'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

Former_MSE_Lawrence

Poll from 07-13 August 07: Is global warming happening?

The world is warmer, and many scientists believe there’s overwhelming evidence that humans are the main cause. Yet many also believe that natural effects are at work, and there’s no great cause for concern. Which of the following options is closest to your opinion?

A. Yes, all the evidence points to humans having an effect on the climate. 47% (2531 votes)
B. No, global temperature has never been constant; this is a temporary glitch. 41% (2244 votes)
C. I’m not sure; there’s not enough evidence yet. 12% (653 votes)

Total Votes: 5423

This vote has ended, but you can still click reply to discuss.

westernpromise

The issue with this poll is that it conflates several quite separate views on global warming into "No, I don't believe it is happening". As such, it has already accepted the Chicken Littles' position even though it is precisely this that the sceptics object to. .

There are two broad positions about GW itself, but many subtleties.

The major positions seem to me to be either that

1/ The earth is not getting warmer at all; or that

2/ It is getting warmer, but...

...and 2 is then followed by one or more of the following qualifiers:-

a/ ...it's not man-made, but cyclical, often seen previously and extra-terrestrially, and the science does not in any case support the cause-effect assumption so often used;

b/ ...it's beyond our ability to control it - we can't control the temperature inside an office building to within 2 degrees, so it is laughable hubris to attempt the same with the entire atmosphere in 100 years' time;

c/ it's a statistical artefact brought about by factors such as warmer winters (if the temperature in Alaska varies between -20 and plus 20 instead of -24 and plus 20, has the average temperature really warmed up by 2 degrees or has nothing of any practical significance occurred?);

d/ ...it's so uneven (eg the southern hemisphere is acknowledged to be cooling) that global measures make no sense and undermine the scientific assumptions;

e/ ...acting to prevent it now makes no sense because the economics suggest we should deal with it in the future at relatively much less cost to future generations;

f/ ..the greatest factor bearing on the likely success of CO2 reduction is the emissions impact of growing food for the increasing global population, which nobody is talking about at all;

g/ ...just because one buys into the existence of GW, that does not mean I have to accept also the statist top-down "solution" to it that authoritarian lefties favour so much; how about a free-market one instead?

h/ ...the advocates of MMGW resemble the adherents of a religion, and are probably lying to me about it to secure more wealth and influence for themselves;

i/ ...we've been here before with The Next Ice Age, Nuclear Winter, etc., and nothing ever comes of it;

j/ ...on balance, GW will be a good thing and will reduce hunger, so let it rip;

k/ ...there is an obvious correlation between GDP and CO2 emissions. Those who castigate the USA over Kyoto are lying by omission in never mentioning this reason for the state of US CO2 emissions, so nothing else they say can be trusted either;

l/ ...in the future it will be India and China that are the worst offenders, and they're getting a free ride now while we are penalised with economic costs that will do nothing to solve the problem;

m/ ...why should Indian and Chinese poverty be perpetuated to appease western liberals? Aren't they entitled to industrialise?

n/ ...I completely 100% accept the factual truth of everything the IPCC and "mainstream" opinion tells me about this.

In my experience, 1/ above is a minority opinion best supported by the fact that even the IPCC, which is basically the climate change industry personified, concedes that the temperature has not gone up since 1998. The issue for me is that there are many who hold one or more of opinions 2a through 2m, and the Chicken Littles routinely conflate all such people together with those who hold opinion 1/. The bien pensant opinion is 2n, and everyone else is accused of holding opinion 1.

This is intellectually dishonest, but above all it is not a reasoned response to critique so much as a political one. If your opponent's argument is hard to refute, lump him in with some extremists and accuse him of being the same. Any point of view which has to resort to such tactics must be on very shaky intellectual grounds.

8harlosh8

In February 2004, the Pentagon released a report on
global climate change that was nothing short of horrifying. According to the
report, the world may soon delve into atomic anarchy as nations attempt to
secure food, water and energy supplies through nuclear offensives. The
report concludes that, “An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change
is plausible and would challenge US national security in ways that should be
considered immediately

Badger_Lady

My knowledge is purely based on "what they told me at school" and Al Gore's an Inconvenient Truth.

The trouble with all the information I've gathered is this:

- We've seen proof that climate change can have a devestating effect on animal / human life. After all, every so often in Earth's history we have an ice age that envelopes the planet in a mile-thick layer of ice.

- We've seen proof of a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures

- We've seen proof that we are now producing LOADS more CO2 than the planet has ever seen before

BUT

- We have NOT seen proof that CO2 increases cause global warming, only the theory of 'greenhouse gases'. In fact, my assumption is that CO2 levels have always been higher at warm periods due to the fact that animal life thrives in these temperatures. And if we take literally the implication that CO2 and temperature are directly related, this would surely mean that, rather than a few degrees increase, the Earth itself will melt and become a liquid surface. Personally, I can't imagine that a change in atmosphere levels could have this kind of catastrophic effect.

