Global Warming by Political Affiliation

[ljs]

question I have is do you guys thing Climate change and Global warming are the same thing? I don't. No doubt there is climate change, but to me its not at the extent to make it "global warming" in the sense that Al Gore defines it.

Its a nice idea Ash, and I did answer Moderate - No, however- the question is so much more in depth that a simple poll like this doesn't really get an accurate idea of where people stand. imo.

[zoony]

But wouldn't that be ambiguous also? People would answer no and then say, well, I believe that man might affect temperatures 0.2% but climate change is not all man-made.

There's splitting hairs- then there is splitting atoms.

I get your point though, I do- just think it's a small one

All these "believe in" polls miss the point IMO. What really matters is what you're willing to do about it. The real question should be: "Do you support cap-and-trade for greenhouse gases?"

What if you're Ron Paul- who has said he believes in man-made global warming, but would never support that kind of policy given his libertarian ideals? :cool:

[19Skins72]

I also am biased towards warming as a GOOD thing

After this winter, I wholeheartedly agree!

[Hubbs]

I think we're arguing semantics a bit, but it is possible to believe in global warming and also feel that man has little to do with it.

I would prefer simply "I believe in man-made climate change" -vs- not.

.....

Isn't that the same thing as having the "and" though? It's just rearranging the words so the "and" is grammatically unnecessary.

[19Skins72]

I had to choose moderate: no on this one. My thoughts and reasons echo Kilmer's post.

OMG, I just agreed with Kilmer :rubeyes:

[DjTj]

What if you're Ron Paul- who has said he believes in man-made global warming, but would never support that kind of policy given his libertarian ideals? :cool:

Well, if you're Ron Paul, then nobody cares what you think.

Seriously though, do libertarians not believe in hunting or fishing permits? I would think that cap-and-trade would be right up the libertarian alley. It was a market-based alternative to strict regulation that developed out of the Reagan administration, and it has its roots in the economic theories of Arthur Cecil Pigou, who was a rival of Keynes.

[Jumbo]

first...hokie--what zoony said

Ax, twa, K17, noninney, have all stated sentiments I share on the topic. and yet, reflecting the complexity of such topics, I often find Peter MP (who is more convinced than I of certain specifics) among the more logical and most informed posters on the matter.

I do find this to be an enormously politicized topic from left to right--as well as being economically driven in fair measure to being scientifically driven--with many on the "right" doing the typical "pot/kettle" dance of accusing the "left" of being the "politicized" side.

Per the poll (and more the intent versus the actual words ASF used in his description) I would come closest to Moderate Agnostic, but it is simply too limited for me as my first paragraph mentioning some of my like-minded posters suggests.

Still, a worthy try by both ASF, and ealrier, Predicto.

I will add I have no doubt of the significant (if still temporary in the span of millenia) environmental impact humans can have that can make living on the planet in certain regions far less desirable for themselves and other species.

that seems pretty obvious to me and presents enough of a need to make intelligent and cautious management of such impact a regular exercise. we should, of course, aggressively seek expansion of our knowledge in this area for all our sakes. i hope some of that arises out of all this sturm und drang.

but as far as man-made "global-warming" affecting the globe at large for the life forms and over eons from other than an anthropomorphic view, and even then, I'm not so much there at this point.

Per cap-n-trade policies (not to derail), I'm particularly interested in whether emission permits would be bought & sold in open market (Waxman-Markey), or auctioned off (Obama admin) with the fed gov collecting revenue, or what.

my single biggest ecological concern personally, which is part of the "pro" GW picture no doubt, is the serious depopulation of certain important forests across the world and their amazingly diverse and rich biological environment.

however, I actually like the increasingly beautiful, longer, and warmer summers in the pacfic northwest.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What I find interesting is that while the poll is obviously not perfect it really did reflect what I suspected, that Liberals by in large believe that man is affecting global warming where as Conservatives do not believe that is true with Moderates fairly balanced leaning toward affirming the statement.

The question that next comes to mind is why this is so?

[Veretax]

I'm an Eagle Scout, and a Conservative on the political persuasion. I consider myself an environmentalist of the conservation minded one, and believe it is in our best interests to be good stewards of the environment. I find Global Warming to be Irrelevant though because I don't believe man has even a tenth as much knowledge about all the inputs into the weather system as they might think they do.

