43% of Americans are Dumb

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 122 discussions (415 posts)
  1. Cagsil profile image70
    Cagsilposted 15 years ago

    This topic has absolutely NO justification and makes absolutely no sense and can't possibly be truth.

    So, with that said. I'm outta here right after I click submit.

    lol lol

  2. cheaptrick profile image74
    cheaptrickposted 15 years ago

    Thirty years?All we have to do is make it till 2012 anyway...lol

  3. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago

    43% of Americans write for HubPages lol

  4. Happyontheinside profile image81
    Happyontheinsideposted 15 years ago

    OK = so I'm british and I never usually follow the forums...But you managed to get my attention. I haven't even read anything else except your first post - but I felt the need to reply.

    Yes, Global warming is a viable topic and deserves the upmost of our attention - but the way to the truth should not be paved with lies - otherwise people won't listen to you. knowledge should be shared not used to belittle others. You shouldn't brandish one whole nation of people with the same brush...it verges on racist.

  5. Arthur Fontes profile image67
    Arthur Fontesposted 15 years ago

    This planet has gone through many climate changes.  You would agree there was an ice age correct. Did we do that?  Obviously the planet must have warmed up for all the ice from the ICE age to have melted "did we do that"

    1. Paraglider profile image93
      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      dT/dt (rate of change of Temperature over time). Check it out. The Ice Age was an AGE, not a few decades.

      1. profile image0
        zampanoposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Oh ! Wasn't that a movie ?
        hehehe

  6. alexandriaruthk profile image67
    alexandriaruthkposted 15 years ago

    please dont debate whether it is actually happeninng or not,  this is for my future,I dotn want to freeze in winter,  there is nothing wrong in precautions,

  7. profile image0
    bloodnlatexposted 15 years ago

    I don't understand the question....

  8. profile image0
    zampanoposted 15 years ago

    Ignorant Americans
    I don't know how reporters here defined the field, or how they sorted out interviews, but anyway, it is apalling.

    1. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It is a testament to our great educational system.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Best in the world.

        1. rhamson profile image69
          rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I guess you did not see the video.  Predictable.

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I don't need a video to know American higher education is the best in the world.

            1. alexandriaruthk profile image67
              alexandriaruthkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              american or British is all

            2. rhamson profile image69
              rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              Well those that ignore the facts presented are... well... whats the word ... Oh yeah ignorant of the conversation.

          2. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Amazing! I saw a similar video where Americans were asked if they would vote for Obama
            even though Sarah Palin was his running mate- Answer: yes;
            even though he was pro-life- Answer: yes;
            even though he wanted to send more troops to Iraq- Answer: yes

            this was right before the election and the issues were talked about everyday everywhere

            go figure

            1. profile image0
              zampanoposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              Well you know, journalists...
              It is clear that most states in the world have to do a big effort in education

              1. profile image0
                Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                I would say that people making the effort to learn would be more effective... smile

                1. Colebabie profile image61
                  Colebabieposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Agreed. The case is the same for learning about climate change. Its easy for someone to deny something you know nothing about.

                  1. tksensei profile image59
                    tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    Or to support something they know nothing about.

                  2. profile image0
                    Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    I know a lot of people who have educated themselves on the subject and have still come to the conclusion that it is in reality, a ploy by unscrupulous politicians to create a lucrative revenue stream, and nothing more.

  9. profile image0
    zampanoposted 15 years ago

    I once read a book by Aldous Huxley where he said that we should give up heavy industry and find more economical ways of living.
    I was a long time ago, maybe in the sixties.
    That was a clairvoyant American.
    Sorry... he was British...
    hehehe

  10. mistywild profile image60
    mistywildposted 15 years ago

    and don't forget, BUSH has was en in office for the past 8 years, some of his dumb was bound to rub off on the American people. lol lol lol

  11. Colebabie profile image61
    Colebabieposted 15 years ago

    Having been in the public school system only a few years ago, I had a great education. But education can always be better. I was also in a poor school in a poor neighborhood but was accepted into a magnet program. I think everyone should be granted quality education, special program or not. Is the American education system completely deplorable? No, at least being a girl I was offered an education. But can it be improved? Oh yes yes yes on all levels and in all grades it needs improvement.

