Obama supporters ignorant
UPDATE, 11/20, 6:30p: The following video, which Jasper highlighted as his quote of the day 2 days ago, is an accompaniment to the Zogby poll, commissioned by HowObamaGotElected.com:
See page 2 for the 12 questions (and answers) these people were asked.
_______________
UPDATE, 11/19, 2:35p: Results from Zogby…
Only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly….
94% of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could “see Russia from their house,” 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of “none” or “Palin” was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden — 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three-quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first 6 months as President.
[T]he… survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election — 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
_______________
Zogby conducted an interesting poll asking respondents 12 questions about the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. No surprise: Obama voters flunked.
Here are the questions. See if you know the answers. Readers here are well informed. I expect all 100%s! One option, btw, is “None.”
1. Before this past election, which political party controlled both houses of congress? Democrats
2. Which candidate could not say how many houses they own? McCain
3. Which candidate said they could see Russia from their house? None (Tina Fey)
4. Which candidate had to quit a previous political campaign because they were found to have plagiarized a speech? Biden
5. Which candidate won their first election by getting all of their opponents kicked off the ballot? Obama
6. Which candidate wore clothes that their political party reportedly spent $150,000 on? Palin
7. Which candidate currently has a pregnant teenage daughter? Palin
8. Which candidate said that Obama would be tested in his first six months as president by a generated international crisis? Biden
9. Which candidate claimed to have campaigned in 57 states? Obama
10. Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket? Obama
11. Which candidate said that the government should redistribute the wealth? Obama
12. Which candidate started their political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground? Obama
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Doesnt surprise me in the least. I think very few people have any idea what they are getting starting in January 2009.
Thank the mainstream media for this. I quit watching it a long time ago, with the exception of Fox news.
What a bunch of sore losers you Republicans are turning out to be. Obama supporters “ignorant?” You sound just like the Democrats in 2000.
These questions are awfully trivial. Who cares which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter, or which candidate plagiarized a speech? What does any of this have to do with the economy, health care or the war in Iraq?
Keep focusing on stuff nobody cares about, Republicans! Help the Democrats win even more seats in Congress! I know you can do it!
Oh and of course…. I’m sure the Obamabots thought it was Sarah Palin who has no idea how many states there are but in fact it was their hero who got it wrong.
Sorry, I can’t post answers because we’re having problems on the site. Will do asap.
“Who cares which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter, or which candidate plagiarized a speech? What does any of this have to do with the economy, health care or the war in Iraq?”
Reality, that reveals a lot about a person’s character. What that person does in public office is an extension of their character.
Reality-
These questions are meant to gauge MEDIA BIAS. Some attest to the dumbassness of Obama supporters, but they are intended to show how to media overplayed the “negative” attributes of Palin/McCain and glossed over the truly disturbing attributes of Obama/Biden.
That’s why it matters. Note that they could all point out the supposed clothes scandal, but didn’t know the name of the terrorist that Obama shares a political bed with. Hmmmm.
Well we need to delay sex education funding in the 57 states and start civics lessons again. I suspect it is politically incorrect to survey and discover the largest number of school dropouts are Obama voters.
Here is the video. They guy that made this was interviewed last night and offered the host double the cost of his production if he could collect the same demographically representive sample with the same results for McCain voters…… I guess he’s got a point there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
1-dems
2-McCain(though this wasn’t really his quote)
3-none-tina fey impersonating Palin said this
4-Biden
5-Obama
6-Palin
7-Palin
8-Biden
9-Obama
10-Obama
11-Obama
12-Obama
12-
What was even scarier is that they got their news from comedy shows thinking it was news.
GRRR….10, 11, and 12 are all FALSE! Obama NEVER said he would bankrupt the Coal Industry, he said under his cap and trade you would not be able to build a NEW coal fired plant. Obama NEVER said he wanted to redistribute wealth, he said he wanted to cut taxes on people who make less than $200K a year and let the Bush tax cut expire on people over $250K a year. And both Obama and Ayers have denied that he started his career in Ayer’s home, in fact Obama’s first political meeting was in the home of a Rabbi that lived in the same neighborhood. So enough with the lies in ZOgby’s push polls….
reality: “These questions are awfully trivial. Who cares which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter, or which candidate plagiarized a speech? What does any of this have to do with the economy, health care or the war in Iraq?”
