Heartland Exposed: Inside the Climate Denial Machine

[brainpanhandler]

I'm not sure though anymore about the majority of people being sympathetic to the AGW cause, iirc, the recent Pew poll showed only 29% of the US population thought GW was a priority issue.

You must be so proud. Now they can focus more on consumer goods and burning cut-rate gas in shitty, disposable cars with a clean conscience. Your truth goes marching on.

Finally, I can go back to dumping old tires in the woods.

Pussy. Cut the woods down and burn the tires. Throw a few books on there you don't like. Get with the times.

[brainpanhandler]

I'm not sure though anymore about the majority of people being sympathetic to the AGW cause, iirc, the recent Pew poll showed only 29% of the US population thought GW was a priority issue.

Not sure anymore? When were you sure? iirc? Maybe you could look it up for us and provide a link cause I can't find one that says that only 29% of the us population thinks/thought that gw is/was a priority issue. THE recent pew poll? Is there only one? How recent?Thought? Was? Past tense?

So much wiggle room. I don't mean to seem overly pedantic but really you merit it.

Can you please direct me to a source for this. I can't seem to find a pew poll that shows that "only 29% of the us population thinks/thought gw is/was a priority issue".

Somehow I imagine there's more to it. Can't imagine why.

[DrEvil]

here's a pretty recent one from Pew:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2137/global ... an-divide-

Edit : Here's an even better one :
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-g ... -tea-party
(it has the question "Is it a problem requiring immediate government action?". Answer : 46% yes (but read the footnote!)).

[brainpanhandler]

here's a pretty recent one from Pew:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2137/global ... an-divide-

Yes. Thanks doc. I did see that poll, but it didn't seem to say that, "only 29% of the us population thinks/thought that gw is/was a top priority"

So I looked a bit more around the pew site with no luck and then decided I would just ask ben to provide a link since that's what he should've done in the first place and he's the one that keeps trotting out that poll.

[wintler2]

..
So I looked a bit more around the pew site with no luck and then decided I would just ask ben to provide a link since that's what he should've done in the first place and he's the one that keeps trotting out that poll.

Chill Bph, its his cultural heritage - queenslanders are well known as big-talking bankrupts and shysters, 'big hat, no cattle' sort of people. Its the legacy of corrupt former premier Joh Bjelke, reborn in Senator Barnaby "ditch the bitch" Joyce.
Little does Qld know but the southern states have a secret nuclear program to blast their state free of the continent. We'd like to excise the pro-fascist AGW-denying mining billionaires Gina Rinehart & Clive Palmer at same time, but moving that much fat mass all at once would destabilise regional gravity.

[Ben D]

I'm not sure though anymore about the majority of people being sympathetic to the AGW cause, iirc, the recent Pew poll showed only 29% of the US population thought GW was a priority issue.

Not sure anymore? When were you sure? iirc? Maybe you could look it up for us and provide a link cause I can't find one that says that only 29% of the us population thinks/thought that gw is/was a priority issue. THE recent pew poll? Is there only one? How recent?Thought? Was? Past tense?

So much wiggle room. I don't mean to seem overly pedantic but really you merit it.

Can you please direct me to a source for this. I can't seem to find a pew poll that shows that "only 29% of the us population thinks/thought gw is/was a priority issue".

Somehow I imagine there's more to it. Can't imagine why.

Sure thing my friend bph,...and please note that my recall was in fact not accurate, the actual figure is Spoiler:25%...

You may be surprised to learn that I had posted a link on the Pew research results over on the 'global warming eh' thread, but apparently you guys were too preoccupied with expressing your deep desire to try and humiliate the messenger to notice.

Do please consider,.. if you CAGW folk (not you C2W) actually used the prerequisite logical step of the reading of posts on the matters under discussion to keep abreast before going straight for the messenger's juggler, it would not only make for a lot of saving of my time, it would make for a speedier acquisition of current understanding of the state of play of the many issues concerning global warming for you.

It’s “dead heat” – Americans rate global warming last

[Simulist]

The importance to me of what Americans might think is directly proportional to the percentage of them who actually seem to.

[brainpanhandler]

Thanks so much friend ben. When I have time and am at my computer I'll check the link.

[seemslikeadream]

It’s “dead heat” – Americans rate global warming last

http://www.readfaster.com/education_stats.asp

Nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate." They can't carry out simply tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job.