  12. Valerie F profile image59
    Valerie Fposted 15 years ago

    The world survived the Pleistocene, the Medieval Warm Period, and a number of smaller ice ages. On a dynamic planet like this, it's actually unnatural for weather patterns to remain stagnant.

    I'm not in favor of ignoring the problems caused by pollution, and I don't take for granted that the glaciers in my favorite national parks are going to be around for much longer. However, unless this global climate change is a long term result of early 20th century industrialization (when we spewed on average more pollutants in the atmosphere than we do now), I doubt we're causing it, and I don't think there's anything to do to prevent it.

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      smile smile smile

  13. Presigo profile image60
    Presigoposted 15 years ago

    This is yet more evidence of our collective belief in Humanism, of which I have written a hub. What is truly unbelievable is that with so much information showing the data collected was flawed, is our desire to make it so. I do not know if global warmimg is real, manmade or natural, but what I do know is how arrogantly we accept the premise of our significance with our discipleship of humanism How truly arrogant to state that a large portion of america is dumb !!!!

    1. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well to quote Ron Montgomery "Sarah Palin"

  14. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago

    HA we WIN cause 46% of Canadians are eh?  HA HA HA WE WON AGAIN o hmm:

  15. profile image0
    blackorchidposted 15 years ago

    Is the number really that high?

  16. profile image0
    ralwusposted 15 years ago

    I guess the bulk of meteorologists are dumb too, they disagree with the global warming lie, as do I. It is just another cyclical change. Not long ago we came out of the Little Ice Age. Call me what you will.

    1. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well the meteorologists have been wrong before.  There is an old saying that perdicting the weather is a great gig if you can get it.  You only have to be right 50% of the time.

  17. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 15 years ago

    dumb as in pretending to be dumb?

  18. profile image0
    ralwusposted 15 years ago

    Meteorologist may be wrong on a lot of forecasts, but most of us do listen to them and they are better now days and they don't out and out lie to us.

    1. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that the dishonesty exposed by the scandal is extremely disheartening.  Why let the facts get in the way of a good story is not the way to convince people there is good indications to proceed and the horrible ramifications the lies will create.

      I think it has to go back to square one and have the theories independently tested under scientific conditions.  By comparing the end results we may or may not find out if the theory has merit. There has to be a reason why this cyclical warming trend in the poles is happening at a more than adequately defined rate.

  19. habee profile image82
    habeeposted 15 years ago

    I have mixed feelings about global warming, but I am sure Al Gore is getting rich because of his "Algorerithms."

  20. Beyond-Politics profile image69
    Beyond-Politicsposted 15 years ago

    What I find ironic is that the same individuals who dispute all of the scientific and empirical data indicating that global warming is a real phenomenon are the same individuals who take it as a matter of "faith" that there is a perfect being who sits on a throne someplace in the sky whom we cannot see, tastes, touch, hear, or smell actually is REAL.

  21. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    That's all what then?

    1. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The futility of it all to get you to see anything outside yourself.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Why would you say that?

        1. rhamson profile image69
          rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          This is an interesting tact you are taking but as usual a waste of time for me to entertain any longer.  Good day to you sir. smile

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Good non-answer.

            1. rhamson profile image69
              rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              Answer or not it all means the same to you.

  22. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    No it doesn't

    1. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Yes it does.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        You are telling me what something means to me?

  23. tobey100 profile image61
    tobey100posted 15 years ago

    The percentage is a lot higher that 43%!  Otherwise how in the world did we wind up with this President, this congress, this whole mess.  You know you're in trouble when an elected official tells you he/she's gonna vote their conscience.  How can you vote with something you don't have?

  24. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    Please let me sell you some carbon credits...and everybody knows the real danger is Fire Ants and killer Bees. So Iam gonna sell B crdits too... Science in general is a farce... becuase it can not accept the principle that everything falls into 3 attentions...The Known. The Unknown and the inconcievable. The last one is due to the arogance of man. I watch these stupid science shows that try to tell you what happened 5000 years ago becuase we found this bone pointing North...lol ...People put way too much faith in Science. I would need data for thousands of years to be convinced its not a natural cycle even if it is real... The rest of you science lovers please go live on your moonbase you want so much...

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The problem is pollution -- it just so happens that two of the world's major blights polution-wise are oil and coal, which happen to produce CO2 -- but even without global warming, getting rid of coal and oil is essential if we are going to have any FRESH DRINKING WATER AND AIR that is not polluted in the next few generations.

