Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!

Posted By: AO on 2005-10-02
In Reply to: Oklahoma was never a slave state. sm - sm

 


It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it.  But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.


 


Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon


Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State



POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005

UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005


The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.

The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.

About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Well, then apparently they, too, were unable to make you understand. sm
It's not money given to folks as a down payment on a house; it's a tax credit given to those who have already purchased a home. Your whole post reeks of ignorance on the subject, so better go have a pow-wow with those edjamacated relatives of yours so they can school ya.
A note about educated and un-educated
I think a lot of people get the two mixed up. They believe that if you have a degree you are educated. Anyone can go to school, sit through classes, study and take a test. That's the easy part. The hard part (IMHO) is for people to receive information, process it, understand it, and make their own informed decisions. I have a sister who has a 4 year degree and graduated from a college, but she is not educated on the policies or what is going on in the country and around the world. Also have a brother & brother in-law with their degrees. One understands the issues presented to us, the other, like my sister only knows what they were taught in class, and they tell me that the instructors would not lie to them so they will believe what their instructors taught them. You ask them about a policy or why laws were put into place, ask them to talk to you about what's going on in the country/world, etc, and they cannot answer.

Then there are those who did not receive a "formal" education yet when you talk to them you can have an honest intelligent discussion with them. They ask questions and give input. They share information and think on their own.

Therefore the two really need to be separated.

Education = informed and able to think and process information without being told how to think. This can include both people with degrees and without.

Uneducated - blindly following what someone tells you what to do and how to think. You have no ideas of your own and just mimic the words of others. This can include both people with degrees and without.
Science? Guess we don't need it any more....

Poll: Give Bible story of creation equal time


Laurie Goodstein,  New York Times
August 31, 2005 RELI0831











 





In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly 66 percent of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.


The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold strict creationist views, agreeing that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.


In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time; of those, 18 percent said that evolution was guided by a supreme being, and 26 percent said it occurred through natural selection.


In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.


The poll was conducted July 7 to 17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people; the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.


The poll showed 41 percent of Americans want parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who say teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who say school boards should.


Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. Those who believe in creationism said they were very certain of their views (63 percent), compared to those who believe in evolution (32 percent).


The poll also asked about religion and politics, among other things. Respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44 percent agreed), and that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent agreed).


Where did these statistics come from?

 Just curious. The oil supply is still finite and it is our mindset that needs to change, not the search for more sites of drilling. ANWR is a bandaid which will do more harm that good. If you cannot wrap your mind around environmental issues, how about survival. The state of our environment is a good predictor of  our future. When the animals go, and the rivers go and the trees, etc. and all those other ridiculous things that conservatives believe to be an unnecessary bother to our quest for more, more, more...we go too. We are the stewards of our world but we live in it and rely on it too. Squander it, environment first, humans next. I realize it might not happen in our lifetime so who gives a flip but it will happen.


"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." Cree Proverb


I know conservatives see this as tree-hugging drivel, but its true. No environment, no life.


Statistics don't lie. sm
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a tsunami -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

Maybe statistics should say...
Maybe instead of statistics saying how many white, hispanics, blacks or whatever races there are in America (after all it doesn't matter what nationality your heritage is from as long as you pay your taxes), maybe a better poll (statistics or whatever you want to call it) would be to tell let us know how many illegals we have versus the people who came here and are legally working and paying their taxes like the rest of us. I could give a you know what about races. I come from a family of diverse people (grandmother born and raised in Puerto Rico, grandfather born and raised in Canada, other grandmother from England, and other grandfather from Ireland - but they all went through the correct channels to be American citizens and are legal and paid their taxes along with the rest of Americans.
ARROGANT? The Decider had that down to a science!
Landing on that aircraft carrier with his fake package - hahahahaha - Mission Accomplished all right! See ya in the soup kitchen!
A "theory" is not SCIENCE anymore than the

theory of evolution is science.  Science is a repeated study in the laboratory that produces the same result over and over. 


Gravity is not a theory.  You jump 100 floors, you die.  Repeated over and over with same results, inside and outside the laboratory. 


So much for your public education. 