I also think of the weather as an ideal spring that is constantly being exerted on, squeezed, and then being allowed to spring away as it tries to find an equilibrium point that it can never find as there is always input into it.

[DeaconBlue]

I tried this exact poll a few months ago. It didn't work right that time either.

Define right.

[DeaconBlue]

I have one problem with the proponents of global warming and its **** son climate change. That is from what I understand no matter what happens they believe it proves they are correct. Temps go up - global warming. Temps go down - climate change. So no matter what happens you're right? I CANNOT accept that.I know that as an individual I am not important but still I expect you to actually prove something to me. Not just proclaim that no matter what happens you are right. If thats your stand then you can go to hell.

[Hubbs]

What I find interesting is that while the poll is obviously not perfect it really did reflect what I suspected, that Liberals by in large believe that man is affecting global warming where as Conservatives do not believe that is true with Moderates fairly balanced leaning toward affirming the statement.

The question that next comes to mind is why this is so?

The politicization of the environment?

Turn XBox360 vs. PS3 into a partisan issue, and I guarantee that, after a year of MSNBC and Fox News spewing nonsense to the masses, you could get yourself some very similar poll results.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The politicization of the environment?

Turn XBox360 vs. PS3 into a partisan issue, and I guarantee that, after a year of MSNBC and Fox News spewing nonsense to the masses, you could get yourself some very similar poll results.

But, see this is exactly what I suspected, which is why I made the poll and it seems to be bearing out what I thought; that global warming has been so politicized that belief in it is beginning to fall along political affiliations rather than what one might expect in a real debate where the belief or disbelief in global warming would be spread equally between the various affiliations.

[Jumbo]

The politicization of the environment?

Turn XBox360 vs. PS3 into a partisan issue, and I guarantee that, after a year of MSNBC and Fox News spewing nonsense to the masses, you could get yourself some very similar poll results.

True dat. Tis the nature of our culture and the times.

[IHOPSkins]

It might or might not be warming

Claims concerning warming are being exaggerated

The USA should seek more sustainable resource use.......Slow but Steady

I would not mind leading the world in "Green Tech"......as long as we do it smartly

(private with some government subsidy)

[HighOnHendrix]

Another thing to bake you noodle: how many of the people who voted "along party lines" defined in their own mind whether they were lib/con partly because of where they stand on GW to begin with?

[Jumbo]

It might or might not be warming

Claims concerning warming are being exaggerated

The USA should seek more sustainable resource use.......Slow but Steady

I would not mind leading the world in "Green Tech"......as long as we do it smartly

(private with some government subsidy)

This seems like a reasonable position. It is from basic positions like this that solid debate may better take place with an increased likelihood of mutually productive results.

And that may be much more boring for most.

[PeterMP]

It might or might not be warming

Claims concerning warming are being exaggerated

The USA should seek more sustainable resource use.......Slow but Steady

I would not mind leading the world in "Green Tech"......as long as we do it smartly

(private with some government subsidy)

It is ABSOLUTELY warming.

Warming claims are exaggerated by some, but even "moderate" scientists will tell you that this will be a significant issue for their children if we don't do anything.

And don't even get me started on things like the acidification of the ocean also caused by CO2.

Slow and steady for the last 30 years has only resulted in an ever increasing rate at which we release CO2. Let me be clear, other than the last 2 years or so with the economic slow down, we have been not been producing the same amount of CO2 every year for the last 30+ years.

We aren't even increasing the rate at which we are releasing CO2 at a linear rate.

The rate at which we release CO2 for the last 30 years has been increasing at a faster than linear rate.

What even most moderate scientists on the topic will tell you is we don't need a decrease in the rate at which we release CO2 (e.g. changing it from a non-linear function to a linear function), or even to start releasing CO2 at a constant rate (i.e. shifting from that function to a flat line). We need to move to a reduction in the amount of CO2 we release every year (i.e. the slope for the line for CO2 production needs to be negative).

And we need to do it over the next 15 years or so, or it isn't going to matter over the next 200 years or so.

And by WE, I mean the US.

[IHOPSkins]

It is ABSOLUTELY warming.......

Unless you count the Medieval Warming "Anomaly"...then we are still on the COOL side :pfft:

Slow and steady for the last 30 years has only resulted in an ever increasing rate at which we release CO2........

