If one doesn’t believe mankind is making a major contribution to the global warming situation, then one doesn’t believe that modern science actually works, nor does one believe in the meaning of evidence or facts. So modern polls allow us to see just how many people out there do not understand or believe in the scientific method. Scary.
Need an option for “it’s real, but we are concentrating on the wrong solutions, so we aren’t going to fix it.” Wind and solar can’t scale up to meet global energy needs, the Chinese and the rest of the Third World aren’t going to forego developing their economies and increasing their standard of living. Hopefully we will be rich enough in fifty years to have resources to mitigate the worst of the effects.
Regards,
Shodan
There was no option of “it’s real, we need to reduce emissions, and we gon’ die because it won’t get done!” So I voted we need to reduce emissions. I’d like to see the US work more on technology and sustainable energy so that we can reduce our emissions, be a leader in the technology, and have jobs for people transitioning out of failing, old, outmoded energy like COAL :smack:. But at least here in the US our Individual 1 is determined to prop up coal and keep us in the 1960s while the rest of the world moves on.
Sorry if it was not acceptable to bring up 45 but it does relate to him and his influence and screaming about coal all the time, so. Even after he is gone (hopefully, someday) I doubt US politicians will be wiling to do much about it until it’s an emergency, and it will be way too late then.
I voted: It’s real, but nothing can stop it. (Some reasons: China won’t help, too late, peak oil, etc…).
The green movement has done such a poor job on climate change. They used to do a better job on environmental issues, but stopped doing that since I was a kid. The green movement will not change their current approach, so climate change will continue getting worse.
The green movement tends to throw blame around, too. It’s all the fault of selfish people, the lying Republicans, and so forth. That’s partially true, but the green movement uses this to shield themselves from their own failures.
The two most popular choices (at least at the moment), “It’s real but nothing can stop it”, and “It’s real and we need to cut emissions”, aren’t mutually exclusive. I believe it’s real and we need to cut emissions. I also think that probably nothing will stop it until the damage done is very bad, but that’s not quite as pessimistic as “nothing can stop it”, though practically close.
I went " don’t know what to believe, there is too much confusion out there." but its more a combination of natural and man-made causes. I’m enough a student of history to accept that changes like this, and worse, occur. But enough of a realist to believe we have had a serious impact.
I didn’t see an option that suited me. I do accept that man made climate change is occurring and I think we need to start addressing it with some urgency but not press the panic button yet. I have a little bit of the wait and see attitude as I believe the positive benefits may balance out with the negative benefits. But I also believe we need to start preparing and be ready if things take a more serious turn for the worse. I am more concerned about plastic pollution.
It seems to be real and due to the tribal nature of humanity we are more likely going to fight some nasty wars as people move in response to changing environment than work together to fix the issue.
There’s no option for “Believe? This isn’t a question of belief. I know climate change is real, and you’d have to be an ignoramus to say otherwise”.
So I didn’t vote.
It’s obviously real, the only people who say it’s fake are people who have a financial or ideological interest in denying it.
The solution, imo, is to keep investing in R&D for renewable energy until they become cheaper than fossil fuels. When that happens the market will take over.
When a homes energy needs can be met with a $1000 solar system then there is no incentive to use coal power.
It’s off of China’s plate now as well. Western emissions are flat or declining even in the good ole USA. Western emissions are now a fraction of the problem. The EU and US combined emit about 7 billion tonnes of emissions. Which ain’t nothing, but global emissions right now are 36 billion or so. If the EU and US tomorrow went to zero emissions magically, then world emissions would drop precipitously to…drumroll please… about 2005 levels. But wait, you say… what if China joined this holy triad and limited its emissions to zero as well? Surely then our salvation would be at hand! Well, it would send us to about 1980 levels or in layman’s terms, we’re still gonna fry.
Bottom line is that global emissions are coming from places now that simply lack the means to do anything about it. It’s economics and I can point to papers that I made in the 90s about it. When you cut emissions, you’re really cutting use of fossil fuels. We get that. What that does though is force fossil fuel prices down. Countries that have zilch suddenly can afford cheap energy. You can preach to them about coal being bad, but Indonesia says, “We’ve got people living on nothing because our infrastructure is so bad factories won’t move here and you’re preaching to me about windmills when I can get cheap coal and oil? Nah, I’m good.”
I think of course that there will be peak emissions, probably around the same time that we’ve used so many fossil fuels that there’s no profit to be made on them and far too late to save us from major impacts. Carbon sequestration is probably our only hope.
Do you vote? Do you ever talk to anyone who votes?
Does getting better gas mileage in your car lower your standard of living?
There are some attempts at changing that, but as long as we keep repeating the mantra, “There’s nothing we can do. There’s nothing we can do.” Then it is quite probable that we won’t do anything.
How much does getting better fuel mileage in your car cost you?
Sounds like she’s doing her part because it’s electric not gas powered.
Polls assessing what people believe are sometimes useful, especially when those beliefs are used to predict likely government policies. But I find it frustrating looking at some of these statements because only three might be – arguably, at best – a proper subject of debate. The first three stated beliefs are just plain factually wrong; a vote for any of them is an admission of not knowing anything about the subject and/or of having been deceived by misinformation. The last two are just a frank admission of ignorance.
Wrong. Natural global cycles, when they are truly global as AGW is, operate on cycles of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Current warming is associated with unprecedented levels of CO2 in the post-industrial era, a greenhouse gas with well established radiative transfer qualities that is produced by burning coal and oil. Moreover, there is some evidence that such “natural cycles” have the opposite sign of current global warming, and should be leading to cooling.
Deforestation is definitely getting “screen time”. However, ancient deforestation in Europe is mainly of academic interest in fine-tuning climate models, since it’s completely eclipsed by global deforestation in the modern era. Remarkably, though, as negative a thing as the loss of potential carbon sinks is, forests are just a short-term component of the contemporary active carbon sinks, and the current assessment is that deforestation to support increased agricultural land use is actually a very small negative contributor to global warming, mainly because of increased albedo due to snow cover in winter reflecting more thermal radiation out into space.
Exactly this.
Depends on what kind of a car I buy. A new Prius runs about $25K (true cost of ownership is about $35K). But my current 2009 Toyota still gets over 32mpg. And it is usually more cost-effective to do what I usually do - buy a used car and drive it until it dies. Then get another used one.
So if you meant it would save me money overall, probably not for another few years.
Regards,
Shodan
I live in the arctic. Asking if I believe in climate change is like asking if I believe in the existence of chairs.
Limited options in this poll. You didn’t think it through.
There was a time when I wasn’t convinced. The evidence seemed circumstantial and still theoretical for a long time, even into the early 2000s. But then more and more scientists began to accept, and more evidence started to accrue. By around 2003 I had taken the side of it’s most likely true, and that belief just became stronger since.
Now we’re living it, experiencing it every day. We only have to look out the window to see its effects. Denial is foolish, it matches predictions too closely to not be happening.
I still think it can be mitigated. One thing that seems to be constantly underestimated is the power of nature to bounce back. All it needs is a concerted effort to change.
But the madmen in power just refuse. And it is so frightening that their stubbornness and greed could bring on the end of everything.
No, I did. This is a duplicate of a poll I made 10 years ago and the conversation was different back then. But, whatever.
Oh wow, I clung to caution longer than I thought.