      Make this a "fresh air and fresh water debate" and then there's nothing to debate...

  25. Cagsil profile image70
    Cagsilposted 15 years ago

    No, Americans are not dumb. Any poll trying to measure it is dumb. lol lol

    Thanks for playing. big_smile

  26. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    but wait Ice is lighter than water..it floats.. hence iceburgs and ice cubes floating in my drink of straight whiskey...and is that Ted Turner's brother posting there? Not sure but either global warming or alcholism has taken all the ice out of my frezzer...

  27. tobey100 profile image61
    tobey100posted 15 years ago

    Our ignorance got us this.........

    hubpages.com/hub/A-list-The-Accomplishments-of-Obama

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Heh.  And denialists are always saying that "alarmists" are political.

  28. Misha profile image67
    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Interesting observations:
    There is a belief in bible god.
    There is a belief in human induced global warming.
    Both beliefs are equally irrational to an impartial person.
    People who believe in god tend not to believe in global warming, and vice versa.

    Is it because a human needs some kind of irrational belief to be able to function? smile

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
      1. Misha profile image67
        Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I said "tend to", if you noticed. This does not mean never. smile

    2. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Global warming denial seems much more irrational to me.

      1. Misha profile image67
        Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I said human induced global warming. That's materially different. smile

  29. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
    AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years ago

    Wow! I've been gone about a week, and this thread is *still* going on!!!

  30. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    Let me remind you A belief is just that...Its based on faith with no real evidence or experience...Media and news give us a false / fake experience that can create a belief...very powerful and scary stuff

  31. Presigo profile image60
    Presigoposted 15 years ago

    Well then by all means lets sit here and worry the next 10 years of our impending doom. Heaven forbid we should address concerns without the much needed political bent. Do we truly recognize truth anymore, it seems that all has been reduced to opinions on everything. Which assures of a couple things; A) nothing will be done, just beat to death and B) wewill all hate those whose opinion we disagree with. What a growth experience !!

  32. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    Follow those that want you to believe this and ask yourself why they want you too and what do they gain? Look into history for the answers..usually its all about create a fear so I can can gain more power and control..

  33. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    it very easy...If I had billions to spend making programs that showed how Fire Ants and Killer Bees are taking over the world...after watching 50 of my garbage programs you would think you have had the actual experience of it and you would belive...Buy my Bee/Ant spray now...

  34. Misha profile image67
    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    So, there is a "feature" in human psychology that these people employ. smile

  35. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    its even worse than that..They know how to do it like he Nzis did...Thye know about sourceing it..lets say a person you just met told you to buy my Bee/Ant spray....not much impact...but lets say a "Trusted News Source" told you this...Like your Mother...50 times..The next day you would be buying my Bee/Ant Spray...

  36. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
    AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years ago

    Al Gore did the world a great disservice by making that movie: because he made it a "Democrat" or a "liberal" issue, thus, whether it is sound science or not, any anti-Democrat or anti-liberal cannot help but remember that it was Gore who pushed this into the limelight (I'm not a Democrat or pro-Gore, not being American, for a start)...

    Because in terms of economics, there are in fact stacks and stacks of dollars to be made from forcing whole societies to reconfigure their infrastructures -- I mean huge heaps of dough...

    ...so in that sense it is a pro-capitalist, pro-entrepreneur, pro-market-stimulating movement, which right wingers *should* like the sound of...

    ...of course, if you're an oil-patch developer (like Canada), or an oil company, then you might be less than keen.. but there are OTHER corporations and companies in America! One's that might *like* the idea of powering their factories using green technology that cuts downn their overheads, for example...

  37. Misha profile image67
    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Me? No. I am immune to this. I still have a few older misconceptions ingrained into a psyche by my socialist upbringing, but I am pretty resistant to new indoctrinations. smile

  38. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    Whats interesting about this topic is that the global warmers are in denial...You have bunk science..bunk politicians telling you to believe it and you go there hook line and sinker....Iam telling you Fire ants and Killer Bees are taking over the world..buy my Bee Ant Spray...lol

    1. profile image0
      Writer Riderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The danger with you global warming debunkers is that you're using politics to justify your stance. You know, the oil companies want more excess profit so they go around debunking environmentalists and use the republican platform to do so. This is neither a republican or democrat issue but it is a real one and with all the evidence supporting experts who have the actual data about global warming. It will be too late to ask for a pair of floatees once a tidal wave swollows your city like it did in SouthEast Asia.

