Informal poll on manmade global climate change

[twa]

I am a Texan(read *******) who thinks that the general scientific consensus as set forth in the IPCC report is accurate in the main part, and that man is affecting the climate....though to a lesser degree than some of it's members project.

You might find that the actual consensus differs from the summary and additions of a few pricks.:evilg:

Kinda like the past NIE:chair:

[Bang]

I have a series of PMs regarding the deliberately falsified science behind the formulating of this poll along with some candid photos of the mods and am looking for the right blog to submit it. Also, I hate most "political posters" for being ignorant, arrogant, terminally hypocritical, and usually childish and I with they would be buried in the ice like the cro-magnons who had the decency to die out. Finally, I have been enjoying the better summers.

Wait wait! You have to discover it just before a global conference on climate change! That way it has the most direct impact and looks just fishy enough to keep everyone in America arguing about it.

Sincerely,

Washington Environmental Lobbyists Union

Local 346

[Destino]

I need a "Global Warming is a Useless Distraction From Common Sense". The entire debate has done nothing but create revenue for one portion of the private sector and allowed politicians avoid talking about their position on the environment. Now they just talk about climate change and all the other wonderful ways to destroy the planet go completely without even being discussed.

If you throw toxins into any environment eventually you'll have enough to create a negative result. Be it health or something like ozone depletion. There is no rational argument against cleaner energy being made a priority. If tomorrow global warming turned out to be a massive prank by Ashton Kutcher revealed when he leaps out at a UN meeting cleaner energy still makes sense.

Global Warming is a massive distraction be it real or imagined.

[skinfan133]

I consider myself a Libertarian Conservative of the Jeffersonian tradition and I consider climate change to be a significant issues that needs addressing. For the most part, I believe humanity is exacerbating a natural weather cycle, which is in fact different than the assertion that we are causing it.

you poll is not in depth enough, nor does it have an "other" option

[Major Harris]

i think destino is saying what i think.

[The 12th Commandment]

Moderate skeptic

Why, because while I feel we DO have an impact on the climate I just don't believe the consequences would be as long term, undesriable and over whelming as has been made out sometimes. But I do believe that behaving as if they do have that impact helps in geopolitical problems and I'll take those changes in policy via the back door if I have to.

In a split second something natural could happen that would have an exponentially greater impact on the climate than anything we do, and has many times. You can add manmade catastrophes if you choose study how to deal with those too, though I believe at heart they mimic most things we'd see in some natural disaster.

We should spend more time studying how to deal with drastic change than in determining how much we add or subtract to it in the specific examples of catastrophes that might happen.

Climate change WILL happen without question. Doesn't matter so much who causes as what the **** are we going do when it happens.

short version - I don't know what the **** I'm talking about!

[Predicto]

so, i take it you're a pretty big fan of spotted dick?

Somebody else already made that joke.

[zoony]

I went with option 3. Color me skeptical. In my experience you can manipulate data and models to give you just about any result.

That said, I'm very much in favor of a clean planet and relatively strict environmental regulations.

[jpillian]

I have no friggin idea at this point. I think humanity should try and minimize our impact, period. However, I also realize that for developing nations there are other considerations concerning real issues of human well-being that needs to be balanced with the cost such issues might have on the environment.

[Major Harris]

Somebody else already made that joke.

i've never claimed to be smart. :dunce:

i should've larry'd the you're

[Springfield]

I'm a skeptic on the subject of man made global climate change, specifically the "man made" part. I'm not skeptical one bit about "climate change" part at all. Of course the climate is changing, Earth is a dynamic place, of course the climate won't be stagnant. It would be foolish to think that the climate will be the same 100 years or 1000 years in the future.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly how much man has to do with this "climate change" because, well, it's changing on its own. We don't have any sort of base line, so we won't really ever know how much either. Simply said, you can't really prove how much an impact that man actually has on the climate.

That said, I'm all for limiting our emissions and all that nice green stuff. What I am not for is making persons such as myself pay for it. You'll have to prove I'm ruining the climate in order for me to agree to such a thing.

[Henry]

I consider myself a moderate ... liberal ... liberal moderate. Hell I don't know, but I put moderate down.

And I'm no scientist but I have a fish tank. The more fish you put in the tank, the dirtier the water gets and the harder it is to keep the fish from dying. As more and more people walk the earth, I think it behooves us to keep our tank as clean as we can. I guess that puts me in the believer category.

[Zguy28]

I consider myself a moderate ... liberal ... liberal moderate. Hell I don't know, but I put moderate down.

And I'm no scientist but I have a fish tank. The more fish you put in the tank, the dirtier the water gets and the harder it is to keep the fish from dying. As more and more people walk the earth, I think it behooves us to keep our tank as clean as we can. I guess that puts me in the believer category.

And the fish keep having babies faster than they die.

[PeterMP]

I'm a skeptic on the subject of man made global climate change, specifically the "man made" part. I'm not skeptical one bit about "climate change" part at all. Of course the climate is changing, Earth is a dynamic place, of course the climate won't be stagnant. It would be foolish to think that the climate will be the same 100 years or 1000 years in the future.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly how much man has to do with this "climate change" because, well, it's changing on its own. We don't have any sort of base line, so we won't really ever know how much either. Simply said, you can't really prove how much an impact that man actually has on the climate.

That said, I'm all for limiting our emissions and all that nice green stuff. What I am not for is making persons such as myself pay for it. You'll have to prove I'm ruining the climate in order for me to agree to such a thing.

If you have a credit card, you credit card debt is also constantly changing, but with pretty basic data I can predict EXACTLY what it will be at any point in time.

[Duncan]

i'm not sure "sceptic" is a strong enough word for the outright hostility and dismissal some people show towards the science.

What a joke. Care to respond to the multiple reports of fraud in the global warming camp? There are outright lies coming out of the IPCC.

The hostility and dismissal comes from being lied to. Take politics out of it and present the facts and you will convert most of the rational skeptics. I assure you we are not in the pockets of "big oil".

[SkinsHokieFan]

Here is my thing

You might as well have a clean enviornment, man made climate change or not

[Prosperity]

An ant walking over soil, disturbs that soil.

An elephant walking over that soil, disturbs it much more.

The soil is climate. Humans, are the ant. Many think we're the elephant, but we don't have the manpower, energy, or resources to come close to being an elephant.

We may be affecting the climate, but just how much and the effects longterm and even in cases (like the past couple of years) short term are being exaggerated. Until proven otherwise. IMO.

those ants if they (at least the technologically developed ones) could glow in the dark

[nonniey]

i'm not sure "sceptic" is a strong enough word for the outright hostility and dismissal some people show towards the science.

And yet true to form, from the AGW side, is a request is to ask that some form of aspersion be used to identify those who have issues with the AGW position.

[Springfield]

If you have a credit card, you credit card debt is also constantly changing, but with pretty basic data I can predict EXACTLY what it will be at any point in time.

Until it's all paid off in one lump sum and you're like wtf?

...Or conversely, I charge the hell out of it.

My point in my other post was that we didn't have enough data to really come to a conclusion. Our longest running data only goes back what, a couple hundred years?

I know we can extrapolate data from many things currently observable from the earth, but even that doesn't go back far enough to really draw a conclusion.

Then there's things like the hole in the ozone layer. Information about that doesn't go back very far and certainly not far enough to do anything with. As far as I know (which is admittedly much less than you), we can't say what the levels of CO2 were in the atmosphere before our last ice age.

[Springfield]

Here is my thing

You might as well have a clean enviornment, man made climate change or not

I agree with this.

[nonniey]

Here is my thing

You might as well have a clean enviornment, man made climate change or not

Cost vs Benefit. You must always take that into account.

[PeterMP]

Until it's all paid off in one lump sum and you're like wtf?

...Or conversely, I charge the hell out of it.

My point in my other post was that we didn't have enough data to really come to a conclusion. Our longest running data only goes back what, a couple hundred years?

I know we can extrapolate data from many things currently observable from the earth, but even that doesn't go back far enough to really draw a conclusion.

Then there's things like the hole in the ozone layer. Information about that doesn't go back very far and certainly not far enough to do anything with. As far as I know (which is admittedly much less than you), we can't say what the levels of CO2 were in the atmosphere before our last ice age.

We know what the out going and in coming values are. We can measure solar intensity and even other forms of energy (e.g. cosmic rays). We can measure out going radiation.

I don't need to have any history of your credit card. Given the correct current values and future data as it comes in, I can continually EXACTLY predict the amount of credit card debt you have.

[Ax]

As an Independent Extremist, I have no available choice in the poll.

"Man Made" global warming is a marketable product, that is man made.

[Springfield]

We know what the out going and in coming values are. We can measure solar intensity and even other forms of energy (e.g. cosmic rays). We can measure out going radiation.

I don't need to have any history of your credit card. Given the correct current values and future data as it comes in, I can continually EXACTLY predict the amount of credit card debt you have.

So what you are saying is that you can predict future climate, with out any doubt whatsoever? There aren't any factors among the thousands or millions that were somehow missed?

I guess the skeptic in me says that if we can't predict next weeks weather, how can we predict next decade's weather? And that's on the very, very small scale.

Even if global climate change is caused by man, how much? All? 75%? 50%? 5%? .9 (repeating)%?

I think there are huge shades of gray when it comes to this subject. How much is natural, how much is man made. Also, I do believe in climate change, just not that man is the main cause of it. I do like keeping our environment clean.

[81artmonk]

Personally I believe that the earth goes through changes on it's own. I don't believe that there is any man-made global warming going on.

However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be responsible in how we handle the enviroment. It's smart to take care of the place you live.