It demonstrates what the mainstream media have focused on over the past few months/years. We hear about Gov. Palin’s expensive, borrowed wardrobe ad infinitum, but the people who know that don’t even know what party has controlled Congress for the past two years.
Everyone here pays attention to politics and still gets things wrong, as JohnS points out. Wonder how McCain voters would do in a poll I designed?
Hal,
Go for it. Id like to see the results too. Make sure to include questions on Obama.
Posted by: JohnS at November 19, 2008 2:50 PM
He DID, in fact, say that his PLAN would bankrupt the coal industry. “It’s going to bankrupt them because they’ll be charged a huge sum of money…” It doesn’t matter HOW they’ll go bankrupt, but they will. So you’re saying that they can’t build a NEW facility to replace an out of date one? Nice. Why don’t we do that for EVERY industry. That’s right, because it’s STUPID.
And did you even listen to the video? Obama DOES say he wants to “spread the wealth around.” Same as redistributing it, I mean really, come on.
John, you truly are ignorant. You cut out the first part of the coal statement “They can continue (business as usual) if they want to but It’s going to bankrupt them because they’ll be charged a huge sum of money.’
Context is everything.
As for redistribution of wealth… what is our progressive tax system? Social Security? Welfare? WIC? Unemployment? Disaster relief? Government funding of almost anything? ALL of these take money from someone and… say it with me… REDISTRIBUTES it someplace else.
The problem isn’t redistribution, the problem is buying the bs argument that something is wrong with redistribution. Oh, and before you utter some super-stupid retort – Sarah Palin, your favorite “hot chick,” levies a huge tax on oil companies and writes a check to every man woman and child in Alaska every year. THAT is socialism and redistribution my confused friend.
My post at 2:03 was only referring to Joe Biden’s plagiarizing.
The question that bothered me the most was the one about which party controls Congress. If you don’t think that’s important, “reality”, then you need to change your nickname immediately. I suggest changing it to “willfully ignorant”.
America didn’t really start tanking until two years ago when the Democrats took over Congress. And yet, because the media isn’t interested in educating people, millions of Americans seem to think that the Republicans have been in control.
Jim 3:37PM
You can directly quote Obama, even show videos of him making statements. His followers will argue he didn’t mean it, it was a one time statement, or its really not the way it sounds.
Its just mindboggling. Here’s a man who sat in a pew for 20 years but was clueless as to what his preacher said. He barely knew Bill Ayers yet Bill Ayers describes himself as a family friend of the Obama’s.
He promises change and all we’re getting is a bunch of Clinton retreads.
His followers will just shut their eyes, ears, and minds to everything this man says and does.
9. Which candidate claimed to have campaigned in 57 states? Obama
Okay, did any of you see him say this? When he said he had campaigned in 57 states, and had one more to go, and he couldn’t make it to the last two. (One was Hawaii, I forget the other). The man is a lawyer, and until today a US senator. Do you really think he doesn’t know how many states there are? We’re crucifying people now for misspeaking? Geeze guys, grow up.
And, Kristen.. “He DID, in fact, say that his PLAN would bankrupt the coal industry.”
He said companies that wanted to build NEW plants using coal would go bankrupt because they will get charged due to their greenhouse gas emissions level. Now, if they can control their greenhouse gas they won’t go bankrupt. If they can’t, then guess what: they shouldn’t be in the environment. I’m glad you only think of babies while they’re in the womb, but I want children to be able to survive outside of it too. :) Anyway, he didn’t say he would bankrupt the coal industry.
Mary, did you watch the Bill Ayers interview? When Bill Ayers says he know Obama about as well as thousands of people in Chicago? He specifically talked about how he had a fundraiser for Obama in 1995 and that he in no way advises Obama?
You obviously didn’t watch Bill Ayers interview.