I seriously doubt your statistics.
And the truth is, the man whose article you posted has an agenda.  I don't listen to things like this from either side.  Conspiracy theories are tiresome.
Statistics can be spun anyway you want.
none
depression statistics

This sounds familiar:


 


http://eh.net/Clio/Publications/unemployment.html


The statistics lie then? Dont think so. They are
nm
Some interesting statistics

Cost breakdown between House and Senate"


http://www.c-span.org/special/econ_stimulus2.aspx 


How much each state will get:


http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0109.html 


 


 


And where do you get your statistics, other than Canada?
#
And where do you get your statistics, other than Canada?
#
facts, evidence, science, and reason
Hasn't worked so well lately, has it?
This is not rocket science. If Americans have access to
it creates a win/win situation for us all. If they open that plan to such a broad base, they would be able to essentially write their own ticket in terms of policy and coverage. As the plan stands now, it is perfectly acceptable, affordable and offers broad choice.

If McCain and his supporters want to wallow around in the politics of nay-saying, fear and hate, no problem. Go for it, but don't expecct Americans who are ready for change and are looking forward instead of backwards in terms of policy to buy into all hat negativity. That's the Bush world mentality and those days are numbered now down to less than 100.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out....
the crap you are posting is just that, crap.
I see you've been reading the junk science

mags, watching AL Gore movies.  You really are being disingenous here.  There are 692 scientists who have declared that global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.  Now, we are talking scientists with pedigress a mile long after their names.  You make that insidious claim that the ice caps are melting, and yes, they are, like they usually do, but you neglect to speak to the fact that as they melt, bigger ice caps form that are not melting.


If you have the intelligence to read the report on Fox News, you will see that this is a UN initiative that has been in the works for years.  It goes right along with their plan to strip property rights, huddle the masses in "villages," and only those in power will be the land owner barons. 


Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.


 


 


OMG. Fine...go look at the crime statistics.
nm
From the Christian Science Monitor earlier this year












from the March 16, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html


For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.


By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.


For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at reclaiming America for Christ. The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.


We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them, Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.


Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. Some speak of restoring a Christian nation. Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.


In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.


This is the 10th conference to spread this cultural mandate among Christians, and although the church's pastor couldn't speak due to illness, others presented the message intended to rouse the conservative faithful, eager to capitalize on gains won during the November election.


This melding of religion and politics, Christianity and patriotism, makes many uneasy, particularly those on the other side of the so-called culture war, who see a threat to the healthy discourse of a pluralistic society.


This is an effort to impose a particular far-right religious view, and political and social policies that result from that, on others, says Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a group that advocates for a diverse society. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to adopt their views, but [Dr. Kennedy's] effort is also to use the levers of government to force changes.


An energetic pastor who built Coral Ridge into a 10,000-member megachurch with far-reaching radio and TV audiences, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy regularly calls the US a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders.


Some critics suggest these views reflect far-right Presbyterian thinking, some of which extends to the realm of theocracy, the belief that God - or His representatives - should govern the state.


Frederick Carlson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, he is certainly a dominionist, one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.


Kennedy is not in the theocratic camp, says John Aman, Coral Ridge spokesman. He does believe that Christians should not sequester themselves inside their stained-glass ghettoes, but seek to be 'salt and light' - apply biblical moral truth and the Gospel - to every area of society.


It's apparent that those who've traveled here from 40 states are eager to do just that. Many of them say they are most motivated by signs of moral decline in America, concern for their children's future, and what they see as an effort to keep God and religious speech out of public life.


The country is getting further away from Christian values, and we're being stifled, says Debbie Mochle-Young, of Santa Monica, Calif. Other nationalities are coming to live here and say, 'We want our beliefs,' but they don't let you have yours. Nathan Lepper, an Air Force retiree active in politics in Florida, says he has a personal passion to help America turn back to its moral and ethical bases.


Some are already involved in their communities - in antiabortion actions, in trying to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo, or in efforts to oppose same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.


Gabriel Carpenter, from Dryden, N.Y., works at a local crisis pregnancy center and is a coordinator for the now-required sexual abstinence program in New York public schools. He and his wife, Penelope, say they hope to learn more about how to share America's Christian heritage with others.


Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing patriotic concert. Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)


David Barton, a leading advocate for emphasizing Christianity in US history, deftly selects quotes from letters and historical documents to link major historical figures such as George Washington to a Christian vision, and to suggest that the courts and scholars in the last century have deliberately undermined the original intent of the Founding Fathers.


Critics, including historians and the Baptist Joint Committee, challenge the accuracy of some of Mr. Barton's work, including what he calls the myth of separation of church and state.


In Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America, religious historian Randall Balmer of Columbia University writes that a contrived mythology about America's Christian origins has been a factor in the reentry of evangelicals into political life, helping sustain the conservative swing in American politics. Barton and others say they are recapturing truths hidden behind a secularist version of history, while critics say they are producing revisionist history that cherry-picks facts and ignores historical evidence.


But Barton is clearly a favorite speaker, with a theme buttressing the identity and purpose of those eager to reform the country. And there's plenty for them to do. Coral Ridge's Center for Reclaiming America is building a grass-roots alliance around five issues: the sanctity of life, religious liberty, pornography, the homosexual agenda, and creation vs. evolution.


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


Taking back is a major theme - taking back the schools, the media, the courts.


It's time to take back the portals of power, and particularly those of commerce, because commerce controls all the gates - to government, the courts, and so on, says businessman Michael Pink in a workshop. Recounting his own business success based on in-depth Bible study, Mr. Pink says he's now urging wealthy Christian businessmen to start using their earnings to purchase such prizes as ABC and NBC.


Interspersed between worshipful singing, prominent activist leaders tout recent successes. Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has led the charge in the states against same-sex marriage, talks of victories in Ohio and California and the phalanx of 800 lawyers now trained for the fight across the US. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association highlights growing impact on the entertainment industry, from spurring FCC regulatory actions against broadcast indecency to causing major companies to pull their ads from TV programs.


Yet it's the most combative language that brings the crowd to its feet in applause: Judicial activists are running rampant and a God-free country is their goal.... All means to turn the tide must be considered, including their removal, urges the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which mobilizes patriot pastors across the US.


SBC's Dr. Land, credited with helping to turn out evangelical voters in the 2004 election, says Kennedy's conferences have an impact: No one has been more important in helping Christians of every denominational persuasion understand first, their evangelistic responsibility ... and then their responsibility to be salt and light in the world.


Others suggest that among evangelicals as a whole - whose numbers are estimated to represent at least 25 percent of the US population - the appeal and influence of such religio-political activism are limited.


This is more right wing and religiously politicized than the majority of evangelicals, says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most would not make the kind of 'take back America' statements in such an overt way.


In an in-depth national study published in 2000 under the title, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Dr. Smith explored the views of a remarkably diverse group, with many holding conflicted views on political involvement and the issues and methods of activists.


Still, the 2004 election confirmed a growing mobilization of conservative Christians. And in a recent Barna survey of American pastors about their choice for the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, Dr. Kennedy made the top 10, sharing the final spot with three others, including Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson and President Bush, each winning the vote of 4 percent of the clergy.







www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email
Copyright




 


Religious "voodoo?" Science has documented and shown that....sm
life begins at conception, those cells are living, have their code, and I have seen my own children on ultrasound as early as 8 weeks (with high risk pregnancies) fully formed, moving all extremities, trying to suck their thumbs, kicking, tiny heart beating away, with everything that you or I have, only inside the womb. Now if you wish to believe that a woman can do with THAT as she wants, so be it, I still have to stand with the pro-choice crowd not because I believe in abortion or that it is okay and not murdering a human being, but because I can see the instances where a woman would be justified in her actions, and let her make her own peach and atonement with God, as we all will. Science more and more is proving out what has been in the Bible all along. I do not think that was a fair or rational characterization of "religion," and it was hurtful and inflammatory. Choose to be atheist or agnostic, Christianity is not "voodoo."
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.

Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.

So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.

But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."

Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"

The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."

Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.

He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.

This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics



Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves


In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.

In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."


Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.


Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.

Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"


Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.



"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.


"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.


"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.


"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.

Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”



'Bout time, too! This science shows such great promise in
N/M
Funny thing about those infant mortality statistics.
Rather than my doing the homework for you, I'll let you scour around and see if you can identify the problems with comparative infant mortality statistics, saying only that they don't quite prove what a lot of people think or want them to prove.

((Hint: The problems start with the definitions of "prenatal care" and "infant mortality" - which are of course the main independent and dependent variables of interest, and only get worse from there.)
Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm
z
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board.  Are we clear now?
better educated does not always
equal more intelligent. don't people get that?
Well, here's some of your educated

answers:


“He was born and educated in America.” He spent 10 years in Indonesia.


 


“What you are saying is ridiculous” yet you don’t back it up with anything.


 


“Are you kidding me?” and don’t back it up with anything.


 


“I am a refined democrat” but don’t give reasons why.


