Originally posted to Leaningstraightup.com 

Statistics are notoriously fickle and unreliable.  Some comedian once quipped that 97.3% of all statistics are meaningless.  Indeed.

So of course Global Warming is filled with statistics that both sides make their cases with.

Consider this one brought to us by the LA Times:

LAST YEAR, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the respondents, 23% said yes, 77% said no.

Note that the breakdown by party is not mentioned.  Remember that for later.

In the year since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90%.

Of course that is untrue.  The panel said it is very likely that Global Warming is man made, the 90 percent figure is interpretive of what "very likely" means. 

So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved.

Note the percent of Democrats is not listed, which makes using this as a comparative issue meaningless.  What if the percent in the initial study was also 13%?  What then?

The article goes on to point out that a few high placed Republicans, one of which it accuses of being an industry tool are making all the decisions and the average person is just a sheep following the flock.

It point out that non-conservatives "tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom" and further labels any non believing scientists as "a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus" even though said consensus does not exist.  Indeed, as recent months have shown, non-concurring scientist are on the rise, tired of being quashed for political consensus.

Of course the article dismisses this:

As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.

The article illustrates two things. 

First, the liberals are hypocrites.  They think that making this a political struggle is noble and in the planets best interest so they are covered in glory, but the conservatives who oppose it are politicizing it for party dogma.  It doesn't matter then environmental causes have far more roots of dogma in the liberals.

It also illustrates that hubris and insane smugness of the liberals.  The Author defines the issue in two ways:  Conservatives who oppose GW on the grounds of politics or greed, and non-conservatives who listen to the wisdom of scientists.

What about the odd liberals who do not buy the party line?  They exist.  What about the plethora of moderates and independents who are undecided or perhaps have a third explanation, that of a combination of effects?  What of the thoughtful ones who want to research more because they recognize the science is not settled?

No to this person, it is a binary equation.  Yes no, us them, right and wrong.  Since science is still postulating"maybes" and probablies" I will continue to be one of those that demands answers before making policies.

The second group of stats is also interesting.  These, from the Rasmussen Reports take a look at the standing of GW's prophet:  Al Gore.

Former Vice President Al Gore (D) received a warm welcome on Capitol Hill last week for his testimony on the environment and Global Warming. However, while he is now an Academy Award winner and celebrity activist, just 24% of Americans consider Gore an expert on Global Warming. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 adults found that 47% say he is not an expert on the topic.

Is this news?  To me the most shocking element is that so many consider him to be an expert when his presentation has been scientifically ripped apart on its lack of accuracy, and misstatements, and he has himself admitted it is OK to use scare tactics, which is film clearly does.

The ends justify the means, to him.

In fact, just 36% of Americans say that Gore knows what he is talking about when it comes to the environment and Global Warming. Thirty-one percent (31%) say he does not know what he is talking about while 33% are not sure. Women, by a 2-to-1 margin, say Gore knows what he is talking about. Men, by a similar margin, say he does not.

I am not sure what to make of the stats concerning gender.  The cynic would say that woman may just be more gullible, but I don't think so.  I think, if it means anything at all,  it is because Al uses one weapon in his arsenal that women are often more susceptible to:  Emotional appeal.  Al tosses images of drowning polar bears and plays to fears of people's safety with the bloated estimates of sea level rising, so maybe that appeals to the maternal instincts.  Maybe the catch in his voice, the soulful expression as he describes how or children will hold us accountable for their suffering, which men might reject as theatrical.  I dunno.

Appearing before a Congressional Committee, Gore said that Global Warming is “not a partisan issue; it’s a moral issue.”  However, polling data suggests that among the general public it’s a very partisan issue. By a 65% to 9% margin, Democrats say that Gore knows what he’s talking about. By a 57% to 11%, Republicans say he does not. Those not affiliated with either party are evenly divided.

Pop back to the previous article's attempt to make this a binary issue, and you know see it clearly is not.

A survey conducted in December found that 45% of Americans consider Global Warming a Very Serious issue. But, there are partisan divisions visible throughout the data. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats say human activity is the cause while 51% of Republicans identify long-term planetary trends as the culprit. Overall, 47% see a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth. Twenty-nine percent (29%) do not. Earlier surveys by Rasmussen Reports have found that Americans strongly prefer development of alternative energy sources rather than conservation efforts. Most also support development of new nuclear power plants.

Very interesting.  Again, consider the above article in light of these numbers, and the author's leftist  bias and twist of facts  becomes clear.

The final point the article made I wish they had broken out by sex and party:

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans say that Gore is likely to run for President in 2008. Fifty-four percent (54%) say he is not likely to run.

Now, had that been isolated by party and gender, that would be interesting, along with the poll of whether the respondents would vote for the Goracle.