Gallup- Statistics about the "fetal position"- 5/08

[MarkWarner08]

Uninformed conservatives: Abortion = murder of unborn children.

I'm sorry, but what how would you define abortion?

Well, my young friend, I'll never convince you that a zygote isn't a child and you'll never convince me that it is. Abortion is an emotionally-charged debate that is rarely decided based on facts.

[MarkWarner08]

Uninformed conservatives: Abortion = murder of unborn children. Global warming doesn't exist, and if it does, it's a nefarious plot by Hollywood, homosexuals, the New York Times, and AL GORE to subvert capitalism.

The notion that anthropogenic climate change exists and is rapidly worsening is supported by 99% of climatologists. The few climatologists who dispute it are either on the Exxon Mobil payroll or are complete buffoons.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

Challenge to all young conservatives: Find one peer-reviewed journal article that presents empirical evidence disputing any human role in global warming.

If you can't do that, please admit that you are on the intellectual short end of the stick.

Okay, please answer the following questions, Mr. Warner08:
1. Have you ever considering analyzing the facts for yourself rather than entrusting scientists to do it for you?
2. Have you heard of epistemology, which states that you cannot prove anything, but only disprove it?
3. Is it possible that the scientists have an alterior motive for advocating the man-made global warming theory (e.g. more funding)?
4. Is this the same scientific consensus that thought that eugenics was true and that the Sun revolved around the Earth?
5. Ever heard of the solar theory, which states that sunspot numbers affect global average temperature, a theory that makes more sense given that the graph correlates better and that Mars and Jupiter are also experiencing global warming?
6. Is it possible that global average temperature influences CO2 and not the other way around, which would explain why CO2 has an 800 year delay when graphed next to global average temperature?
7. Are you aware that many former communists are now on the global warming bandwagon, and that many environmentalists despise civilization?

1.   So you’re saying that I shouldn’t trust the judgment of scientists on a scientific issue? Who else do you suggest I consult? Think tank hacks with no scientific background, politicians with only a cursory grasp of science,  or, how about anonymous internet posters?
2.    Yes, I’m familiar with that branch of philosophy. How does that help your case? You still haven’t disproved the collective wisdom of three thousand IPCC scientists.
3.   While I don’t know what “alterior” means, I do recognize that few scientists have an ulterior motive on this issue. James Hansen, for example, had his reports censored and was intimidated by Bush’s political appointees to stay quiet about his findings. If his desire was to be marginalized and fired, he surely succeeded.
4.   I don’t remember the IPCC publishing a conclusive report in favor of eugenics. Your other argument is specious because that was long before the advent of modern science.
5.   That’s a classic example of correlation without causation,
6.    Sure, that’s possible. However, we can infer from ice samples in Antarctica that global temperatures rose with the Industrial revolution. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon have risen steadily with the burning of fossil fuels.
7.   That’s an ad hominem attack that isn’t germane to this argument.

[SPC]

1.   So you’re saying that I shouldn’t trust the judgment of scientists on a scientific issue? Who else do you suggest I consult? Think tank hacks with no scientific background, politicians with only a cursory grasp of science,  or, how about anonymous internet posters?

I'm saying you should analyze facts for yourself, rather than entrusting politically-motivated people to do it for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm saying that you cannot cite any 'consensus' and use it to validate your claim. Only consistantly showing your theory to do well against scientific tests can show your theorys to be likely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And now he's a martyr for the environmental movement, as you've just demostrated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you think that scientists in 2500 will look back at our science as 'modern'? Also, I cannot help but laugh at your ignorance for thinking that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would be publishing a theory related to genetics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, logically speaking, the Sun, which provides us with all our heat and energy, would be a logical place to start when debating climate change. Also, I suppose you can explain how oil companies are causing global warming on Mars and Jupiter?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you say, correlation without causation. It would seem reasonable to think that as the Earth warms, more CO2 would get into the air.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You started it by accusing conservatives of being stupid for believing the environmentalists were anti-capitalists, which they are.

[Person Man]

What does Global Warming have to do with Abortion?

The only relevant post in the thread

...ahem?

[MarkWarner08]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don’t concede that fact. I’ve analyzed the facts. Read Micheal Oppenheimer’s reports, looked at the climate science, and it seems crystal clear that anthropogenic climate change exists and is worsening by the day.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let’s look at ways to test global warming. Are glaciers receding at the fastest rate since the end of the last Ice Age? Check.  Is the Antaractic ice shelf collapsing? Check. Is Bangladesh flooding? Check. Are storms become more and more intense because of changing weather patterns? Check.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you concede that he’s a credible figure? Good. Not one article has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that refutes global warming science.  Hundreds of articles in those journals have affirmed it. Among serious scientists, there is a 99% consensus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was refuting your spurious argument that there was a scientific consensus in favor of eugenics.  The IPCC didn’t exist during the 1940s. My point is that you can’t force a standard onto a group that didn’t exist then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solar fluctuations have little to do with climate change. If you like at the science, you’ll see that the man-made release of greenhouse gases is causing the increase in global temperatures.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you’re devolving into chicken and egg territory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

“Global warming doesn't exist, and if it does, it's a nefarious plot by Hollywood, homosexuals, the New York Times, and AL GORE to subvert.” That’s a joke.