Yeah. They sound like besties.
BTW, the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time: “I quit watching it a long time ago, with the exception of Fox news.” I lol-ed.
And did you even listen to the video? Obama DOES say he wants to “spread the wealth around.” Same as redistributing it, I mean really, come on.
Posted by: Kristen at November 19, 2008 4:29 PM
No, two totally different things. “Spread the wealth around” is more like “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Redistributing wealth is something altogether different. Like Palin’s Alaska.
Josephine,
No I didn’t watch the Bill Ayers interview because the man turns my stomach. To give any kind of credence or respectability to a thug like this is more than I can handle.
This is the guy who dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Democrat icon Robert Kennedy. One must wonder if the Kennedy family, who are supporters of Obama, have any issue with a family friend of Obama’s dedicating a book to the murderer of their family member. Would you have an issue with this if it were your loved one?
Ayers also said he was family friends with the Obamas. That would suggest to me he did more than hold a fundraiser for him. Tell me Josephine, do you hold events in your home for people you barely know?
Mary, he is NOT a family friend of Obama. Did you SEE Bill Ayers say he’s family friends with Obama? I didn’t. And, unlike you, I watched his interview.
And, MANY people hold fundraisers for politicians they don’t know personally. Are you kidding?? Do you think every politician is a close personal friend of the person holding the fundraiser for them? Bill Ayers didn’t hold the fundraiser as a “favor” to Obama. He wanted Obama to get elected.
It’s not like Obama was there watching a football game and drinking a beer. Mary, for
Thank you Hal. He said “spreading the wealth around” through progressive taxation (Teddy Roosevelt anyone?) was a good thing. That’s the quote. Redistribution is a whole other ballgame.
And once again HE NEVER SAID HE WAS GOING TO BANKRUPT THE ENTIRE COAL INDUSTRY. He said under his cap and trade you could build a new coal plant but you’d go bankrupt in the process. The POINT was to build something other than new coal plants.
Get over yourselves. We won, you lost, it’ll be at least 4 years before you can bring back Ayn Rand economics and get us back into the next Great Depression.
Josephine,
Did you miss the part in my post where I said Ayers wrote it as a post note in his book? He may not have said it in the interview, but he did write it. Now when people say “family friends” I take this to mean they did more than wave to each other when taking out the garbage, maybe more like watching a football game or having a beer together.
At the meeting in Ayers’ home Obama was tapped by outgoing state senator Alice Palmer to be her successor. It sounds more like a political strategy meeting than a fundraiser and not like just another home Obama stopped in for coffee as Ayers suggested it was. Why go to the Ayers’ home for this?
What if McCain had gone to the home of Eric Rudolph for his political “coming out”.
I’ve only been to one private home for a fundraiser and the hostess was well acquainted with the candidate. Others have been in restaurants given by people who know the candidate.
Josephine,
I must apologize. Apparently I didn’t mention the postnote on this thread but discussed it on another. Bill Ayers wrote in his book, a postnote in his autobiography, where he describes himself and the Obamas as “family friends”.
It was my fault for not making that clear to you prior to now.
JohnS,
He said he was going to bankrupt anyone attempting to build a new coal plant. This would eventually result in the bankruptcy of the coal industry. Certainly Obama must understand this since it isn’t exactly rocket science.
If I said I would bankrupt anyone building a home I suppose one could argue, “hey, Mary never said she would bankrupt the housing industry”. It would certainly be the end result of my strategy, would it not?
John S,
The catch is we still depend mainly on coal to generate our electricity and until this is phased out, as I’m sure it will be, according to Doug we will be dependent on coal a long, long, time.
This means we can’t abruptly make it impossible to build new plants without destroying the entire industry and causing skyrocketing electrical costs. Again, not rocket science.
Uh, Mary I think you miss a key point. Once the house is built, all the housing industry does is sell it. They don’t “operate” it like a coal fired plant. It’s like saying, if we stopped Walmart from openning any other stores, we would bankrupt the retail indudustry. But the point is, much like he never used the word “redistribute” he never said he would bankrupt any “industry.” It’s at best Republican spin. Tina Fey’s comment on seeing Russia from her house is closer to what Palin said than anything in 10-12 on the Zogby push poll.
