There really are some things that the average person's opinion should not matter on, or impact policy.

I've always believed an individual should be able to pass a basic algebra test prior to being allowed to vote on anything or breed.

Should probably require a basic science test before being allowed to vote on specific topics.

victor809 wrote:

There really are some things that the average person's opinion should not matter on, or impact policy.

I've always believed an individual should be able to pass a basic algebra test prior to being allowed to vote on anything or breed.

Should probably require a basic science test before being allowed to vote on specific topics.

victor809 wrote:

Wouldn't that disqualify 80% to 90% of Obama's base?

dpnewell wrote:

Wouldn't that disqualify 80% to 90% of Obama's base?

dpnewell wrote:

No... that's not the salient point of the article. The article is looking at 08 to 12 as the baseline, with the spike in 12 as being the change they are tracking. ie, "why are people suddenly believing in climate change". their suggestion is that it's the localized weather phenomenons.

victor809 wrote:

did you mean to finish this?

victor809 wrote:

You are making assumptions without facts. The baseline is NOT 08 to 12.
The baseline is just 08.
From 09 until this year, there is little change.
Then this year was hot, and the numbers jumped.

The study doesn't tell us HOW we got to the 08 baseline. Maybe it was hot in 07. Maybe it was steady ever since the algore film. Maybe everyone believed in global warming until foxnews told us not to. But for THIS STUDY, the base was 08 and in a hot 2012 yahoos jumped on board with global warming. Yahoos. Each and every one of them. Because it was hot in their room and on their deck, so they decided algore was right.

tailgater wrote:

I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm telling you what your linked article said about the study.

irony is wasted on the stupid.

I've always believed an individual should be able to pass a basic algebra test prior to being allowed to vote on anything or breed.

victor809 wrote:

Hell, we'd be a lot better off if they just had to produce a W2 and valid proof of US citizenship before they could vote or breed.

DadZilla3 wrote:

and were you calling them yahoos when they were disagreeing with global warming?
That's my point. You're only considering them to be yahoos when they stop agreeing with you. I think they're idiots 24/7.

the actual study didn't differentiate a yahoo who doesn't believe in global warming because it's cold, from a yahoo who believes because its hot. The actual study just was correlating heat with belief. You're deciding they're yahoos for jumping from your bandwagon to another. I'm saying they were idiots when they agreed with me as well.

victor809 wrote:

That's not enough in my book. I'd rather a half intelligent non-citizen breed and give input on the running of our country than an idiot with a job and the dumb luck to be born here.

victor809 wrote:

This is getting tedious. If you're name isn't Victor809, please read no further.
Vic,
I don't care who believed or didn't believe prior to the hot day in June.
I'm just stating my opinion that all those who jumped on board with algore because they needed a second application of speed-stik early this year are yahoos.

This shouldn't be difficult.
If you'd like to stray from the information contained in the article and based on the study, then I'd be happy to oblige. But your original link only detailed that some people became believers because they got hot.

One could infer that therefore ALL the previous believers from the baseline year of 2008 had also encountered a hot day at some point prior. Or we could assume that everyone is a politically biased weatherman. Or algores kid. Or rush limbaughs drug dealer.
None of that matters to the discussion at hand.
Namely that a bunch of yahoos now agree with you...

tailgater wrote:

What about people who don't understand articles about global warming studies? Can they vote?

tailgater wrote:

So?
It'd disqualify 80% to 90% of Romney's too.

You've bought in to the myth that democrats are all highschool dropouts. I've had this debate with other individuals on this board many years ago. The educational breakdown of the parties is not what you are assuming.

The individual (a republican) I was debating at the time was unable to understand the simple algebra involved in the statistics. Irony....

victor809 wrote:

I assumed you also looked at the study summarys the article linked. That's what I thought you were referring to when you mentioned the linked study.

Here's a quote: "the researchers found that perceived temperatures still had nearly two-thirds the power as political belief, and six times the power as gender, to push someone one way or the other a notch along the scale"

It isn't as simple as "People became believers because they got hot". In a broad sampling of individuals (not the same individuals sampled twice) the actual temperature outside when they were surveyed had a correlation with their response.

The initial article then linked that to the simple "more people in 2012 believe in global warming" point. The actual study was a statistical regression.

victor809 wrote:

I didn't click the links. Just read the article as presented and offered my comments accordingly.
It's silly to debate public perception of an issue like this. When you say "climate change" 98.2% of people think of man made global warming. The two are not synonymous and that is where the danger lies because emotions and perceptions are driving legislation.
Clean energy is crucial to our future, but more so for our environment (think pollution) than for our temperatures. And man's influence is hardly limited to the burning of fossil fuels. For every beetle that devastates a forest because a warm winter failed to kill larvae, there are hundreds of cross contaminated shipping containers traveling across the world infested with bugs that do much more harm.
Focusing on one hot topic is counter productive because it has already blossomed into a political issue rather than a scientific one.
The stupid people in your submitted case study merely prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

tailgater wrote:

I don't disagree with you, and as I've said in the past I don't personally care if we put any environmental regulations in place or not. Not my problem, not going to impact me or anyone I care about.

What always pisses me off is stupidity. I'd much rather someone say "The scientists are probably right about the impact we're having on the planet, because they've probably spent more time learning about the various factors... but I personally would rather spend less on my XXX, and I don't really care if I have a negative impact on the environment. Never liked pandas anyway." In my mind too many people rationalize away decisions they make by convincing themselves that the experts must be wrong.

As for other environmental issues our activities create... well, you're right, there are tons of ways we impact the planet beyond just pollution. But the only way things are changed is through policy, and just because a policy doesn't help with every issue isn't a reason not to do it. The reason not to do it would be if the cost (taxes etc) outweighs the benefit (ozone, whatever). Again, I don't particularly want all our environmental policies, or care about them. But I want the decision making for or against to be rational.

victor809 wrote:

Ok, where are you going with this? If it is demonstrated that ‘dino-juice’ (petroleum is understood to come from plant matter, not dinosaurs) is a major pollutant then it should be dealt with – and we have begun to do so. Anything that is a pollutant should be dealt with. What – don’t fix ‘dino-juice’ use until we find and fix everything?

Brewha wrote: