Weather.com poll: 38.6% not convinced global warming is real

I agree wholeheartedly that it is and should be alarming, the louder the better. Having said that, I don't want to be accused of carrying GWB's water, but I do think that calling it "global warming" while it may have alarming connotations, it also has connotations that perhaps warming is a good thing. Think shorter northern winters will mean smaller heating bills for example. It also tells people who are having an abnormal cold spell for example this spring in the Pacific NW, that it really isn't happening.

If we can't get our collective heads around that the changes are coming (here!) big time, and that these changes both catastrophic, world wide, and in general unpredictable we won't make the changes we need to make. Look at how it takes $4.50 gas to make people say, "Maybe we should get something other than a F-150 to drive to work at the office"

Sadly, most people will only react when their self interest is affected. This is true for the poor of the world, as well as the affluent. It is time, as the relative affluent of the world to confront this selfishness, develop leadership, alternative technologies, and yes sacrifice some of our lifestyle and perhaps some of our nationalism for the common good. For too long we have felt that we are entitled to what we have, and damn the rest. It is time to pay the piper.

Having said that, it doesn't have to be the back to the caves scenario the doomsayers say it will be. With some leadership, some subsidies of existing technology, some incentive to create new technologies as well as some conservation we can BEGIN to solve this. At current course and speed we are on a collision course with disaster, believe it or not!

Icarus

 

Why does it matter?

The dinosaurs were Green Weenies and they were rewarded with a BFR that knocked them into the ice age.eep:

 

You backed yourself right into the question of what did the "dinosaur in charge" claim the other dinosaurs had to do to help prevent the inevitable since fossil fuel based fuels were obviously not in use at that time? :mod:

 

I started to belive in climate change when I heard Al Gore debate the issue....wait he wont debate or even discuss it will he? What is he afraid of? Greenpeace is getting sued by Spain for manipulating climate data for their own gain. What's going on there?
"Global warming" and all the hype gets changed to "climate change" when the temps start to cool in 1998. I think I am starting to see a pattern and it's not enviromental, more financial. I suppose I could be wrong. Oh yes, 60% of Europe is changing their minds on this issue after dumping BILLIONS into "someones" pocket and seeing NO CHANGE. I could be wrong.

 

You aren't going to see much change with spending on it, all the spending will do, or proposed to do, is slow it down a little. Global Warming or whatever you want to call it, is a combination of man made and natural, it is happening, it will cause Climate Change that we are seeing. And we will continue to see climate changes, that happens when the melting poles release lots of cool water into the ocean, and change circulation patterns.

 

You are wrong. It started getting called climate change because global warming was a restricted term in government language due to the work of Frank Luntz. Why should Al Gore debate anything? He is not a scientist. Where are you getting your info from?

 

Frank Luntz? Frank Luntz is a wordsmith, phrase massager, flim flam man, chiropracter of the written word. What has he to do with anything but packaging a message that is flawed with errors so that the gullible will believe? He is closer to W.C. Fields than anyone on either side of the enviroment issue. In fact he HAS been on both sides of the issue. It seems he believes in the side who pays him the most. For that I applaud him. I envy the money he gets by playing both sides.
As for Al Gore debating, hey it's his lies I would like to see how he tells them. Just seem strange that the Father of the Internet and Enviromental movement can't back up what he's trying to sell me.

 

Funny how Al Gore is lying, seems like he KNOWS what he is talking about. He should have been president in 2000, but I'm sure Neo-Cons would rather stick there head in the sand while they get greased up by Republicans on the other end.

Free Preview - WSJ.com

Report Says U.S. Security Faces
Challenges From Global Warming
By SIOBHAN GORMAN
June 25, 2008 10:42 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for national security over the next two decades, affecting the stability of some developing countries and potentially contributing to civil conflict, according to the first public intelligence analysis of the security impacts of global warming.

The confidential report's sweeping conclusions will likely add fuel to the political debate as battles over climate change and energy heat up on the campaign trail. Last year's congressional mandate for this intelligence report sparked fierce partisan clashes as Republicans argued that intelligence resources shouldn't be used for a report that relied on information that wasn't secret.

Partisan fights over the security impacts of climate change date back at least to the Clinton administration, when then-Vice President Al Gore launched an initiative at the CIA in 1997 to study the security implications of environmental degradation. It collapsed a few years later under political pressure from congressional Republicans.

The biggest impact on U.S. security will be indirect, the report finds, resulting from "climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect U.S. national security interests," Thomas Fingar, chief of analysis for the director of national intelligence, will tell Congress Wednesday, according to the draft of his opening statement.

 

Well that IS an eye opener! We actually paid people to tell us that changes in climatic conditions could change the stability of developing countries? I only had a public school education but I think this has been going on since the start of time.

I am so sorry you are still lugging that "Gore got cheated" cross around. It must be very heavy. If only he could have won his OWN State. Hey, this year you have 2 giant turds swirling around in the election punch bowl. What side will you drink from?

 

The side you aren't, that side is filthy.

 

Do you think that any, and I mean any, politician truly "believes" in his or hers political agenda, Democrat or Republican? A politician has one goal and one goal only; to get reelected. Period. Good paying job with unbelievable perks (virtually unlimited private jet/first class commercial jet travel, health care most could only dream about, etc.) equals winning the majority of the vote.

Global Warming is a fantasy "bad guy" which gives the people of the world something to rally against. Just like any good Hollywood movie, there always is the "bad guy/influence" which the good guy (our politicians) can get the populace to rally about, with of course the politicians omnipresent all knowing guidance. Look to your history books. Overpopulation scares of the 60's, oil predicted to totally run out by the turn of the century in the 70's, communism and the Vietnam war, Saddam and the Iraq war; all designed to rally the common folk around a common cause. Drag it on too long and soon the populace gets tired of the cause. The Iraq war and Vietnam are prime examples.

The fact is CO2 concentrations have very little to do with global warming, much less (if even measurable) AGW CO2 contributions. Variances in solar radiation account for much, if not all, of the planets temperature differences. It's been happening for the last 4.5 billion years and will happen for the next 4.5 billion years.

AGW is so entrenched that elected politicians (Madison WI) even are proposing to eliminate drive thru lanes stating that their elimination will put a dent into AGW. I kid you not. I never knew a few cars at a drive thru can solely have a measurable effect on the planets temperature! Grown people who presumably have advanced educational degrees actually think this way. The absurd solutions that the AGW crowd comes up with each passing day has me thinking "how much longer will this AGW scheme go on"?

Rick
#4 2006

 

Thus the problem, too many people CAN'T and WON'T see the problem, especially like the last statement. Its not just one drive thru, its hundreds, thousands and maybe even millions of drive thrus, so it a cumlative effect, and that does add up, just like changing light bulbs or fuel effiecient cars.

 

Are you denying that Frank Luntz was paid to conduct studies on language use and procedures to implement they effects of such findings in political dialog? I sure hope not.

Gore IS NOT the father of the environmental movement unless he has assumed other identities or been hiding behind the scenes since the 1800s. Maybe you should do a bit more real studying and leave politics alone.

 

I can't argue there

Rick, could you please post links to papers that decribe or lead you to your conclusion? Thanks.

I have not seen evidence that solar variation is to blame for the current warming trend. Solar maximum and minimums (11 year cycle) do not contribute enough energy to any particular system long enough or in enough quantity to have a large effect on global climate. I assume you mean short term solar cycles and not long term cycles like Milankovitch cycles?

 

The problem here is that the majority of people think like you do. That their contributions are minor and of no consequence. When multiplied by the billions of people on this planet those contributions become large indeed. People really need to stop looking at activities on a small or personal scale and look at the larger picture then do the math.

 

That's an awesome idea! I'm going to suggest it at our next city council meeting. I kid you not.

 

And then what happens when a study shows that the above 38.6% is the best informed group on science matters?

 

Yes, I'm sure you will ;-), let me know if the kind men in the white coats politely escort to the van outside...

Seriously, the idea is so silly I still cannot believe how someone arrived to the conclusion that drive thrus could actually change the temperature of the Earth. Goto here for the article. It's actually embarrassing to read his conclusion.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Rick, are you arguing that drive-thrus cannot possibly contribute to global warming or are you saying that there is no way drive-thrus can cause global warming all by themselves?

What about smog and general air pollution? What is your stance on that?