“Do you believe climate change is happening because of human activity?” (bottom right of page)
20 Replies to “A CKOM Poll Goes Horribly Wrong”
The media are the energizer bunnies of stupidity. You must believe, you must conform to the narrative, quick catch and sudue the deniers for we are the media,to dull to remember past summers, and to dull to talk to old people about the past, and to lazy to read some history about the conditions in the past, like no water in the South Saskatchewan in 1862. The heights of ignorance of these people is unreal, but why would the National Weather Service in the US be buying ammo? Ve ave ways of making you believe. These idiots are hilarious but expensive to the treasuries of all countrys buying into this garbage.
The way that people hold onto the Global Warming/Climate Change myth is fascinating. I had a long and (mostly) civil talk with my wife’s grandmother about the subject after she said she would be voting Obama again “because he can stop the emissions”. I tried my best to tell her about the evidence pointing the other direction, etc. and she calmly told me that I should “read what I read, and she will stick to reading the truth”.
Oh boy.
Change is to climate as wet is to water.
Kyle – have you considered divorce?
As a sage old buddy of mine said, ‘Of course the world is warming up. If it wasn’t we would be under a 100′ if fricking ice!’
To suggest that mankind isn’t playing a role in the process is pretty naive as well. Questioning that is like saying that massive clearcuts in logging communities hasn’t changed the micro-climates in those logged areas.
My problem with global warmists are the suggestion that they can retrieve what is lost. Our society is based on growth to meet economic aspirations of the population. LImits to that growth are what keep bureacrats and politicans busy. While a more basic effort, ancient tribal life was little different. Today’s society has the ability to mine mountains away so I don’t know what the answer is.
I am more worried about Man annihilating each other than the World temperature raising one degree over the next 100 years.
,
I haven’t considered either! I am lucky in that my wife managed to break free from the chains of liberalism, and her parents are also showing encouraging signs. I caught them reading some literature on Mitt the other day.
Oh well, if you insist on being difficult… I understand that Paul Ryan has a way with problem grannies, IYKWIM.
Done. Damn that felt good,
ct
There is a lot of merit to that comment on micro-climates.
Globally not so much. Sorta like a flea-bite….drop in the ocean.
IMHO the reforestation of the US north-east has had to have moderated the climate locally. Early photo’s of the area (like most early photos anywhere in North America) show a moonscape of stumps….no mature trees…the early occupants/settlers cut down everything.
Here in morontariario, there are several examples.
The recent (geologically speaking) man-made lakes created by the Upper Thames Conservation authority have definitely affected wind, rainfall/snow patterns immediately down-wind…
Some of the old guys commented that weather downwind from Crumlin Airbase(1930’s)/London Airport became hotter in summer and colder in winter….but agree that Urban Heat Island affect has now moderated winters. Urban sprawl has surrounded London Airport. Extensive reforestation between the airport and Fanshawe Lake must have a micro effect as well.
Back in the day, I visited Salisbury Plain in Britain. Originally heavily forested, it was cleared by stone age farmers….swiftly rendering the plain into a semi-arid wasteland…only suitable for grazing….used as a military training reservation for armoured units since the late 1920’s.
The effect of this semi-arid plain replacing heavy forest in ancient times must have had a signifigant effect locally…that’s a no-brainer.
Probably 19th century land use was more a factor than 20th century industry….in North America at least.
The reforestration of the US Northeast, as mentioned above, must have some effect on climate. Again, the considerable growth of trees on former farmland in Holland must be doing something to climate. Around Utrecht trees are growing on polderland which before farming was probably salt marsh – the trees are new, in the last 30 years. Maybe we should be worrying about that!
The myth of a pristine Earth persists. And yet humans have been intervening for the last 40000 years or so. Out in Banff the statement has been made, that left alone, the wilderness has not reverted
to its form of 100 or so years ago, which was well documented. Probably back then, the local Indians practiced selective burning.
And, to top this off, “Social Security Administration To Purchase 174 Thousand Rounds Of Hollow Point Bullets…”
What now, Obama gona shoot Grandmaw ?
And, by the way, the poll was going very RIGHT when last I looked.
When I saw the “Green Zone” button on the CKOM website beside Gormley and Adler’s faces I almost freaked. (at least for 100 milliseconds)
Ever notice that the public is almost always, except for few instances always against government policy.
The Polity is always the Devils advocate unless pushed by farmers against a single board or duck Hunters. All the rest they drink like undiluted wine. Drunk on stupidities (Global warming, multiculturalism, Relighion of peace.) told them by so called experts who need a bigger govermnet.
They even thinik thier ears lie to them, thier eyes blind to what they see.
The unfortunate result of the poll is already apparent: the MSM is already trumpeting that only 2% of Canadians “deny” climate change.
Well, duh, the climate has changed, is changing and will always continue to change.
But this is politics – and semantics. While they don’t mention it (and obliquely add a question to sucker people into saying the “cause” of climate change is both natural and anthropogenic), the implication is clear: that the climate change is not natural.
It’s a stretch on the vaguesness of the word, “change”. Change is the natural state of affairs in natural science, but even though change is also enivable in human societies, in the course of a lifetime, change is regarded with suspicion. Ergo, “change” is something to be viewed with distrust and suspicion. And from there it’s a small step for the Green fundamentalists to launch into their arguments that if only people pony up the money, they have the “solutions”.