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        If in doubt, follow the money: who has the most to gain/lose in any given situation... this always tell you a lot

  39. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
    AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years ago

    I don't understand how normal people (like myself and everyone else on this thread, at least I am assuming), ie., non- professional-scientists, think they can form an opinion on this at all.

    It's like asking whether we believe in such and such a theory in engineering, or quantum physics. I mean, frankly how the hell are any of us equiped to make any decision at all on this???

    I realize the response to this is something like "But this really matters, because it could affect the economy."

    While this is true, it STILL doesn't change the fact that we are non-scientists making judgments about a specialist field.

    In addition, economics is *itself* a specialized field: who's to say a shift towards green policy might not *stimulate* growth - certainly not you and me, because we are not professional *economists* either...

    1. profile image0
      Writer Riderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. It would actually create more jobs and save everyone money if we focus on green jobs.

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Well, it might, and it might not -- as a non-specialist economist, I'm hesitant to make a definitive pronouncement like that smile(though it would seem to make sense). And, similarly, the non-specialists who would say the opposite, are *also* non-specialists...

        1. profile image0
          Writer Riderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I know people who have green jobs and they say we can save thousands of dollars on electricity especially since the government has made it possible to buy green equipment such a solar panels at a cheap price. In the past it would have been too expensive. The time is rife and, frankly, I heard green heating is better (hotter). Maybe I'll do a hub (don't take it people).

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            So much of this debate seems a bit odd to me; I mean, an economy structured so that we are not beholden to gas prices, and to oil-producing countries, and where technology exists so each household and company can produce its own energy for free sounds good to me! I am no expert, (and that was my point -- no-one is, who is debating this, except very, very few people), but I'd say we should push for these three things no matter what!

            As for "drill baby drill", I realize it is a matter of opinion, but once those great eco-systems are gone, they're gone: they have inherent value...

            1. tksensei profile image59
              tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah, so does clouds that rain free beer, but don't hold your breath...

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Yep, true -- certain companies have too much to lose: Exxon, Texaco...

            2. tksensei profile image59
              tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              No matter what?!

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Good God, do you have to be so pedantic!!!

                1. tksensei profile image59
                  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Words have meanings.

                  1. profile image0
                    Ghost32posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    Agreed.  Words do have meanings.  Additionally, the definition of "pedantic" involves "showing off his knowledge".  Seems to me that what TK usually does is simply question reckless assertions.

                  2. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    OK, "no matter what more-or-less", without stating what most people accept anyway, that absolutes are never absolute, but only "in generals" when put under a high power microscope.

                2. profile image0
                  Ghost32posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    It is not faulty logic to use a phrase like "no matter what" when obviously there are always situations where you have to throw "no matter what" out of the window: we all agree with this, so it is an unspoken background to the debate. On the other hand, it is also certainly worth it to debate, well, the mechanics of debate itself: this can only make us all better debaters, tis true

  40. GL Bell profile image59
    GL Bellposted 15 years ago

    Well here we go... I worked for a company that recycles everything in California. End result of recycle is to deliver it to a company here that ships container after container back to China so they can get cheap raw materials and make more crap to ship back over here and sell. Think of the 'carbon footprint'....and Solar panels and batteries to make electric cars are the same result. Takes way too much energy to make them and soon we will have landfills full of poisnous electric car batteries... Such bunk...such ignorance...recycle yea...what a waste...

  41. wheretobuygold profile image60
    wheretobuygoldposted 15 years ago

    This global warming stuff is a complete and total scam.  The science and propaganda has been used by progressives as a tool to empower governments and the elites over the people.  They continually seek a "crisis" to scare people into supporting their wealth redistributive goals.

    Here we are probably witnessing the end of our world economic system because the derivatives market is totaling 1.25 quadrillion dollars, The United States nearing 14 trillion in debt and the elites are still trying to push us further over the edge. 

    Even if global warming is legit, we'll probably never know now that the global warming scientists have destroyed the necessary data.  It's a total sham, enacted as usual to give the elite power over the people.  Be careful what nonsense you believe.  It's about population control.  Whatever their goals, they won't succeed for the meek shall inherit the Earth.

