Economics of Environmental Controls

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

I have no doubt that it exceeded all reality.

[Ed Pettibone]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[Ed Pettibone]

KeithE writes "Try Gallup Polls for a legitimate view of opinions"

Ed: And Keith. what makes Gallup polls "legitimate"? Until they publish their polling methodology for each pollm I will take the results with a grain of salt. And exactly what does public "opinion" prove about GW or any scientific dispute.

Re: Gallup on presidential elections, note "It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House."

November 10, 2012,
Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race By NATE SILVER New York Times
(Gallup was 23rd of 23 polling organizations)

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith you are up early, see my edit in the post above yours Re Gallup's poor results in the past three presidential elections.

But thanks for the link to the methodology, the results are interesting. Still not real impressed with their selection process. And while they confirm the weighting of results, they do not define the weighting process.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

David reprints an imaginary tale from a typically sarcastic denialist source (WUWT). It is to his shame that he buys into such unscientific bloggers as Anthony Watts.

For real science about the end of the last ice age read:

especially the leading theory .

Or if you do not trust Wiki, try or .

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

It really doesn't matter much what the polling data says people believe about global warming, though the few polls that favor the denialist perspective (like Gallup and Rasmussen) are among the most inaccurate and skewed. What matters is the scientific research, which is still not exact or perfect and which is still discovering data, factoring variables and analyzing results.

The title of this thread contains the word "economics." Like everything else in American culture, including the Christian church and Christian faith, money is the bottom line. It is power. It can buy just about anything it wants except eternal life, though it can even manipulate how people hear that message. The presence of any evidence of global warming has a direct impact on the military industrial complex that runs this country from top to bottom. Any information that comes to light which might have a potential impact on the cash flow of the small percentage of individuals and corporate groups who control 99% of the money is suppressed by any means available. The billions that are spent on suppression, including the spread of massive amounts of mis-information, is considered an investment to protect future capital gains.

Political support, especially from American politicians, is a relatively inexpensive investment, since the system has been tilted in favor of cash stuffed corporations and the massively wealthy and away from the people. A good example is the Trans Pacific Pact. Its supporters have been able to bring Republicans and Democrats together in cooperation that we haven't seen in Congress since the Depression. They can buy the news media. A couple of decades ago, it was unthinkable to drop a paid advertisement into the middle of a news broadcast or into a newspaper and allow it to appear as a news story. Now, half of what you read in the newspaper, or see on the nightly news, is a paid advertisement. How do you know? There's a tiny disclaimer, almost invisible, which appears in the corner of your screen, or at the end of the article, indicating the source. The insurance block and corporate medicine have spend billions to derail Obamacare, and their supporters, alleged "fiscal conservatives" in Congress, were willing to waste $24 billion of the taxpayers dollars over just a couple of weeks to try to keep it from happening. The sad fact of life is that the pursuit of money by those who have enough of it to add to their massive totals, is much more of a priority than the rights of people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and there are people who are willing to poison the atmosphere, water and land, deny basic medical care, and ultimately control supplies of food, water and clothing in order to expand their wealth. That is where this country is headed, and I don't believe there is now any way to stop it.

You can keep discussing and arguing your position as long as you like. It will not change anything.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]