[7,052,770]

Don't bother, Mark.
With SPC, he'll just ignore all of your refutations and use the same points again.  I have showed him at least once (maybe twice?) how the Oregon Petition is a complete fraud, yet he still brings it up in arguments here.  Better to just let it go.

[Person Man]

Well, it looks like there might have been a shift in the fetal position, according to Pew Religion and Public Life-

.
 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. June 18-29, 2008. N=2,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5. Aug. 2007 survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas.
 
      .
 
"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?" Options rotated
 
      .
 
  Legal in
All Cases Legal in
Most Cases Illegal in
Most Cases Illegal in
All Cases Unsure

 
 %
 %
 %
 %
 %
 

 6/18-29/08
 19
 38
 24
 13
 6
 

 11/07
 18
 33
 29
 15
 5
 

 10/17-23/07
 21
 32
 24
 15
 8
 

 8/1-18/07
 17
 35
 26
 17
 5
 

 2/16 - 3/14/07
 15
 30
 30
 20
 5
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[angus]

Hmmm, I've heard the "73% of Republicans are pro-choice" line quite a bit.  Must be using a different definition of "pro-choice" than this poll did.

could be.  for one thing, the dichotomy is false.  self-identification as "pro-choice" need not preclude a "pro-life" sentiment, and vice-versa.  you have probably met people, particularly older people, who are philosophically opposed to abortion and who claim that they would never terminate their own pregnancy, but who also oppose federal laws restricting abortion access.  for another thing, the results as posted are trends taken only from polls where the question "do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life?" was asked following other questions on abortion (for example, under what circumstances should abortion be legal?)  When taken as a stand-alone question, and the (false) dichotomy of pro-choice and pro-life are the only possibilities, all demographic groups shift a bit, according to Gallup.com, by at least a couple of percentage points.  The full data set, available on Gallup's website, suggests that people generally reject limiting positions on abortion in favor of more moderate positions.  Most abortion advocates, for example, draw the line after some point in time during gestation.  Most abortion opponents are at least tolerant of some procedures, especially in the early stages of pregnancy.

I think the most useful information in these polls is for lawmakers to look at demographic trends.  Gender differences do not exist outside the margin of error, but regional differences exist.  As do differences with respect to age and party affiliation.  Also, if you look over the longer-term, the number of respondents who consider themselves "pro-choice" has not changed significantly in the past decade, staying at about 50%.  The number of "pro-life" respondents has maybe grown a bit, drawing from the "undecided," "mixed," and "neither" crowds, apparently.  This may reflect changing attitudes, or it may simply be an artifact of history and technology.  Those most opposed to abortion, for example, may have been less likely or more like to find themselves in the immediate vicinity of telephones.  Or they may have been under- or over-sampled.  Or maybe there was just a little spike in the "pro-choice" respondents in 1995/96 for other reasons, but the equilibrium response ratio seems to be about 50:45 when the (false) dichotomy is offered.

You really can't read too much into such polls, except when the results are really lopsided.  According to Gallup, for example, by a 2 to 1 margin Americans oppose a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances (except when necessary to save the life of the mother).  Similarly, by a 2 to 1 margin Americans favor a law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion.  If you're running for office, these are the margins that will help you form your policy positions and talking points, I'd imagine.

[Person Man]

What angus says is pretty accurate throughout most of the World, except for poor countries which have been dominated by the Communist Party (where there is universal agreement for abortion on demand) or the Catholic Church/missionaires (where there is universal agreement for zero tolerance on abortions). What's also interesting is the fact that abortion rates throughout the world all range between 15% to 30% of all pregnancies, regardless of the legal stats of abortion in a particular society. What I am begining to think is that the abortion debate is pretty meaningless. People still have them in the same amount, whether they are encouraged or discourged, with or without violence, and that in what we understand as a free and educated society, people generally approach the abortion debate with an open mind.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Abortion is a white noise social issue and harms social liberal causes by tarring them.(much like how 'transgender' people slow progress for the gay rights movement by tagging along)

[Person Man]

Abortion is a white noise social issue and harms social liberal causes by tarring them.(much like how 'transgender' people slow progress for the gay rights movement by tagging along)

Which gives me an idea for a poll.