  42. profile image0
    baconmidgetposted 15 years ago

    cycles cycles cycles. it was cold back in the day now its a little warmer then it will get cold again thats all it is. there's even a picture of michael moore getting on a huge private jet and yet he wants us to ride our bikes to work. ha! don't be fooled but on the other hand i do think we need to take care of our environment but we don't need to go overbaord like what they are saying and doing with all this prius sh*t and stuff.

  43. Eaglekiwi profile image73
    Eaglekiwiposted 15 years ago

    Definatley not dumb!
    Globally challenged maybe lol smile

  44. Valerie F profile image59
    Valerie Fposted 15 years ago

    Still, any chicken littles who wish to tell me that spring is coming earlier, that winter isn't as short, or that snow levels are declining is welcome to explain to me why in the past ten years I've witnessed snowstorms as late as the summer solstice, how a blizzard dumped 15 inches of snow, snapping limbs off of deciduous trees that hadn't yet dropped their leaves because it was only October, or they can come and help me dig out of all the snow we're getting.

    (I thought today as I shoveled snow that I'd like to know if I could apply the polar ice caps' secret to melting on my mother-in-law's driveway today.)

  45. profile image59
    logic,commonsenseposted 15 years ago

    The planet has warmed and cooled since it came into existence.  It will continue to warm and cool long after humans are extinct.
    We have some small affect on the environment, but it is far larger and greater than we can even fathom.  The environment will take care of itself without regard to us.  It may not be what we desire, but it will do whatever is necessary to balance things out over time.  Always has.

    1. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      There'll be some REAL global warming there at the end.

    2. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, nice to take the long view.  The planet will still be here long after we've killed ourselves off through stupidity.

      1. Paradise7 profile image69
        Paradise7posted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Stupidity, ignorance.  We're ALL ignorant of some things, and each of us has a different gift.  Let's not sound so harsh and judgemental towards people in general.  There's a lot we don't know, there's a lot we can't fathom, and some of the things we don't know are universally unknown.  So why get on the high horse?

        I agree with the viewpoint that global climate conditions change over time with or without human help, and these naturally recurring cycles of global warming and ice ages are unpreventable.  That doesn't mean I think people who can't see it or don't agree are stupid!

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Paradise7 - I can see how my words might seem targeted at people here on the forum, but that was not my intention.

          The fact is, even if global warming weren't happening, we humans are in serious trouble.  Freshwater reserves are disappearing, animals are going extinct faster than at any time since the dinosaurs, the oceans are being overfished, plastic waste is overwhelming the Pacific, factory farms are creating huge dead zones in the Ocean, forests are disappearing...

          It is one thing to be ignorant of these facts, but quite another to deny that they will cause human suffering in the years to come. 

          As a whole, humanity is pretty stupid, not much smarter than rabbits who overpopulate their habitat, eat everything in sight, and then experience a population crash because there is suddenly not enough food for all the babies.  The tools of science have been widely available for 500 years or so, yet most of us live in some kind of superstitious haze.  We make decisions based on feelings and instinct, and then seek others of like mind, and facts that support our preconceptions.

          It's not so much stupidity, it's the way we are wired - and that wiring proved very successful for our evolution as a species.  But now we have reached the point where superstition and instinct must be laid aside.

          So - no disrespect intended to those forumites who are genuinely skeptical, who are examining the evidence with an open mind, and who seek the highest quality information to make their decisions.

  46. apricot profile image79
    apricotposted 15 years ago

    Talking of elephants - the fact that, on the Dr Mann's 'Hockey Stick Curve' graph (which provides definitive 'proof' of Global Warming), the entire Medioeval Warming Period has been conveniently missed out is rather a big elephant to ignore, I'd say. neutral (See:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/)
    But as I said before, why do we have to line people's pockets to look after the planet?  Surely we should be doing that anyway without being shown 'we are all doomed' data (a lot of it originating from the University of East Anglia who are at the centre of 'Climategate'.)

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The 'hockey stick' was a reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures.  The Medieval Warm Period was local to Europe.  When you average all the temperatures in from around the globe, the Medieval warm period goes away. 