- We do NOT know that reducing CO2 emissions will slow down the temperature increase of the planet, let alone stop it! I'm dying for someone to tell me otherwise - I'm a pretty earth-loving hippy type and I've always listened to cases with an open mind, but I have to see real evidence before I'll buy in. And I can't find it! In fact, the very idea that we have to vote on this defines it as opinion, not truth.

Anyone?

westernpromise

The funny thing is that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There have been several years recently where emissions rose but the level in the atmosphere stayed the same or fell.

teddyco

I don't believe that 'man-made global warming' is a reality and I also don't believe that man evolved from a monkey or green slime. What I find amusing is how Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution' started out as just a 'theory' but somehow it has become 'fact' over the past hundred years and is being taught as 'fact' today.

Still no evidence of a 'missing link' to prove that we indeed evolved from monkey's. Although, just being around some people does give me cause to believe it.

It's amazing what people will believe because 'TV said that'.

bobbybee2

All that science does is carry out investigations and from the results gives the most plausible reason for those results, then other people repeat the test and see if the results match. Based on the number of tests that have been carried out to determine the impact of human activity on global warming and the almost unanimous findings that the two are linked, I find it impossible to believe that the two aren't linked.

Of course they're linked! if you burn trees the area of Wales every year in the Amazon and replace them with farting cows that produce methane (over 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) of course the greenhouse gas levels go up.

We know from small scale tests that greenhouse gases trap the Sun's radiation, why would it not work on the large scale. You just have to extrapolate the results.

And if this is all made up - who benefits? Greenpeace T-shirt sales? It's in no-one's interest!

Who's interests is it to prove the human impact of global warming wrong - loads of people - oil companies, car manufacturers, mining companies, governments who don't want to spend taxes on new sources of energy... the list goes on!

Sir Nicholas Stern a former chief economist of the world bank stated that if something isn't done soon to stop global warming, then the cost to put it right will be $9 trillion. If that's the case, then you can forget your tarting on credit cards and switching your electricity supplier, stopping global warming is the biggest money saving project in human history! (you can still tart and switch though, they're not mutually exclusive).

As for teddyco's comments on man evolving from monkeys, no scientist has ever said that man evolved from monkeys, just as no scientist has said that man evolved from a cat! Man evolved from a type of Ape which may also have evolved into monkeys. We can dig up several fossils of early man showing them gradually change from monkey-like creature to the homo-sapiens that we are today, what more evidence do you need of evolution.

austenozzy

I'm afraid that anthropogenic climate change is a fact and its effects are very much with us.

This page encapsulates most of the current thought on the subject, although it is dated towards the end of last year so doesn't carry any info of the IPCC's latest report. It might be of interest to you. Loads of info to digest:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903

(Also, this link for teddyco ;-) http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn9990-instant-expert-human-evolution-.html)

Hth

Oz.

sharkmark

I think some people here are most definetely in denial...this attitude that there is no such thing as global warming (or evolution in one case cited !? where did we come from then Einstein?) shows that people are burying their heads (and in some cases whole bodies) in the sand...

I studied a degree in Env.Chemistry at the University of East Anglia (Arguably one of the best Environmental science departments in Europe if not the World)...and I would stake my house and life savings (not much then) on the fact things are going to get a whole lot worse over the next 20-40 years. You need to read more news from the New Scientist and less from the tabloids...see the latest piece of research from UEA about how the southern oceans (one of the most important carbon sinks in the world (eg it draws carbon in) is no longer working correctly. http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/env/research/reshigh/southern

There is also research which shows that the frozen tundra of Siberia (a HUGE marshy swamp with ridicolous amounts of methane and CO2 stored under the ice) is about to thaw (due to global warming) and release these gases into the atmosphere and speed up the process considerably...

I realise there is a tendency to think - oh what can I do the problem is so large - but you can start by doing the simply stuff (lightbulbs, switch off TV) and in time work you way to cycling to work, using train/bus...becoming vegetarian (farm animals release a stupid amount of methane - another greenhouse gas!!!)...

If we all give up and pretend it's not happening we'll end up in a Mad Max 3 Beyond Thunderome style wasteland and I'm sure we don't want to go there as I for one hate Tina Turner and mullet style haircuts.... ;-)

8harlosh8

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification!!We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve.Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years!!A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change!!!

Stuartli

Planet Earth has been warming up and cooling down for many thousands of years - in the 1600s they used to have ice fairs on the Thames.

The warmest winter on record was in 1869 and the second warmest around 1913 - not many cars, 4x4s, jet airliners etc around at those times.

We had severe cold weather and flooded areas back in 1947, 1963 was also notable and 1976 intensely hot for much of the summer, drying up the reservoirs.

Great way though for politicians to frighten the population into submission, as well as levy many new taxes to help the Global Warming cause.

Have you noticed that after a series of cold periods, Global Warming was renamed Climate Change to cover any eventuality?

No, I don't have my head in the sand - just prefer to note that such patterns of weather behaviour have been going on for a long time and will continue to do so long after we have departed.