 


“What’s this nonsense” yet nothing to back it up?


 


 


and my favorite:


“Why should an American President be born in the US?
This should be amended. It is old fashioned.
A child born to illegal immigrants in the US can become an American President.
Is this LOGIC?”


 


This means you don’t care if who runs for president from other countries, even terrorists. Way to go!


 


in an mature and educated

community this would be ideal.  Kerry thought there were enough reasonable adults to see through the Swift Boat lies and did not fight back;  that is why he lost the election. I am glad Obama choses not to stoop to smear and fear.  Yet to prevent another Swift Boat type election, somebody has to sling the garbage back at the same level as the bottom feeders. Its a dirty job but hey . . .


 


 


oops...that should be under-educated. (nm)
xx
Yea, they are SOOOO educated that they
be taken over by Muslim terrorists.....yea, they're really on top of it.
You are so right. You educated yourself to the issues and now sm
You realize, as I do, that Obama is going to fight for us. He is going to penalize companies who outsource. That means OUR jobs. What is up with people on this board? I am sure if they paid attention like you did they would be voting Obama too. I, like you, have dissected every bit of info this year. I watched Dem and Repub primaries, follow all of the issues and it's so completely clear that Obama is the right one.
Maybe not hicks, but obviously not educated..
enough to work hard instead of sitting on the internet, watching dancing with the stars, eating doritos and flipping through people magazine whlie waiting for their check in the mail. Sheeple will follow each other over the cliff, hope you have on your hiney is well padded!
You don't sound educated because

of some of your posts below.


I'm very educated and I voted for him

Maybe if you would take the time to educate yourself rather than just read crap on blogs, you might not worry so much.  The bill is creating the Congressional Commission on Civic Service, which may be referred to as the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE).


In section 6104 it states


(b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:


(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.


They're simply exploring whether a national service requirement is even feasible.  They're not implementing anything yet.  Why people get worked up without even  knowing what they're getting worked up about is beyond me.  Which is why I usually stay off the political board.


I'm going back to work now.


 


college educated voter in the

suburb up the road says farmer is an ignorant redneck who does not check facts.


 


Then maybe that college educated voter......... sm
might like to test that theory by working a season or two in the redneck farmer's fields.

I live in an area where there are a lot of immigrant workers. The truth of the matter is that farmers really cannot afford to pay a wage high enough to be able to afford even a modest apartment, let alone buy food and pay utilities. I live right down the road from a poultry farm which employs a family of Mexican immigrants. The farmer, while making a fairly decent living (at least until Pilgrim's filed bankruptcy) provides a mobile home for the family to live in, pays utilities on said home and also pays the family wages to work on his poultry farm. No doubt this family recieves Medicaid and food stamps as well and the children probably get free lunches at school. It is very hard, if not impossible, to get Americans to work these kinds of jobs. I'm not condoning illegal immigrants, but if legal immigrants will do the job, then why not hire them?
ever heard of over-educated idiots?
mind you, i am not calling anyone that, but just stating how it is commonly understood that one can be very educated in the system, and not be too smart still. you just keep watching, and be fair to both candidates, and see if you don't see what i am talking about.
F: Obama more intelligent, better educated. nm
.
They're a lot more progressive and educated.

Do you consider yourself to be an intelligent educated person?
.
OBAMA 08! the only educated choice NM

Democrats are more educated and have more class sm
But I agree that Fox News watchers are easily manipulated and usually not all that bright.
Can these people not see the class that Obama has? sheesh.
Seems the EDUCATED are "whacked out" (like your president). nm
x
right, al the young and educated, progressive
people voted for Mousavi. Even before all the votes were in, the government already announced a landslide win for Ahmedinejad. Definitely fraud, Ahmedinejad's ratings before the elections were very low, high unemployment rate. How could he win?
Is Obama an elitist because he is better educated than McCain?
What do you think makes Obama an elitist?
Palis? See what I mean about educated? typossss on an MT board? nm
nm
Obama supporters are very educated and not hicks nm
nm
To all well-educated voters and free thinkers...

On Tuesday night, If and when Barack Hussein Obama wins the 2008 United States Presidential Election, please join me in announcing that "The tribe has spoken, and that  John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the ubiquitous Sam have officially been voted off the island!"



Michelle is a nice, educated person, BUT
I would not call her beautiful. Come on! What is beautiful on her? And regarding her 'own' style?
Sure, everybody has his/her own style.