      The National Academy of Science, among others, have examined Mann's work and found it to be valid: 

      http://naturematters.wordpress.com/2006 … -debunked/

      1. apricot profile image79
        apricotposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the link - I looked at it but I have to say I found it a bit vague.  According to this, Mann's paper is 'valid' but there's no exhaustive explanation as to why.  It mentions 'an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions'
        According to research carried out by the Canadian mathematician Steve McIntre the cores they used to carry out tests in Yamal, Russia were 'implausibly low' - ten, in fact - I find his research much more thorough (see: http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yama … e-problem/ )
        All the same I think things like graphs and data could be bounced back and forth an eternity with no one agreeing on anything.  Although I personally buy into McIntyre's research, the main point, for me, is - what has someone like McIntyre got to win by disproving Dr Mann's hockey stick graph?  And what have all the other scientists got to lose if Global Warming is found out to be a scam? 

        Added to that there's the discovery of emails sent by scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit whose computers were broken into by hackers last month.  Here's a sample of correspondance between pro Global Warming scientists:

        'I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.'

        And another:
        'The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.'

        They can show me all the data they want but I'm going with my instinct on this one.  And I'm going to carry on doing what I've always done - looking after the planet regardless of what scare tactics they use.  smile

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Hi Apricot.  Looks like some of the links are broken in that blogpost.  Here's a link to the National Academy of Science's report on the work of Mann and others to reconstruct historical climate data:

          http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

          You bring up the climategate emails.  When Phil Jones said he wanted to "hide the decline", he wasn't talking about a decline in global temperatures.  He was talking about a decline in the reliability of tree rings to show past temperature data.

          In other words, up to the year 1960, you can examine tree rings and draw conclusions about local temperatures.  But for some reason, after 1960 the tree ring record stops matching the instrumental record, at which point you have to look at other sources of information. 

          Jones was talking about one source of information about past climate.  "Hide the decline" referred to averaging in other climate data from the same period to make up for the sudden unreliability of tree ring data.  In fact, Jones published a paper in Nature detailing how he "hid" this decline.  And there is no reason to believe that the tree ring evidence invalidates the other evidence, because our data collection has only gotten better and more accurate since 1960.

          A good examination of the science is found here:

          http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/ … e-decline/

          1. profile image52
            JHTRazorposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            William, there is one problem with this approach. Either tree ring data is a reliable proxy for actual temperatures or it isn't.  Phil Jones and others are claiming that tree ring data was an accurate reflection of temperatures up until 1960, but unreliable afterwards -- most likely due to the rapid increase in temperature.

            Now, what's to say that during the medieval warming period (MWP), or the Roman warming period, that the tree ring data also fails to properly reflect the warming trend and diverged from actual increase in temperatures? 

            Phil Jones is picking and choosing the science to reach a predetermined conclusion, rather than objectively looking at the data and seeing where it leads him. 

            The climategate emails simply highlight what was pretty apparent before they were leaked.

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              Razor - there are many other proxies in addition to tree rings.  The PNAS report I linked above for Apricot is worth looking at.  It's not picking and choosing - it's looking at many different sources of information and discerning a trend.  Some data points will diverge.

              In any case, from around 1850 to 1960 we have gradually more reliable instrumental temperature records.  The tree ring data agrees with this data.  Since 1960, our temperature records have only increased in quality.  So throwing out all the other proxies and measurements solely on the basis of tree rings would not be a proper treatment of the evidence.

              1. profile image52
                JHTRazorposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                However, it's the very picking and choosing that global warming skeptics are accused of doing.  Depending on which proxies are used, it is possible to make a case for the MWP being much warming than now.  Isn't this exactly what Jones and company are doing?

                It's true that we didn't have instrumental temperature data 1200 years ago, so proxy data is all we have, but this is a case of saying "it's good enough for historical records that prove our point, but not for the current periods, because it doesn't prove our point."

                The actual temperature aside, what the CRU emails show is a pattern of deception.  Whether it is stating a do whatever it takes approach to keep dissenting views from the IPCC reports, or to strong arming publishers into not publishing 'skeptic' pieces in peer reviewed journals, and worst of all, applying 'fudge factors' to proxy data to make it match the predetermined conclusion.

                Another troubling revelation from the programmer cleaning up the CRU database, was that he stated that in many cases the temperature data didn't actually match the reporting stations, such as having temperature data for 10 years prior to the reporting station coming online.  Or, having temperature data that didn't match up with any station (Lat/Lon), so just picking one to add it to, or when they had more temperature data than stations, just creating new, fictitious reporting stations.

