NYT: Even Republicans fear global warming!

The New York Times has a breathless announcement: Most Republicans Back Climate Action! Except, it's not most Republicans; by the Time's own numbers, it's only 48%, and even that number is very suspect. If they can't honesty portray their own cooked up numbers, how honest can the underlying poll be?

This is the classic way that the Left shifts public opinion; they cook up a poll, produce results they like, and then use it as a club to make whatever they want. They can get the results they like either by leading questions, asking unrepresentative samples, or just by plain making things up.

The New York Times, making things up? They would never do that! Or would they? This is the same New York Times that knowingly covered up evidence of the Holocaust as it occurred, as well as the worst atrocities committed by Stalin in the slaughter of his own people.

Let's start by looking at who conducted this poll. It was conducted by the New York Times (Left bias), Stanford University (Left bias), and "the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future". How many "nonpartisan" environmental groups do you know?  The questions were of the nature of

"If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States?"

This question is biased because it presumes there is global warming. At best, it's disputed. But the person asked this question might automatically presume there is global warming simply by the wording of the question.

"If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations? "
That's just like "If you don't stop beating your wife, how much do you think she will hurt in the future?" Again, the question presumes there is global warming and the phrase "nothing is done" is biased against inaction, as is "how much will it hurt". Do you think you will ever see a poll question like "If nothing is done to reduce illegal immigration, how much will it hurt future generations?"  Probably not. With these biased questions the pollsters claim that 48% of Republicans want action on "climate change". I don't believe a word of it. If anything, people have become more and more skeptical of global warming as the world  fails to, well, get warmer. If the "statistics" didn't convince you, the Times followed up with a personal anecdote from a "Republican" voter.
Aliza Strauss, a Republican homemaker in Teaneck, N.J., said in a follow-up interview that climate change had affected her personally and she was concerned about the effect of climate change in coming years. “A tree fell on my house during Hurricane Sandy, and in the future, it might be worse,” she said.
Aliza Strauss felt that global warming caused a tree to fall on her home. What is the connection there? And before this supposed period of global warming, trees never fell on homes? How many people do you think the Times had to interview to find this one ignorant supposed Republican?
 “The stronger storms and the flooding will erode the coastline, and that is a big concern for me.”
For those of you who don't know Teaneck, NJ, it is many miles inland from the ocean. I think Aliza Strauss should stop watching reruns of the Poseidon Adventure, and worry about more immediate threats, such as the radical muslim fundamentalists living around her in the northeastern NJ suburbs of New York City.
Jason Becker, a self-identified independent and stay-at-home father in Ocoee, Fla., said that although climate change was not his top concern, a candidate who questioned global warming would seem out of touch.
I thought this was an article about Republicans? I guess they couldn't find a second Republican to agree with Aliza Strauss. But the article does make one good point
Political analysts say the problem for many Republicans is how to carve out a position on climate change that does not turn off voters like Mr. Becker, but that also does not alienate powerful conservative campaign donors. In particular, advocacy groups funded by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch have vowed to ensure that Republican candidates who support climate change action will lose in primary elections.

As a result, many Republicans have begun responding to questions about climate change by saying “I’m not a scientist” or some variant, as a way to avoid taking a definite position.

This is the new surrender position of Republican elected officials, not to combat the myth of global warming, but simply to say "I'm not a scientist". That's why so many people believe in global warming, because Republicans have been cowed into silence about it, just as Republicans have been cowed into silence about illegal aliens, homosexual marriage, and the massive federal debt. The irony is that it is so easy to counter the global warming fraud--there has been no significant global warming for 17 years. The temperate has increased by much greater amounts before industrialization. Our CO2 emissions are nothing compared to what occurs in the environment, and so on and so on. But Republicans are afraid, and liberals, with their manufactured "facts", like this "poll", rule the day. Pedro Gonzales is editor of Newsmachete.com, the conservative news site.

The New York Times has a breathless announcement: Most Republicans Back Climate Action! Except, it's not most Republicans; by the Time's own numbers, it's only 48%, and even that number is very suspect. If they can't honesty portray their own cooked up numbers, how honest can the underlying poll be?

This is the classic way that the Left shifts public opinion; they cook up a poll, produce results they like, and then use it as a club to make whatever they want. They can get the results they like either by leading questions, asking unrepresentative samples, or just by plain making things up.

The New York Times, making things up? They would never do that! Or would they? This is the same New York Times that knowingly covered up evidence of the Holocaust as it occurred, as well as the worst atrocities committed by Stalin in the slaughter of his own people.

Let's start by looking at who conducted this poll. It was conducted by the New York Times (Left bias), Stanford University (Left bias), and "the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future". How many "nonpartisan" environmental groups do you know?  The questions were of the nature of

"If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States?"

This question is biased because it presumes there is global warming. At best, it's disputed. But the person asked this question might automatically presume there is global warming simply by the wording of the question.

"If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations? "
That's just like "If you don't stop beating your wife, how much do you think she will hurt in the future?" Again, the question presumes there is global warming and the phrase "nothing is done" is biased against inaction, as is "how much will it hurt". Do you think you will ever see a poll question like "If nothing is done to reduce illegal immigration, how much will it hurt future generations?"  Probably not. With these biased questions the pollsters claim that 48% of Republicans want action on "climate change". I don't believe a word of it. If anything, people have become more and more skeptical of global warming as the world  fails to, well, get warmer. If the "statistics" didn't convince you, the Times followed up with a personal anecdote from a "Republican" voter.
Aliza Strauss, a Republican homemaker in Teaneck, N.J., said in a follow-up interview that climate change had affected her personally and she was concerned about the effect of climate change in coming years. “A tree fell on my house during Hurricane Sandy, and in the future, it might be worse,” she said.
Aliza Strauss felt that global warming caused a tree to fall on her home. What is the connection there? And before this supposed period of global warming, trees never fell on homes? How many people do you think the Times had to interview to find this one ignorant supposed Republican?
 “The stronger storms and the flooding will erode the coastline, and that is a big concern for me.”
For those of you who don't know Teaneck, NJ, it is many miles inland from the ocean. I think Aliza Strauss should stop watching reruns of the Poseidon Adventure, and worry about more immediate threats, such as the radical muslim fundamentalists living around her in the northeastern NJ suburbs of New York City.
Jason Becker, a self-identified independent and stay-at-home father in Ocoee, Fla., said that although climate change was not his top concern, a candidate who questioned global warming would seem out of touch.
I thought this was an article about Republicans? I guess they couldn't find a second Republican to agree with Aliza Strauss. But the article does make one good point
Political analysts say the problem for many Republicans is how to carve out a position on climate change that does not turn off voters like Mr. Becker, but that also does not alienate powerful conservative campaign donors. In particular, advocacy groups funded by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch have vowed to ensure that Republican candidates who support climate change action will lose in primary elections.

As a result, many Republicans have begun responding to questions about climate change by saying “I’m not a scientist” or some variant, as a way to avoid taking a definite position.

This is the new surrender position of Republican elected officials, not to combat the myth of global warming, but simply to say "I'm not a scientist". That's why so many people believe in global warming, because Republicans have been cowed into silence about it, just as Republicans have been cowed into silence about illegal aliens, homosexual marriage, and the massive federal debt. The irony is that it is so easy to counter the global warming fraud--there has been no significant global warming for 17 years. The temperate has increased by much greater amounts before industrialization. Our CO2 emissions are nothing compared to what occurs in the environment, and so on and so on. But Republicans are afraid, and liberals, with their manufactured "facts", like this "poll", rule the day. Pedro Gonzales is editor of Newsmachete.com, the conservative news site.