21 million Americans can't read at all, 45 million are marginally illiterate and one-fifth of high school graduates can't read their diplomas.

There are almost half a million words in our English Language - the largest language on earth, incidentally - but a third of all our writing is made up of only twenty-two words.

46% of American adults cannot understand the label on their prescription medicine.

50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.


That is, when reading grade appropriate text these students cannot extract the general meaning or make obvious connections between the text and their own experiences or make simple inferences from the text. In other words, they cannot understand what they have read.

[compared2what?]

Thanks so much friend ben. When I have time and am at my computer I'll check the link.

If you want to read the survey itself, without going through the Anthony Watts summary of it first, the PDF is here:

LINK.

_______________

The thing is, though, Ben D (and everyone) --

That figure isn't reflective of how many people do or don't take the reality of global warming for granted -- or even how many think it's an important issue. (Sixty percent.)

In January 2012, in the context of the then-upcoming State-of-the-Union address, people were asked whether they thought the President and Congress should treat each of a whole raftload of concerns (including global warming) as if it was (1) a top priority; (2) important but not a top priority; (3) not that important; or (4) something that shouldn't be addressed.

IOW: They were more or less being asked what they most wanted the country to do for them immediately. And most people don't get a chance to tell the government their concerns all that often, if ever. Therefore, predictably, almost all of them ranked economic- and job-related issues (plus a survey-taker's choice of one or two of the commonest pet perennial concerns of the American public) as their top priorities.

So what that number really indicates is that on a constant basis, global warming is presently the top perennial pet concern of 25 percent of the American public. And -- since the percentage who rank it as important-but-not-a-top-priority has been relatively stable at about 35 percent from 2007 to the present -- it would also probably be fair to say that 65 to 75 percent of the American people are aware of global warming and take it seriously.

The only really notable movement in the numbers for that particular question has actually been in the shouldn't-be-addressed sector, which has doubled (8 percent to 16 percent) over the last five years.

__________________

It's absolutely astonishing -- to say nothing of "very disturbing" -- how many people think addressing the moral decay in this country should be the top priority of the government, btw. It wouldn't be much of an overstatement for me to say that there are very few things that I personally want a whole lot more than I want for the government to keep its filthy hands off my moral decay.

But maybe that's just me.

[tazmic]

Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute (with some 'extremely subliminal' cut-scenes):

http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html

Who thinks Gleick authored the faked (and time-stamped to day of release) memo?

John Keker to represent Gleick:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/02/meet-criminal-defense-attorney-who.html

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/02/take-close-look-at-crisis-manager-that.html

[Ben D]

Fascinating reading....

Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute

Some clever sleuthing involved in exposing Gleick

While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending, to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.

[gnosticheresy_2]

Fascinating reading....

Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute

Some clever sleuthing involved in exposing Gleick

While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending, to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.

The Atlantic? Seriously?

[compared2what?]

Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute (with some 'extremely subliminal' cut-scenes):

Seriously? Joe Bast? I mean.... Joe Bast???

....

I don't really know what else to say.

Who thinks Gleick authored the faked (and time-stamped to day of release) memo?

I don't know. Those who get their news and views from people being paid to express them by Joe Bast? Maybe? But unless they'd already drunk the Kool-Aid, I'd imagine it would be a pretty tough sell even then. Because:

Why on god's green earth would Gleick have gone to the trouble of forging a memo that wasn't even as damning as the genuine documents he was already holding/on the verge of leaking? When he would have to have known that it could easily be exposed as fraudulent?

Common sense says that it was either a disgruntled former employee or a sting. I mean, ordinarily, I'd just take it for granted that it was the latter, absent another explanation or -- as in this case -- the pressing need for one. Because that kind of maneuver is so nearly universal that it isn't even nefarious or conspiratorial. It's just routine. But the real dox do kind of suggest the former. As it happens. Though of course, there could also be some entirely different scenario lurking somewhere out there in the vast depths of the unknowable.

Not that it matters all that much. If Gleick did it, it's amazing that he got as far as he did while laboring under the dual handicaps of insanity and the will to self-destruct. But apart from that, I guess I don't really have any very strong opinion on the question.

[compared2what?]

The Atlantic? Seriously?

Really, you guys. Please. Heartland is not worth it.