                I will not sit here and try and proclaim that I know whether or not man is a major influence on temperature. It is not my field, so I certainly do not.  However, it is very clear that we need a truly independent review of the data and conclusions that have been reached by the CRU, NASA, GISS and others, which the IPCC relied on, and in turn the EPA relied on.

                1. barryrutherford profile image74
                  barryrutherfordposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  re pattern of deception this is worth a read. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 … te=thedrum

                2. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Not quote what Jones and co. are doing, because there are multiple sources of evidence from around the globe, and from all the evidence the MWP was local to Europe.



                  Not quite because the historical record is corroborated by the other proxies.  Check out this paper:

                  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 … 678a0.html

                  from the abstract:





                  I'd like to see a link about the programmer's assertions.  That sounds interesting. 

                  As for the data and conclusions:  there are, as they say, "multiple and robust" lines of evidence pointing to human emissions as the cause of the current warming.  CRU is not the only group of scientists studying the data.

  47. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 15 years ago

    Some more good explanations of why the emails aren't quite so damning, with good examination of the science:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-T … arming.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-the … eriod.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey- … rings.html

    1. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      William, I am afraid that the science is wasted on many in here because the world is too big a place for them to relate to.  When you hear phrases such as "if there is Global Warming going on why was I shoveling snow yesterday" and "why are my trees turning earlier every year?".  This only shows the shortsightedness and lack of understanding.  As the title of the thread states, "43% of Americans are Dumb".

      1. apricot profile image79
        apricotposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Yes!  They're all totally dumb! 

        Convincing argument. 

        Perhaps if I keep working on it I might someday be a part of that intelligent 57%!  Sigh!  Better keep practising! 
        (What was it again - 2+2=5, 2+2=5, 2+2=5..nearly got it!) smile

        1. rhamson profile image69
          rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Well if you must keep working on it then I would suggest reading some more about it before you try to explain it away.

          1. apricot profile image79
            apricotposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Rhamson!  I'm not declaring myself as an expert but I'll be happy to hear what you know and have a confab.  On the basis of what you've written so far I don't have a lot to go on regarding your own explanations but you're welcome to read my previous postings and give me your opinions.  They won't take long to read but please do take the time to read them.  If you point out where I am explaining it away that would be very welcome - any advice on strengthening my own argument is always welcome!smile

  48. apricot profile image79
    apricotposted 15 years ago

    Hi WilliamRWilson! Thanks for your link. 

    So apparently Trenberth inconsciously wrote:

    'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

    but what he actually meant to say was this:

    "Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

    Oh, the silly billy!  Must have been his sub conscious speaking. 

    Sorry but as I say, with the majority of scientists on their side and with a lot riding on this, they're going to do their best to cover up things. 
    As I say, I'm going on gut instinct with this one. 
    But not only that - I've read a lot of the emails and they don't leave me in any doubt.  It's a pity that not more of the newspapers are writing about 'Climategate' but then, with the money behind it, that's to be expected.  Of course, I've no doubt that the majority of people are going to buy into the version the 'bonafide' scientists give them. 
    It's a shame there's such deceit in the world - after all, these people could actually being doing something for the planet. sad

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, that's what he meant to say.

      Let me ask you this:  have you read the paper he was writing about?  Have you read the entire email that this quote comes from?

      Here's the intro paragraph to the paper:



      And here's a link to a PDF version:

      http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/t … final2.pdf

      The email thread can be read in it's entirety here:

      http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails. … 523796.txt

      It is clear to me that they are talking about inadequate ability to track the 'energy budget' of the planet.

      1. apricot profile image79
        apricotposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Yes I did read the emails in their entirety and it's true that some of them can easily be talked out of of but others are pretty clear I'd say, but obviously no email is ever going to be entirely clear.  The fact is they're certainly pretty damning evidence and the failure to pick up on it in the mainstream press is enough to make one suspicious in itself.  Even if the emails were very little to go on (and they're certainly not in my eyes) why are the press so tongue-tied all of a sudden?  Not being able to make a story out of very little is something they're good at after all. 

