Poll: Do you believe in global warming?

[Yopaz]

Isn't that basically the way 99% of debates go these days? One party screams "YOU ARE TEH BIAS" while not even making an effort to hide their own?

Actually that number of yours is a bit inflated. You are forgetting those who start their argument with "I am not a racist, but..." which I guess could be considered and attempt at hiding a bias. It's no more effective than not making the attempt, but you've got to appreciate the attempt.

 

[BarkBarker]

Does anyone who doesn't really believe want to risk it? Just ignoring the debate or argument or whatever it is, but it is a fact that we have been shooting greenhouse gases into the air for quite a while, and it is fact that these gases stop heat from escaping the planet, whether or not you believe that we are the cause of global warming, are actions are certainly doing SOMETHING regardless of what you believe, so even in the case that you don't believe it, can your really afford to?

 

[Something Amyss]

Isn't that basically the way 99% of debates go these days? One party screams "YOU ARE TEH BIAS" while not even making an effort to hide their own?

Actually that number of yours is a bit inflated. You are forgetting those who start their argument with "I am not a racist, but..." which I guess could be considered and attempt at hiding a bias. It's no more effective than not making the attempt, but you've got to appreciate the attempt.

Well, it was inflated for itnent.

However, "I'm not racist, but" usually is an attempt to pre-empt legitimate cries of racism. Especially since it's usually followed up with something fairly bad.

My buttocks clench a little when I hear someone say "I'm not racist, but" as I brace myself what what is probably a racist statement.

 

[siomasm]

Belief is irrelevant. Evidence suggests that climate change is occuring, although I'm still unconvinced that it is caused mainly/entirely by humans. Significant planetary temperature shifts occured in the past, without any human interference whatsoever (Medieval climatic optimum, Little ice age). After the Climategate thing leaked I became even more reluctant to listen to these "climatologists" and their constant doomsaying.

I think I'll just continue to observe the world for the next thirty to fifty years and decide for myself.

Basically this. The hocky stick graph was fudged, previous data indicating rises and declines in the past were generally considered inadmissible due to them being taken from tree rings. Obama and friends are using the hype to create programs and grants (And ultimately slush funds) for companies that make unrealistic promises for green energy and eventually fail, essentially being unable to join the oil "cool kids club" he made his own.

Numerous corporations latch onto the hype, using shaming, prestige or "Holier than thou" marketing tactics on their "Green products" to try and lure the latest batch of gullible idiots buying into it based on the fact and get an edge over those who can't make a similar claim.

Yeah, it's real. Yeah it's significant. Have we effected it? Sure. But to what degree? And could we even hope to effect it? Currently it just seems to be a marketing term and political weapon to shame, guilt or threaten people into ceding to their demands or be demonized.

 

[renegade7]

Here's the great thing about science: it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, it's still right (or on the right path). Global warming is a very real thing, especially when the American [a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-july-2013-global-climate-report"]NOAA[/a] reported that July was the 341st consecutive month where global temperatures were above average. Please try to refute that in any way.

I'll refute it like a conservative:

"Liberal elitist commie gay agenda evil science not Christian"

 

[Something Amyss]

I do believe in it, but I also believe I haven't had to wear a jacket in Glasgow for two months, now.

Fuck the polar bears.

But they help Santa bring Cocal-Cola to the world!

...That is, if TV has taught me anything of value.

 

[Lightknight]

Just a side question, something I've wondered about regarding global warming:

What kind of shift would turn us into a moisture cloud-based planet. At some point wouldn't ocean and fresh water evaporate at a fast enough rate that our skies are filled with clouds and regular rain almost all the time? The conditions are already right for natural evaporation and rainfall cycles so I'd assume any increases in average water temperatures would result in water being more readily evaporated. What impact would this have on surface temperatures during a period of global warming severe enough to cause that?

 

[siomasm]

I'll refute it like a Liberal:

"refuting with comedy and no facts simply stating things in such a way that any other conclusion sounds laughable without actually explaining why"

It swings both ways really.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Thats like asking do you believe in gravity. Global warming is a fact, and while you can pretend it is not real, you wont float away. The actual discussion is whether it is man-made or natural.

Yes, it is, although the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that it is man-made, to a large extent. Now someone might say he doesn't personally believe it, but that's just making a judgement about something he doesn't know anything about. Neither do I, of course, and acknowledging my best option is to believe the people who are less ignorant than I am - the scientists of the relevant fields.