We have done a lousy job.....And I support Government taking a firmer hand in this;

a) Solar water heaters/Double pained windows required in new construction

Cleaner/more efficient vehicles

c) Less packaging

d) More government support for recycling

e) Rain collectors

The government should make it PROFITABLE to do these things....currently recycling is a JOKE

[Smoot Point Really]

From the poll results: It's pretty clear that on this message board, the conservatives are far more open-minded on this subject than the liberals (as a group).

As for my own reason for choosing "agnostic" (which isn't exactly how I feel, but more closely resembles that than yes/no):

1) Generally, the same people who say "yes" (without equivocation) across the globe are the ones who believe the problem is the United States and the solution is economic.

2) The people who said "yes" 40 years ago and lead the environmental movement today are an "end justifies the means" bunch. They were also worried about population control and some still are.

3) The squeaky wheel gets the grease... Government funding for research projects would evaporate if people stopped saying this was a problem.

Otherwise, I'd be tempted to say "yes"...

It's too late for the environmental movement... We need scientists who are completely autonomous, and that may be impossible to find.

[Enzo]

Global warming, IMHO opinion, is garbage to make people rich.

Who has it made rich? Don't say Al Gore he was already rich. I can say just the opposite. Denying global warming helps the oil & coal companies make more money. I can't say for sure whether it is natural or caused by man or a combination of both but CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up nearly every year since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Pre Industrial Levels: Current Levels:

CO2: 280 ppm 387 ppm

Methane: 700 ppb 1745 ppb

Nitrous Oxide: 270 ppb 314 ppb

CFC-12: 0 533 ppt

Of course current numbers are always changing but to deny that the facts that mankind is putting more polution in the air than ever before is just foolish. Also to deny that this has an effect on the planet & more accurate the plants & animals that live on this planet is just plan ignorant. Besides I look at it this way. If we listen to the people who say that global warming is real & is mostly caused by mankind & do what they want & they are wrong. We end up with less need for middle east oil (yes the oil companies might lose some money, but I doubt it) & we end up with cleaner air & water. Now if we listen to the Global Warming doubters & do nothing & they are wrong. You are looking at every major coastal city being under water with 100-200 years & the start of a new ice age. What most people don't get is that if each person did just a little bit to help. That would make a high difference.

Things like stay at home moms or dads not going out in their car every day or opening your windows in your house on nice days. Turning the thermostat down a degree or 2 during the winter or up a degree or 2 during the summer. Walking to the store. I'm sure there are more.

BTW for all you people that don't know a liberal is someone who believes in individual freedom.

GasPreindustrial levelCurrent level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (W/m2)Carbon dioxide280 ppm387ppm107 ppm1.46Methane700 ppb1745 ppb1045 ppb0.48Nitrous oxide270 ppb314 ppb44 ppb0.15CFC-120533 ppt533 ppt0.17

[December90]

Pretty arrogant to say that Mankind is causing Global Warming (or now that we aren't warming anymore - Climate Change)

It is even more arrogant to think we can "reverse" it.

[DjTj]

Pretty arrogant to say that Mankind is causing Global Warming (or now that we aren't warming anymore - Climate Change)

It is even more arrogant to think we can "reverse" it.

Was it arrogant to say that mankind was decimated the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay?

Was it arrogant to believe we could reverse it?

Was it arrogant to say that mankind was creating the smog in Los Angeles?

Was it arrogant to believe we could reverse it?

Was it arrogant to say that mankind was causing a hole in the ozone layer?

Was it arrogant to believe we could reverse it?

If that is arrogance, then I greatly prefer arrogance to ignorance.

[HighOnHendrix]

Was it arrogant to say that mankind was decimated the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay?

Was it arrogant to believe we could reverse it?

Was it arrogant to say that mankind was creating the smog in Los Angeles?

Was it arrogant to believe we could reverse it?

Was it arrogant to say that mankind was causing a hole in the ozone layer?

Was it arrogant to believe we could reverse it?

If that is arrogance, then I greatly prefer arrogance to ignorance.

I think I get your point, but those are all local/regional problems rather than global.

[Smoot Point Really]

I absolutely believe man is capable of killing itself on a global scale... I think other scenarios are more likely than man-caused climate change.