Poll: Do you believe in global warming?

[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

 

[spartan231490]

After having read a few of the comments on this thread: I weep for humanity.

 

[lacktheknack]

"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.

Noted. Thanks.

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.

Well, they want us all dead, as they think it's the only way to save said animals and plants. It's a... short-sighted viewpoint, to say the least.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change (now shortened to ACC for easiness). Doing a Geography and Climate Sciences degree kind of exempts any other kind of position on the matter unless you can provide bloody good evidence against ACC.

Also we got ourselves into this mess I hope we can bloody well get out of it, denial has yet to solve any problems.

Fun thought for the long run that could be factually impossible, if we can alter the climate so dramatically then if we survive the current warming period and stabilize the climate we could stabilize it forever and avoid future ice ages and super-warm periods.

 

[kortin]

I believe Global Warming is a natural thing and we're just giving it a little push. We aren't the sole cause of it nor can we stop it.

 

[Vegosiux]

Indeed, I believe in global warming. For only when the seas rise high enough will He awaken and bring upon us a new age. Fhtagn and all that!

...what? That's gonna be on the brochure!

Well, they want us all dead, as they think it's the only way to save said animals and plants. It's a... short-sighted viewpoint, to say the least.

Let me blow your mind for a moment. I'm one of the people who think that there not being this many humans on the planet would generally be an alright thing; yet the only means I'd accept toward that goal would be people voluntarily deciding to stop making so many babies. Also, not offing the entire species, just reducing the numbers through having negative RNI for a generation or two. It would appear that most of Europe is already working on that, too.

 

[RedDeadFred]

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.

Or, you could use the BEST argument I've ever heard about why it doesn't matter which is: "who care? God's gonna rapture us all up soon anyway leaving the planet a desolate wasteland for the sinners." Can you believe that was from a fairly high ranking person in government?! (can't remember who it was, I saw it on a documentary).

 

[piinyouri]

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.

Indeed.
We've been having wildly hotter summers every year for around 3-4 years now but this one was exquisitely mild, never even getting to the triple digits.(which yes, is very tame for the summers here)

To clarify however I certainly believe it's possible that mankind is influencing the planets weather ecosystem, however how much of that is us and the planet doing it's usual (relative to space length time) thing, and if us, exactly how much are influencing is actually contributing, I do not know.

How I feel about the affair though is this. Regardless of whether it's us or the planet, there's not much need to worry, at least not in the way everyone seems to want people to worry.
"We're going to ruin the planet for our future generations"
"...irreparable damage"

This is just simply not true in my eyes.
I don;t think were able to 'ruin' the planet. Even bathing it in nuclear fire from an all out war would not destroy the earth.
It would take a very long time for that radiation to expire, but you have to understand, when humanity is gone, time is more or less non existent. The universe has all the time in the world, and all that radiation will dissapear eventually, given that it occurs before our sun dies. (which will actually destroy the Earth in all likelihood)
The Earth's past has been a hellacious place. You look back and see some of the outright nightmarish things that have happened here, the death of super continents, the several 'super' ice ages where the entire planet was covered in ice pole to pole, and we think we're capable of damaging it beyond repair?
The only way we could irreparably harm the Earth would be to blow it up, literally.

The only thing we're eliminating or ruining is ourselves. The Earth will be fine. It might look like a different plae than when we lived here, but it will still be here.

I probably came off more harsh than I meant to in that. XP

 

[Something Amyss]

I don;t think were able to 'ruin' the planet.

Which would be lovely if humans weren't looking at it from a self-interest point of view.

We're not saving the planet for entirely noble reasons, we're saving it as-is because we sort of enjoy living here. I say sort of because there are large swathes of the planet not normally inhabitable and everything in Australia is designed to kill humans. That, and every so often we fire a few people off the planet n hopes that maybe they can escape to a better place.

 

[lacktheknack]

Indeed, I believe in global warming. For only when the seas rise high enough will He awaken and bring upon us a new age. Fhtagn and all that!

...what? That's gonna be on the brochure!

