possible to be on both sides of the issue according to these two polls.But then, that would require a rigorous analysis, and according to the alarmists I don't do rigor. 97% of real<.b> experts on global climate acknowledge anthropogenic global warming. If you go back up the thread and look at my "sane" post, you'll see that I said It's difficult to say we don't contribute. The amount of that contribution is difficult to determine.So, by suggesting that the NAO is the primary contributor to warming in the 90's, I'd answer "nature" (no) to the Gallup question. But since I can't say human activity is actually insignificant, I'd have to answer "yes" to the Doran poll.The Doran poll is really a lousy question and purely for propaganda purposes.Were it a serious academic pursuit, it would have defined (or asked responders to define) "significant".
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<