What do you believe regarding global climate change?

You’ve seen the threads, people endlessly debate whether the Earth is warming, or if it is warming whether it is due to human activity or natural effects. Sometimes the threads even degenerate into debates on what we should do about it.

Well, I thought a poll would be interesting. What do dopers believe in this area? Has ignorance been fought here?

A poll would be interesting.
Why don’t you make one?

Yeesh, cut me some slack. This is the first time I have done this and I did not realize I would be limited to 100 characters in my poll choices.

My view is somewhere between the second and third options. I believe that it’s mostly a natural cycle, but that humans have significantly contributed to it.

I’d go with three then.

Option 4 for me. I can’t buy this “natural cycle” crap - natural variation doesn’t happen as quickly (or exponentially) as the changes we are seeing.

It just seems such transparent grasping, as if people desperately need to believe we’re not fucking the place up, rather than doing anything about it.

We know CO[sub]2[/sub] traps heat in the atmosphere
We know we’re chucking ever increasing amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the air
We know temperatures are increasing, and at a rate that remarkably mirrors the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub].

But… but… it could all be a coincidence! Yeah, that’s it!

Mr Sand, meet Mr Head.


So is there any way to see who voted for what?

I think you had to set up the poll that way to begin with ( it should be an option ). At this point, whether it is editable or not, if you want to do that you should request that this one be deleted and start a new one. Not everybody likes exposing themselves on open polls, so you shouldn’t flip it to open retroactively.

It’s immensely presumptuous to say that we are not significantly affecting the climate; it’s equally presumptuous to say that we are.

AGW is currently built on a single supposition, that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming. But the Earth has been warmer with less atmospheric CO2, and colder with more CO2. There is no actual evidence to support the supposition. Don’t get me wrong: it’s certainly possible, and it’s a very plausible hypothesis. But that’s all it is, a hypothesis. Yet it’s one that’s very worthy of investigation.

An op-ed piece in last Sunday’s NY Times, China has come to realize that climate change is real and is on a fast track to do something about it. I think the author was Thomas Freedman. He went on to predict that China would invest heavily in solar, wind, electric car technology and would pass the US so quickly we wouldn’t notice.

Of course, for the time being, they would continue to use dirty coal and oil, but that would diminish as quickly as possible. Do I believe him? I don’t know. If the government is all onside with this it could happen very quickly. But if there is significant opposition it might be as effective as it has been here. Stay tuned.

I voted that we need to cut emissions ASAP, but I also believe it’s too late for to avoid lasting damage.

Climate change is probably real and possibly anthropogenic, but proponents of drastic action (in real life, not this board) are undercut by two factors:

  1. They demonstrably focus on the worst-case scenarios without factoring in human adaptability and possible upsides (like the expansion of arable land in the north).
  2. They generally reject geoengineering and nuclear power, which can counteract AGW but do not fit into their back-to-nature cultural norms. Thus many such advocates are not really worried about global warming per se, but rather cultural norms and status games.

this is exacty why I don’t give a damn about global warming…I’m sick of the Birkenstock Brigade.
They claim they want immediate action, but then start talking about pie-in-the-sky messianic ideas.
(Thomas Friedman falls into the same trap…"Warning:“the Chinese are startingto invest in green technology.If we don’t start ourselves, they will beat us. Help–we are in danger!!”.)

“Starting to invest” will do NOTHING. Investing is a financial issue. Global warming is physical issue. But the greens seem to think that if you just invest some money, scientists will invent new technologies overnight …even if it contradicts the basic laws of physics.

There is only ONE technology that actually exists today in useful and fully functioning power plants, and is “shovel-ready”…
But it is the n-word, and nobody dares say it in public.
IF you really care about reducing carbon and saving polar bears, you should be screaming about the need for investing------in more nuclear plants.

Solar , wind, etc are good ideas, and should be encouraged. But , ya know,sometimes the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. It may be feasible in 25 years.We should research it–but don’t count on it.

If it’s a real crisis, then we need to use the tools we have now.Not the tools that we MIGHT have, if some new Einstein happens to discover new, politically correct, laws of science.

I feel that there is plenty of proof that climate change is in progress.

But I am not certain that we are the cause.

Remember–we began to emerge from a mini-Ice Age in the 18th/19th Century or so. I am not certain this isn’t part of an ongoing trend.

We need to change our energy sources anyway, so at least some changes in that area could be started right now.

But *human caused *warming? I’m not certain this is proven.

The second option though I will say there is some human involvement but it ain’t the main cause.

I’m between 4 & 5. Yes, it’s real and human-caused. But drastic emissions cuts are a cure worse than the disease. Although realistically, I don’t believe any major economic power would actually emasculate itself for the sake of preventing global warming.

My prediction is that there’ll be lots of talk, some token resolutions, some “targets” which some nations will make some effort to try to reach, a zillion exceptions to what rules do get passed (like emissions trading, exemptions for developing nations, etc.), and eventually when the technology is there a move away from coal as the main source of electricity and petroleum as the main fuel for vehicles.

In the meantime, cargo ships will be going between Europe and the Pacific Rim via the Arctic, polar bears may become extinct in the wild, snow will vanish from all but the highest mountain peaks, some areas will become dryer, some wetter, a few low-lying island chains will have to be evacuated after being drowned under one typhoon too many, there’ll be ecological and economic disruption… but it won’t be the end of the world. We’ll muddle through.

Also, a prediction I won’t live to see vindicated: sometime in the 22nd century, when human CO2 emissions drop dramatically due to technological advances, someone somewhere will sue for global warming NOT to be reversed, since they won’t want to go back to the climate they had in the early 20th century.

The earth was warmer during the medieval warm period, (which preceded the little ice age) and polar bears seem to have survived that.

I think that choice # 6

"It’s real and we need to cut emmisions as fast and deeply as we can. "

Is being interpreted as "It’s real, *human caused *and we need to cut emmisions (sic) as fast and deeply as we can.

Is that how you are reading it?

I voted as confused, so much info out there but I’m changing my mind.

I’m turning 60 soon. I don’t have kids. So, frankly, I don’t care. I’ll be dead by the time things get bad. If they do.

Yeah, I know… I’ll be sorry if I find out I have to come back…