Hal :”No, two totally different things. “Spread the wealth around” is more like “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Redistributing wealth is something altogether different.”
JohnS: ” He said “spreading the wealth around” through progressive taxation (Teddy Roosevelt anyone?) was a good thing. That’s the quote. Redistribution is a whole other ballgame.”
Redistribution means to spread. Look it up in the dictionary. They are the same thing. Both mean to move something from a greater concentration to a smaller concentration.
In other words, take “rich” people’s money and give checks to people who do not pay taxes.
Kind of what Obama wants to do.
Not true, you could “redistribute” wealth from the poor to the rich (see Bush tax cuts).
But regardless he never used that word…that’s a Republican spin on what he said. To push-poll it is ridiculous. Again, Sarah Palin said you could see Russia from Alaska and that made her a foreign policy expert, is that all that different than what Tina Fey said? Why not ask “What candidate palled around with terrorists?” I mean come on…
P.s. If you really believe that, then I guess the American people voted for redistribution of wealth, and Obama should start redistributing as soon as possible…
Posted by: Josephine at November 19, 2008 9:15 PM
Come now Josephine, cut the bologna. If you actually read my post you’ll see what I said about building new facilities. You are, of course, aware that 50% of our electricity comes from coal right? Who do you think will be paying the greenhouse charge? Us, of course. Yes, that will CERTAINLY help all the underprivileged children you claim to care SO much about. Give it a rest.
Hal –
What Sarah Palin did in Alaska is completely different than taxing a private citizen at a higher rate to “redistribute the wealth.” You have said over and over again that Obama only wants to tax businesses another 3%. A paltry amount in your estimation. He’s taxing private citizens more in his redistribution effort. And yes, I know the ratio, so if 3% is SO low then, what the heck, let’s increase the business tax by another 6% and forget raising taxes on private citizens. That should MORE than make up for it considering (according to Obama) 95% of us aren’t getting a tax increase anyway.
John 8:40am
I think you miss a point. Yes coal plants will continue to use coal but only so much will need to be produced. More coal plants means more work, workers, and increased income to the coal industry to expand and hire more people and buy needed equipment and meet expenses.
Plants become outdated, will we bankrupt people determined to build new ones? Demand will increase, again do we bankrupt people who want to build plants to meet the demand?
Like it or not we still depend mostly on coal for electricity. who will be hit the hardest by skyrocketing electrical costs? The low and fixed income people.
Coal producers must pay employees and operating costs. If no new coal plants are produced and only x amount of coal is going to be utilized, its not hard to see how this can result in bankruptcy, or at the very least massive layoffs of employees.
Concerning retail, the stores that are built employ more people and generate more income. This is what keeps retail going and people employed. If a store is not doing well in one area it may need to build elsewhere. Forbidding people to build is what slows down the economy and yes, can bankrupt a store chain.
The catch is we still depend mainly on coal to generate our electricity and until this is phased out, as I’m sure it will be, according to Doug we will be dependent on coal a long, long, time.
This means we can’t abruptly make it impossible to build new plants without destroying the entire industry and causing skyrocketing electrical costs. Again, not rocket science.
Mary, coal is currently cheaper than oil and natgas, to run a power plant, but the gap is closing, given the quick decline we’ve seen in crude oil.
Yet uranium is much cheaper yet. I say build nuclear plants.
Obama’s comment about charging prohibitive fees to build coal plants is to encourage alternative energy. I hope he really does push that, even though we’re still going to be using a crapload of coal and the other fossil fuels for a long, long time.
Or…you could build a plant that runs on something else that is less polluting. Which is what Obama wants. Coal will not dissapear overnight but over time we have to move to energy sources that are less damaging to the enviroment.
