• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Public Opinion Turning Against Global Warming Almost as Quickly as Science

Read the Intro and Vote Accordingly

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • No

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • I already think for myself (I am a conservative)

    Votes: 6 66.7%

  • Total voters
    9

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last edited:
When it came to global warming, I think both sides have put together impressive propaganda. What it comes down to is that global temperatures are rising, this is measured. Is it 100% human's fault? No, not in the least. While we have a huge impact on the environment and such, we can not override large global trends. Is it 0% human's fault? Probably not, while we still will see these overall global trends in weather, humans do have an impact; it's not 0. There's no doubt that we have some sort of influence. I don't think we need to go overboard with things like Kyoto which would have turned pollution into a commodity. Nor, if we are interested in curbing the human impact can we not hold other country's like China to the same standards we'd hold the more industrialized world. There are things to look at and technologies which pollute less to explore; and we should be looking into these forms of energy. Progress alone would dictate that one, renewable energy sources and more clean sources. So I don't think we should ignore that we can have an impact, it's nowhere near 100% human's fault. We should strive to increase our energy knowledge and find better ways to produce it as well. But I don't think we need to engage in global warming scare tactics to try to force people into thinking that this upward trend in temperature was caused purely by human influence.
 
The global warming religion is collapsing in the face of actual science and public support is quickly vanishing:

The Right-Wing Underground: Global Warming: The Left's War On Science Beginning to Unravel

The question is, is there any amount of science that could shake your faith in this Luddite, anti-progress global warming religion?

I, with the first responder believe that many factors contribute to global warming. Natural trends as well as pollution are warming the climate. However, I feel that man, as good stewarts of the earth should work to reduce pollution and resist the urge to act as a virus by consuming all of the resources of this planet without restraint. If one simply reads Jared Diamonds work, "Collapse," one may see that by over consuming resources, many cultures have led themselves to extinction. I am not one for over- alarmism, but I do feel that efficiency and responsibility are vital.
 
While it's clear that humans have had some impact on worldwide climate, it's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles pretend. So much of the "global warming" nonsense is wrapped up in a get-rich scheme, carbon credit nonsense, there are people getting rich off of other people's stupidity and that's why they keep the hype and paranoia going, they're making a bundle.
 
When it came to global warming, I think both sides have put together impressive propaganda. What it comes down to is that global temperatures are rising, this is measured.

No. What it comes down to is that global temps have risen.

They're declining now.

That is measured. Why else would the global warming fascists start calling it "global climate change" or some other BS, but still retain as the only "solution" their demand for complete and total control of CO2 emissions? Allegedly CO2 is a critical factor in global warming, not "climate change".
 
While it's clear that humans have had some impact on worldwide climate, it's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles pretend. So much of the "global warming" nonsense is wrapped up in a get-rich scheme, carbon credit nonsense, there are people getting rich off of other people's stupidity and that's why they keep the hype and paranoia going, they're making a bundle.

It's not clear at all. If the globe heats up while humanity is doing it's thing, and then the globe cools down while humanity is doing it's thing, the same thing, in fact, where's the connection between human activity and global response? There's none apparent.
 
Our activities as a race has affected this earth. That is undeniable.
There are habitats, natural habitats of animals in danger because of said activities.
Do we have a duty for the next generation? Absolutely.
This is our only Earth, we do not have a spare one. However much the right try and convince themselves of otherwise and no, it will not fix itself.
 
Our activities as a race has affected this earth. That is undeniable.
There are habitats, natural habitats of animals in danger because of said activities.
Do we have a duty for the next generation? Absolutely.
This is our only Earth, we do not have a spare one. However much the right try and convince themselves of otherwise and no, it will not fix itself.

What does any of this have to do with AGW?
 
Why does the phrase "push poll" pop into my head?
 
Our activities as a race has affected this earth. That is undeniable.
There are habitats, natural habitats of animals in danger because of said activities.
Do we have a duty for the next generation? Absolutely.
This is our only Earth, we do not have a spare one. However much the right try and convince themselves of otherwise and no, it will not fix itself.