The media are the energizer bunnies of stupidity. You must believe, you must conform to the narrative, quick catch and sudue the deniers for we are the media,to dull to remember past summers, and to dull to talk to old people about the past, and to lazy to read some history about the conditions in the past, like no water in the South Saskatchewan in 1862. The heights of ignorance of these people is unreal, but why would the National Weather Service in the US be buying ammo? Ve ave ways of making you believe. These idiots are hilarious but expensive to the treasuries of all countrys buying into this garbage.
The way that people hold onto the Global Warming/Climate Change myth is fascinating. I had a long and (mostly) civil talk with my wife’s grandmother about the subject after she said she would be voting Obama again “because he can stop the emissions”. I tried my best to tell her about the evidence pointing the other direction, etc. and she calmly told me that I should “read what I read, and she will stick to reading the truth”.
Oh boy.
Change is to climate as wet is to water.
Kyle – have you considered divorce?
As a sage old buddy of mine said, ‘Of course the world is warming up. If it wasn’t we would be under a 100′ if fricking ice!’
To suggest that mankind isn’t playing a role in the process is pretty naive as well. Questioning that is like saying that massive clearcuts in logging communities hasn’t changed the micro-climates in those logged areas.
My problem with global warmists are the suggestion that they can retrieve what is lost. Our society is based on growth to meet economic aspirations of the population. LImits to that growth are what keep bureacrats and politicans busy. While a more basic effort, ancient tribal life was little different. Today’s society has the ability to mine mountains away so I don’t know what the answer is.
I am more worried about Man annihilating each other than the World temperature raising one degree over the next 100 years.
,
Kyle – have you considered hospice?
Kate, you beat me to posting this poll here.
There is also another CTV article about a poll that is somewhat revealing for being badly worded and coming out with a result to suit an agenda.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/poll-most-canadians-believe-climate-change-is-happening-1.914755
Task completed; Cheers
Um… this related CBC poll could use a hand.
I haven’t considered either! I am lucky in that my wife managed to break free from the chains of liberalism, and her parents are also showing encouraging signs. I caught them reading some literature on Mitt the other day.
Oh well, if you insist on being difficult… I understand that Paul Ryan has a way with problem grannies, IYKWIM.
Done. Damn that felt good,
ct
There is a lot of merit to that comment on micro-climates.
Globally not so much. Sorta like a flea-bite….drop in the ocean.
IMHO the reforestation of the US north-east has had to have moderated the climate locally. Early photo’s of the area (like most early photos anywhere in North America) show a moonscape of stumps….no mature trees…the early occupants/settlers cut down everything.
Here in morontariario, there are several examples.
The recent (geologically speaking) man-made lakes created by the Upper Thames Conservation authority have definitely affected wind, rainfall/snow patterns immediately down-wind…
Some of the old guys commented that weather downwind from Crumlin Airbase(1930’s)/London Airport became hotter in summer and colder in winter….but agree that Urban Heat Island affect has now moderated winters. Urban sprawl has surrounded London Airport. Extensive reforestation between the airport and Fanshawe Lake must have a micro effect as well.
Back in the day, I visited Salisbury Plain in Britain. Originally heavily forested, it was cleared by stone age farmers….swiftly rendering the plain into a semi-arid wasteland…only suitable for grazing….used as a military training reservation for armoured units since the late 1920’s.
The effect of this semi-arid plain replacing heavy forest in ancient times must have had a signifigant effect locally…that’s a no-brainer.
Probably 19th century land use was more a factor than 20th century industry….in North America at least.
The reforestration of the US Northeast, as mentioned above, must have some effect on climate. Again, the considerable growth of trees on former farmland in Holland must be doing something to climate. Around Utrecht trees are growing on polderland which before farming was probably salt marsh – the trees are new, in the last 30 years. Maybe we should be worrying about that!
The myth of a pristine Earth persists. And yet humans have been intervening for the last 40000 years or so. Out in Banff the statement has been made, that left alone, the wilderness has not reverted
to its form of 100 or so years ago, which was well documented. Probably back then, the local Indians practiced selective burning.
And, to top this off, “Social Security Administration To Purchase 174 Thousand Rounds Of Hollow Point Bullets…”
What now, Obama gona shoot Grandmaw ?
And, by the way, the poll was going very RIGHT when last I looked.
When I saw the “Green Zone” button on the CKOM website beside Gormley and Adler’s faces I almost freaked. (at least for 100 milliseconds)
Ever notice that the public is almost always, except for few instances always against government policy.
The Polity is always the Devils advocate unless pushed by farmers against a single board or duck Hunters. All the rest they drink like undiluted wine. Drunk on stupidities (Global warming, multiculturalism, Relighion of peace.) told them by so called experts who need a bigger govermnet.
They even thinik thier ears lie to them, thier eyes blind to what they see.
The unfortunate result of the poll is already apparent: the MSM is already trumpeting that only 2% of Canadians “deny” climate change.
Well, duh, the climate has changed, is changing and will always continue to change.
But this is politics – and semantics. While they don’t mention it (and obliquely add a question to sucker people into saying the “cause” of climate change is both natural and anthropogenic), the implication is clear: that the climate change is not natural.
It’s a stretch on the vaguesness of the word, “change”. Change is the natural state of affairs in natural science, but even though change is also enivable in human societies, in the course of a lifetime, change is regarded with suspicion. Ergo, “change” is something to be viewed with distrust and suspicion. And from there it’s a small step for the Green fundamentalists to launch into their arguments that if only people pony up the money, they have the “solutions”.