But even if you don't believe in man-made climate change no matter what, it's still not a reason to do nothing about it. Thing is, you can't know for certain, and what do we call doing something against something bad that won't occur with certainty, only with some likelihood? Exactly, an insurance. So have enough common sense to support the modest efforts (we're generally talking about very few percentage points of global GDP, 2-3% perhaps) to attempt to prevent a really bad outcome for mankind & the planet even if it might only happen with some probability.

 

[rob_simple]

I do believe in it, but I also believe I haven't had to wear a jacket in Glasgow for two months, now.

Fuck the polar bears.

But they help Santa bring Cocal-Cola to the world!

...That is, if TV has taught me anything of value.

Unless they drive those amazing light-up trucks for him, (or sing the 'holiday's a-comin' chorus,) I'm afraid we might just have to do without them...

Dammit, now I'm going to have to go watch that advert...

 

[Filiecs]

Yeah, the climate is changing. However, what I don't believe is that the effects of Global Warming are going to be nearly as "disastrous" as people say they are. I'm sure that it will sort itself out eventually if we just keep trying to find more environmentally friendly and efficient ways to produce energy.

 

[Yopaz]

Isn't that basically the way 99% of debates go these days? One party screams "YOU ARE TEH BIAS" while not even making an effort to hide their own?

Actually that number of yours is a bit inflated. You are forgetting those who start their argument with "I am not a racist, but..." which I guess could be considered and attempt at hiding a bias. It's no more effective than not making the attempt, but you've got to appreciate the attempt.

Well, it was inflated for itnent.

However, "I'm not racist, but" usually is an attempt to pre-empt legitimate cries of racism. Especially since it's usually followed up with something fairly bad.

My buttocks clench a little when I hear someone say "I'm not racist, but" as I brace myself what what is probably a racist statement.

No arguments there. In my mind that magically transforms into "I am a racist and..." I just think we should appreciate that people are willing to lie and try to hide their bias. Even if it's not hidden very well... If we are to agree that it's not an attempt at hiding bias then you're pretty close when you place it at 99% though.

 

[MeisterKleister]

There is no way to tell if what we are measuring is truly our fault.

Actually there is a way. CO2 from human activities has a distingt age, because they are burned fossil fuels, 100's of millions of years old. Using carbon-dating we can determine how much CO2 in the air is from burned fossil fuels, and CO2's heat-absorbing properties have also been demonstrated.
As far as I understand, solar activity has been steady for the past 30 years, but the planet has still warmed indicating that it is the greenhouse effect.

EDIT: I forgot to point out how I also don't trust agendas with a lot of cash behind them. I remember Penn and Teller doing an episode on going green. Al Gore's motives behind the movie was hardly for the sake of the planet. Also, the episode lead with reading an excerpt from a magazine talking about the dangers and current effects of the warming, and how it all spelt certain and impending doom just over the horizon. They then revealed the article was written in the 70's, pointing out how these alarmist discussions have been around for decades, and we really aren't worse for wear.

Al Gore is not a scientist and his movie contains major flaws, though its overall message is correct.
Besides, are you implying that there is *less* money in the oil companies that lobby against Global Warming science? If I'm not mistaken, the oil lobby is one of the richest and most powerful in the world.


If you believe that Global Warming (the recent, rapid rise in worldwide temperatures) is something harmless and of no negative consequence to humans or our planet that shouldn't be stopped, I'd point you to Q19 of the Wikipedia article FAQ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming] and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (WGII). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Working_Group_II:_Impacts.2C_Adaptation_and_Vulnerability]


Edit:
The myths about climate change by Penn & Teller are actually debunked in the 3rd video in the playlist I posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

The more important question is: Do you believe human interference with natural climate change is as big as some people make it out to be?

I'd say: I'm on the fence on that

 

[Riff Moonraker]

No, but I do believe in climate change, whether it be natural and artificial.

This sums up how I feel as well. We had a much milder summer this year, while other areas that are used to cooler summers had warmer ones. If I am not mistaken, this has happened throughout Earth's history, and its simply doing it again, in my opinion.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

There is no way to tell if what we are measuring is truly our fault.