Well, they want us all dead, as they think it's the only way to save said animals and plants. It's a... short-sighted viewpoint, to say the least.

Let me blow your mind for a moment. I'm one of the people who think that there not being this many humans on the planet would generally be an alright thing; yet the only means I'd accept toward that goal would be people voluntarily deciding to stop making so many babies. Also, not offing the entire species, just reducing the numbers through having negative RNI for a generation or two. It would appear that most of Europe is already working on that, too.

I'm not talking about you, though. I'm talking about people who literally want to off the human race to save the plants.

I live in Alberta, man. You're either pro-oil (what with our entire everything being based on the oilfields), a student, or you're completely off your rocker and want everyone to die. It's a weird place to be.

 

[MeisterKleister]

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

Al Gore made a lot of money on this, no question, but I can't read his mind and therefore cannot comment on his motives.

But his motives are irrelevant to the discussion anyway - they have no bearing on the evidence.
Al Gore is irrelevant to the discussion, he has no authority/expertise on the subject.
And his movie is irrelevant to the discussion, though it did spread some awareness of the issue, which I think is at least laudable.


----------


If you have objections or confusions about Global Warming and would like to learn more, I would strongly suggest watching the video series I posted here before and/or browsing through the Global Warming FAQ from the Wikipedia article:

Climate change explained, and the myths debunked - Playlist [http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP]
Talk:Global warming FAQ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming]

I still see a lot of objections, misunderstandings and myths here about Climate Change science which are addressed/debunked in the first few videos in this playlist.

 

[piinyouri]

@Zachary Amaranth
Indeed. Reminds me of the (I believe) Carlin bit where he mentions that environmentalists aren't interested in preserving the balance of nature, they just want a nice place to ride their bikes and live, which isn't really a BAD thing, as we do need a nice place to live, but as you said, less than noble.

 

[Playful Pony]

You cant not believe in it, can you? And still be considered sensible i mean. Its somthing that objectively does or does not existd, and the matter of discussion should be how serious it is and what should be done.

Clumsily seny from my phone...

 

[Milanezi]

I believe it, not only because of scientific talk, but because I feel it: I live in Brazil and the weather here, right now, SHOULD be a mild heat (by our standards), however we're getting extreme cold in one day (snow in some regions, hey Brazil was known to be a country with NO snow) and ridiculous absurd hot weather the next. I'm sorry, the weather IS fucked up...

 

[Vegosiux]

I live in Alberta, man. You're either pro-oil (what with our entire everything being based on the oilfields), a student, or you're completely off your rocker and want everyone to die. It's a weird place to be.

If I say it sounds like a place that seems right up my alley, mainly because I'd likely have a reason not to want to know most of the people there, would that leave a demerit on my file? And yeah, I agree, those folks who just want all humans to die out are a bit on the loony side. I was just trying to show that there's a moderate, long-term approach to dealing with this population boom issue we've been experiencing in the recent decades...and you set up a punchline for me *grin* I kind of hijacked your post and built my points on it. Sorry; I promise you'll have free passage.[footnote]And that's it for silly jokes for now[/footnote]

But yes, I firmly support the notion that we need to start working on population control somehow (preferably through voluntary action such as not breeding so much and educating people why it's a bad idea to multiply too quickly). We've already extended our lifespans to twice or three times of what it was, in evolutionary terms, just a moment ago. The planet is a sturdy thing, it was built to last, and there's nothing we can throw at it that it can't shrug off, but with rampant growth and consumption, the question is whether we can shrug off what we're throwing at it. Keeping our population under control isn't a matter of the planet not being to handle it, it will handle it just fine, it's a matter of us not exhausting our host to the point it kicks us out, so to say. Right now we're like the sitcom stereotype friend crashing on the couch, not yet overstaying his welcome, but liable to if he keeps being a lazy slob who only drains the household without giving anything back.

But yeah, it's not like we need to reduce the population by a signficant fraction right now. Over a few generations, though...

...fuck, I sound like a Malthus fanboy now and I never really liked his postulates, the guy's more of a chronic pessimist than I am.