Doug,
Fine, encourage alternative energy. But until its up and running, build the coal plants to meet the demand, keep people employed, and electricity affordable. Don’t create an energy shortage and a stagnant industry that could face bankruptcy. As you so eloquently state, “we’re still going to need a crapload of coal and other fossil fuels for a long, long time”. Very well said my friend :)
Kristen, I’m not aware I’ve ever talked about under privileged children.
Don’t you think maybe we need to be branching out, being as the CO2 level on Earth right now is SO much higher than it’s ever been BECAUSE of how we live? You think we should keep on with this path? I don’t.
Mary, if we follow your plan, there won’t be any incentive to find alternative energy. It’s a simple concept. If companies can’t afford to build coal plants, they WILL find another way.
Josephine
Not really. Of course there’s incentive. But until we get that alternative energy up and running let’s not stagnate our present source and shoot up electrical costs.
Doug couldn’t have said it better than in the last line of his 3:10PM post.
JohnS 3:16PM
Great idea…when it happens. Until then let’s keep the coal industry strong, electrical costs within reason, people working, and plants built to accomodate the need.
Fine, encourage alternative energy. But until its up and running, build the coal plants to meet the demand, keep people employed, and electricity affordable.
Geez, Mary, build natgas plants – they too employ people and meet the demand, etc. No net loss.
In no way does “building no more coal-fired plants” lead us to unaffordable electricity, unemployment, etc.
Doug-exactly. One thing Boone Pickens is right about is natural gas is our best bridge source right now until more exotic green energy technology become affordable.
Geez Doug,
Great idea. But its not up to us is it? As of now coal is our main source. Until such time as the gas plants, to which I have no objection, are not just talked about but actually up and running and providing us with most of our power, then build the coal plants as needed and meet our country’s energy needs.
JohnS,
Like I told Doug, until the gas plants are up and running and providing us with most of our energy, then keep the coal plants going as needed to provide our energy needs.
Great idea. But its not up to us is it? As of now coal is our main source. Until such time as the gas plants, to which I have no objection, are not just talked about but actually up and running and providing us with most of our power, then build the coal plants as needed and meet our country’s energy needs.
Mary, yes, it is up to “us” as in the people who build power plants. I’ve been at 70 or 80 new ones in the past few years, and every one is fueled by natural gas.
Obama wasn’t saying “shut down all coal plants” or even saying shut any down – he was just saying he’d jack the permit fees way up to encourage alternative energy sources and non-coal-burning plants.
We don’t need any new coal plants to give us all the energy we want.
Doug,
Listen to him on the video. “If someone wants to build a coal powered plant they can, its just that it will bankrupt them.”
Your guy also acknowledges that under this plan, electricity costs will “skyrocket”. Any idea what effect this can have on the economy? How about low and fixed income people?
Coal generates 49% of our electricity.
YOU have said coal will be around for a long long time.
Mary, right, coal will be around, and that’s not dependent on building new plants.
I agree that he won’t go so far if it means electric rates going way up. That’s what I meant about it being a talking point – to acknolwedge that he favors alternative energy sources.
I myself would tell him, “You ain’t gonna do that when it really comes the time….” I don’t think it will be politically possible to do so in the economic environment that’s gonna be in effect.
Doug,
Your guy acknowledges the skyrocketing electrical costs. He must realize that no new plants and increased demand will result in very expensive electicity. Being coal is our main source, not building new plants will result in this happening, as well as stagnation and possible bankruptcy of the coal industry. Business has to expand and grow, it can’t stagnate. Our demands have to be met now. I don’t believe this is a talking point, I take this guy very seriously. If anything, he should support the development of coal plants to provide our energy needs and worry about alternatives down the road.
What’s wrong with coal anyway?
You and I both remember when coal heated homes. No one in my neighborhood ever keeled over from the coal furnaces. Right now coal supplying most of our power doesn’t seem to be killing anyone.
Your guy acknowledges the skyrocketing electrical costs. He must realize that no new plants and increased demand will result in very expensive electicity.
Mary, he’s not saying that. He’s saying use other stuff than coal.
…..