Actually there is a way. CO2 from human activities has a distingt age, because they are burned fossil fuels, 100's of millions of years old. Using carbon-dating we can determine how much CO2 in the air is from burned fossil fuels, and CO2's heat-absorbing properties have also been demonstrated.
As far as I understand, solar activity has been steady for the past 30 years, but the planet has still warmed indicating that it is the greenhouse effect.

EDIT: I forgot to point out how I also don't trust agendas with a lot of cash behind them. I remember Penn and Teller doing an episode on going green. Al Gore's motives behind the movie was hardly for the sake of the planet. Also, the episode lead with reading an excerpt from a magazine talking about the dangers and current effects of the warming, and how it all spelt certain and impending doom just over the horizon. They then revealed the article was written in the 70's, pointing out how these alarmist discussions have been around for decades, and we really aren't worse for wear.

Al Gore is not a scientist and his movie contains major flaws, though its overall message is correct.
Besides, are you implying that there is *less* money in the oil companies that lobby against Global Warming science? If I'm not mistaken, the oil lobby is one of the richest and most powerful in the world.


If you believe that Global Warming (the recent, rapid rise in worldwide temperatures) is something harmless and of no negative consequence to humans or our planet that shouldn't be stopped, I'd point you to Q19 of the Wikipedia article FAQ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming] and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (WGII). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Working_Group_II:_Impacts.2C_Adaptation_and_Vulnerability]

Al Gore is an idiot, and is doing all this simply to make bank.

 

[Silvanus]

"Trapping extra heat logarithmically" = has less and less effect as more is released into the atmosphere.

Ahh, okay. You want a term like, "diminishing effect", or somesuch. Logarithms are used for measurement, so the above phrase on its own wouldn't mean anything.

The "reset" point is more of a question aimed at people who think that humans should be offed to "save the Earth". I know a lot of them, maybe I'm biased due to that.

Aha, fair enough.

Surely such people wouldn't want to kill off so many animal & plant species too, though? They surely don't want global warming.

And as for individuals, you'd think they'd start preparing for when, all of a sudden, their things can't be bought anymore and their allotted power allowance plummets. You do that by going green now, not later...

You would, admittedly. That's more of a personal concern than a global one, though.

It's kind of funny. I'd rather bus instead of drive, I leave my lights off, I don't watch TV, I don't leave my electronics on, and my computer is sort-of-kind-of power efficient, so I'm technically more "green" than my hyper-environmental friends...

Kudos! Keep doing the same, and you should be fine if/when more green regulations start getting introduced.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

The more important question is: Do you believe human interference with natural climate change is as big as some people make it out to be?

I'd say: I'm on the fence on that

THAT is the real question, to be sure. I am of the opinion that we are not as big of a detriment as some would have us believe. Ours hands are most certainly not clean, but I also do not think we are single handedly destroying the planet. Again, I think the real factor is natural, and its more of a climate shift, vs. the entire planet is heating up.

 

[spartan231490]

Anyone who thinks it isn't is an idiot. It's been over 28 years since the planet Earth had even one month that had a below average temperature. I've also seen first hand how much migration patterns are changing in waterfowl. Birds that used to migrate in September are Migrating in late October. Birds that used to migrate all the way to Virginia are sometimes stopping in New York.

Also, anyone still debating whether it's manmade or natural is also an idiot. Not only did humanity already use up more resources than it can sustain(there's a day, over-run day, or something) meaning that substantially more than a quarter of the CO2 we produce every year is above and beyond what they Earth can sustain, but do you sit in your living room and debate the cause of your house burning down? No! You try to save your life and your valuables by running outside and calling the fire department. But because it's a global crisis we're just gonna argue about it? Grow up people. Think about the solution, not the problem.

 

[Frezzato]

Global warming is absolutely happening and there is no dispute that the earth is on average getting warmer. The only argument is whether it is due to natural causes or man, and the vast majority of scientists believe it is due to artificial activity.

Even if global warming was false, we're facing a pretty serious fuel crisis in 50 years once the shale gas runs out. The best time to transition to a renewable economy is when energy is cheap and it doesn't cost a lot to make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. The benefits of energy independence alone are enough to change our lifestyle, even if we don't believe in anthropogenic climate change.

That pretty much sums it all up right there. Regarding global warming, I think it's about time I broke this baby out:

Spoiler: Joel Pett