        It's something that could be discussed all night but I'm afraid I'm going to have to take a break because I could have written a hub in this time  and perhaps it would have been quicker!smile (although it's been interesting having this discussion) Like I said, graphs, facts and so forth could be bounced backwards and forwards for an eternity but my nose smells a cover up here!smile

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Haha!  A computer break, what a novel idea!  smile

          I need one too. 

          I'm glad to discuss this with you - I get a lot of inspiration and knowledge from forum discussions.  Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful points!

          And by the way - I'm looking forward to the hub on this topic that you mentioned on Barry Rutherford's hub.

          1. apricot profile image79
            apricotposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Hello!  I'm back and extremely unreposed as I've just spend hours and hours writing my Global Warming hub and now I'm off for another break. smile I have to thank you for your very informed thoughts yesterday as they inspired me to write something that has been milling round my head for weeks!  I know you're a GW supporter but I'd welcome any thoughts from the 'opposition'.
             
            http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-make-mon … rming-here

            And anyone else from who has any views on GW for that matter.  Needless to say, if my manner seems brash anywhere in the article (although it shouldn't do) please don't take offence - my point is that we should all work together in protecting our planet (although perhaps in a different way to how the GW supporters see it!smile)
            Cheerio

            1. JYOTI KOTHARI profile image61
              JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              yes, I am against global warming, carbon emissions etc. I have written several hubs on the topic and I will publish two more by tomorrow.

              Thanks,
              Jyoti Kothari

  49. apricot profile image79
    apricotposted 15 years ago
    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Apricot - this post deals with one set of tree ring data from one area.  Basically what it proves is that tree ring data are unreliable after 1960 - something that climatologists are aware of and I've already pointed out here. 

      So - tree ring data is unreliable and show a decline in temperature after 1960.  OK - we'll just have to go with the other evidence: satellite measurements, surface monitoring stations, animal movements, decreasing snow cover, decreasing ice caps, earlier spring melts, and on and on. 

      I admire McIntyre, but he's built his career around being a skeptic.  Look at what other sources have to say about temperature proxies - especially the PNAS article I linked above.

      1. apricot profile image79
        apricotposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Ok, I'll have a better read of the PNAS article (I read all your links but I don't remember seeing that one - are you sure you put the link in?)

        As I say, for me the fundamental point is simply that McIntyre  has nothing much to gain from all the research he's carried out.  What I mean is, I suppose he'll gain  something but it won't be anything in comparison to what he had to go through to get hold of information from the CRU (apparently they weren't very obliging in handing over data).  And as I say, in comparison to what a lot of people might lose from his findings...well, as I say, I go on gut feeling with this one.
         
        There's undoubtedly a lot of other evidence as you say - the decreasing ice caps and so forth but as far as I can make out it does seem to be a case of pieces of information being twisted to back up someone else's agenda. 
        From what I've read there is ice melting in western Antartica but, apparently in East Antartica, which is four times the size of west Antartica, parts of it are actually cooling.  According to Dr Ian Allison, head of the Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program
        'sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica'. 
        And of course,(at least as far as I know) this isn't reported by the mainstream press. 

        As regards the melting ice in the West, Allison says 'ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I’m talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years.'
        So, according to Allison, this would be a expected phenomenum.

        In a way, I wish such deception didn't exist (although it's perhaps better for the planet if it's the way the sceptics say it is) but the fact remains that we don't need scare tactics to look after the planet.  We should be doing that anyway.  smile

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Here is the PNAS article:

          http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

          Regarding Antarctica - it's complicated.  I just spent the whole day yesterday researching a hub on Antarctic ice and I would be honored if you paid a visit:

          http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-Global-Warmi … arctic-Ice

          The information in the press about Antarctica is very confusing and hard to sort through.  Antarctica is a complicated place.  It's true that parts of Antarctica are cooling, while others are warming drastically.  And Sea ice extent has increased in Antarctica.  But overall Antarctica has lost ice mass

          In other words, Antarctic ice is thinning out, and the land ice is melting, which is a big problem for sea levels in the future.

          1. apricot profile image79
            apricotposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Definitely will have a look at your article!! (I'll have to have a break from the computer first though!)

  50. Paradise7 profile image69
    Paradise7posted 15 years ago

    Ice ageas AND global warming are both recurring natural cycles.  We're idiots if we think we can prevent or effectively alter the great cycling sweeps of time and climate changes on the planet.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)