Being coal is our main source, not building new plants will result in this happening, as well as stagnation and possible bankruptcy of the coal industry. Business has to expand and grow, it can’t stagnate. Our demands have to be met now. I don’t believe this is a talking point, I take this guy very seriously. If anything, he should support the development of coal plants to provide our energy needs and worry about alternatives down the road.
There’s plenty of natural gas. In no way do we “need” new coal plants. Hey – I talked to a guy from We Energies, and he said they are building a new coal-fired plant somewhere in Wisconsin, so that’s at least one, anyway.
….
What’s wrong with coal anyway? You and I both remember when coal heated homes. No one in my neighborhood ever keeled over from the coal furnaces. Right now coal supplying most of our power doesn’t seem to be killing anyone.
I know you don’t agree, but the concern is all the greenhouse gases from burning it, and the other pollution it produces. Natgas still results in carbon dioxide, but other than that it burns clean, as opposed to coal. Nuke plants are the way to go, IMO, for the long term – no greenhouse gases either, there.
Doug,
Yes he did acknowledge this would result in skyrocketing electrical costs.
Your friend better get that coal fired plant up and running before Obama gets a chance to bankrupt him. Areas in need in later years will just be SOL.
We’ve been burning coal for decades and without any kind of pollution control for many of those years. The planet is still here. You’re right about greenhouse gas. To let this unproven and debated theory rule us and our energy use is absurd. There are scientists and climatologists who say its hooey.
Natural gas will only give off CO2. So do we all when we breathe. I know we have huge reserves of oil and natural gas so when can we start drilling? Right now natural gas only runs 20% of our power plants. Is it that coal is more plentiful and cheaper?
I agree about nuclear power. As I said, its embarassing that European countries have nuclear power and we build windmills, which by the way have been chopping up our feathered friends.
You’re right about greenhouse gas. To let this unproven and debated theory rule us and our energy use is absurd.
The evindence continues to mount and becomes more compelling all the time.
….
There are scientists and climatologists who say its hooey.
Fewer and fewer all the time.
….
Natural gas will only give off CO2. So do we all when we breathe.
Well, we’ve already been through the CO2 stuff, the earth’s limited capacity absorb the extra that we produce, etc.
…..
I know we have huge reserves of oil and natural gas so when can we start drilling? Right now natural gas only runs 20% of our power plants. Is it that coal is more plentiful and cheaper?
At the present time it’s cheaper to burn coal than to burn natural gas. And we have a LOT of coal but there are the other concerns about it.
We’re going to drill for more oil and gas, no question about it. I don’t know about “huge” reserves, in comparison to what’s already been found and put in production, though.
Doug,
Not really. We’re not told of scientists and climatologists who say manmade global warming is hooey. This is still debated in the scientific community, some even argue we are entering an ice age, just like they did 30 years ago!
Who says the earth has a limited capacity to abosorb Co2?
Interesting, it is at the present time cheaper to burn coal than natural gas. It might also keep energy costs within reason. What about states that want to stick with coal so that their citizens will have jobs? Coal burning plants may be a very viable option for producing energy, job production, and containing energy costs. Maybe that’s why its still our main source.
Again, aren’t there pollution controls at these plants? Also, our neighbors and relatives, even my family for a while, burned coal all the time for heat and I don’t recall any particular consequences of it and there were certainly no pollution controls.
Who says the earth has a limited capacity to abosorb CO2?
Mary,
http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/02-20/warming.asp
http://news.ucanr.org/newsstorymain.cfm?story=695
Doug,
Thank you. Now please google “manmade global warming hoax”.
Mary, that’s the point about Googling “flat earth.”
If getting a lot of hits somehow means it’s valid, then us having a flat earth must be much more valid yet, given over 2,000,000 hits versus a paltry sum of somewhere in the 100,000’s for the “hoax.”
Doug,
Google “global warming hoax”, minus the manmade. You’ll find about 1.3 million hits and some excellent videos and info.
Please, is there scientific debate on the shape of the planet?
Google “global warming hoax”, minus the manmade. You’ll find about 1.3 million hits and some excellent videos and info.
:: sticking tongue out at Mary. ::
Google “global warming” and you’ll get like 43,000,000 hits.
Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.
……
Please, is there scientific debate on the shape of the planet?
Yeah, many scientists think it’s in pretty terrible shape. ; )
Doug,
Put your tongue back in your head. What the 1.3 million proves is that there is serious debate and not all scientists have reached a concensus.
Let me see, you said you got 2 million hits for flat earth. That settles it, the earth is flat, right? First I heard of any debate over the shape of the earth.
Mary: Let me see, you said you got 2 million hits for flat earth. That settles it, the earth is flat, right? First I heard of any debate over the shape of the earth.
There used to be plenty, then it tapered off, just as the objections to global warming are tapering off.
And no, of course a lot of hits doesn’t mean the earth is flat, just as it doesn’t mean there is any “hoax” about global warming.
There’s also at least two separate debates – is the earth actually warming up unusually, and is it due to human activity.
Doug,
1.3 million hits would indicate the debate is alive and doing very well and there is definitely no concensus, which I have argued all along.
It also can mean there is a hoax concerning global warming.
Tell me Doug, how did we ever go from entering the ice age thirty years ago to being ready to incinerate now?
Did you hear some whales already got trapped in ice in the artic? I thought it was all melting.
1.3 million hits would indicate the debate is alive and doing very well and there is definitely no concensus, which I have argued all along.
Mary while there isn’t yet universal agreement, there is an increasing consensus all the time that the warming is occurring, and abnormally fast. The real argument is about how much of it is due to human activity.
….
Tell me Doug, how did we ever go from entering the ice age thirty years ago to being ready to incinerate now?
Hyperbolic rhetoric.
…..
Did you hear some whales already got trapped in ice in the artic? I thought it was all melting.
How about a link to the whales’ story?
As far as melting, oh yeah, bigtime. Not “all” though, at least not yet.
In less than 30 years, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk by more than 20%. That is extraordinary.
Doug 10:58am
Hyperbolic rhetoric.
Everything old is new again
Google “whales trapped in ice”
“Artic Whales trapped in ice” My Green Meadows
Nov. 24 2008..at least 200 Narwhal whales in Canada’s arctic trapped by winter ice…
Maybe the ice has stopped melting. After all, didn’t the Annointed One decree that the day of His nomination would mark when the ocean levels began to go down and the planet would begin to heal? Well, maybe “global warming” did indeed end that day :)
I think He made this announcement right after His daily stroll on Lake Michigan.
Okay, Mary, I saw the thing about the whales.
No, the ice has not stopped melting. There is still ice in the polar regions, though extraordinary changes are afoot there. At such time as there isn’t any ice near the north pole in the summer, even you won’t be arguing about global warming anymore.
Doug,
Don’t stand on one leg waiting for that day :)
By the way Doug, have you heard that volcanic activity has been discovered under the arctic? Something that was not thought possible. Wonder what effect this may have on arctic ice and glaciers.
Heh. Well Mary, it’s not a “stand on one leg” kind of deal, but it’s looking like it’ll be sooner this century than later this century, which was already an incredible thing.
Doug,
What about the recently discovered volcanic activity and what effect can this be having on glaciers and ice?
Doug,
I should specify that volcanic activity has been discovered under the arctic ice, where volcanic activity was not thought to be possible.
Mary, sounds like some more ice is gonna git melted.
Doug,
My point exactly. Maybe that’s what is melting the ice!
Happy Thanksgiving, Mary.
Yeah, heat from underneath could be melting some ice, but it’s a fact that the water temps are warming in most places on earth already.
And really, volcanic eruptions under the sea are nothing new – most of the Earth’s surface is made up of oceanic crust formed by volcanism along seafloor mid-ocean ridges.
What’s unusual about the stuff under the arctic is that it was previously thought that the intense pressure at that depth would not allow for what’s now been observed – pyroclastic deposits.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well Doug,
Undersea volcanic activity may be heating the oceans, including the arctic.
There’s just too much we don’t know, especially about our climate.
Honestly Doug, I would be satisfied with an accurate weather report, which is seldom the case. Yet these are the people who can predict the climate 10 years from now?