Acutally, it's always fixed itself, even after 90% of the biosphere has crashed, or 60%, or 80%, depending on which mass extinction event you're most interested in. Absolutely no reason to believe it wouldn't recover from the minor impact we've had.
 
As I mentioned a couple months ago, the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming does seem to be a bit weaker today than it was a couple years ago.

I realize that there are some plausible global warming hypotheses that don't necessarily require the earth to have warmed over the last ten years...but most of them were developed after the fact to explain this. Good hypotheses need to be able to predict the results in advance. I'm not saying that humans don't have any affect on local climates (obviously we do). But on the specific issue of whether humans are causing the overall global temperature to rise...I've moved from a "Yes we do" viewpoint to a "Wait and see" viewpoint. The evidence just seems to be getting weaker for that conclusion.
 
Last edited:
The global warming religion is collapsing in the face of actual science and public support is quickly vanishing:

The Right-Wing Underground: Global Warming: The Left's War On Science Beginning to Unravel

The question is, is there any amount of science that could shake your faith in this Luddite, anti-progress global warming religion?

I think that no amount of logic will ever convince the man made global warming fairy tale believers that they are wrong. Instead of actually calling it global warming they will call it "climate change" or "man made climate change". If you pay attention to the news on tv they have already started calling it "climate change". If they call it "climate change" or "man made climate change" then it doesn't matter if the weather gets colder, hotter or doesn't change in some areas(because they will claim that other areas are still effected). They will still find a way to be able to use this man made global warming scam as a means to fraudulent tax people and make them buy more expensive so-called eco friendly products under the false guise of saving the planet or go into the carbon credit scam. Weather patterns change naturally no matter how minute or how severe the changes.
 
Last edited:
Public Opinion vs. Scientific Data..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmm tough call.
 
Public Opinion vs. Scientific Data..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmm tough call.

What is it like 50% of the public when polled doesn't believe in Evolution?
 
What is it like 50% of the public when polled doesn't believe in Evolution?

Well obviously you add a few YouTube links, WorldNetDaily articles, Op-Eds and one line quotes devoid of the context they were written in and you've got yourself a VERY convincing argument against science. :lol:
 
Well obviously you add a few YouTube links, WorldNetDaily articles, Op-Eds and one line quotes devoid of the context they were written in and you've got yourself a VERY convincing argument against science. :lol:

I love how aquapub states the left has a war against science. As if his bunch is not the ones that are pushing garbage like "intelligent design", "flood geology", "wise use movement", "carbon dating is inaccurate", and "there are no transitional fossils".

There definitely is a war against science in this country, but its certainly not on the part of the left.
 
Brilliant logic and reasoning; the scientific evidence is conveniently ignored and decisions will be made based on public opinion..
Brilliant .....allowing "public opinion" to dictate policy...
 
I love how aquapub states the left has a war against science. As if his bunch is not the ones that are pushing garbage like "intelligent design", "flood geology", "wise use movement", "carbon dating is inaccurate", and "there are no transitional fossils".

There definitely is a war against science in this country, but its certainly not on the part of the left.

I find it off that somebody from the ideology that has a considerably percentage of people in it who believe that the Earth was created 5,000 years ago would have the nuts to say anybody on the left is waging war against science.
 
I find it off that somebody from the ideology that has a considerably percentage of people in it who believe that the Earth was created 5,000 years ago would have the nuts to say anybody on the left is waging war against science.

Now don't misrepresent their position. They do not believe the earth and universe is just 5000 years old. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that. Its clear from Old Testament genealogies that the earth is around 6,500 years old. :)
 
What is it like 50% of the public when polled doesn't believe in Evolution?

Unlike evolution, which has 100% of the science supporting it, there's very little evidence supporting the AGW theory, especially considering that the cooling trend we're now in wasn't predicted by that theory...which means the theory is wrong.
 
Unlike evolution, which has 100% of the science supporting it, there's very little evidence supporting the AGW theory, especially considering that the cooling trend we're now in wasn't predicted by that theory...which means the theory is wrong.

Climate models have predicted the current slight cooling for years now. We are still much warmer than the 30 year trend.
 
Gee, how surprising that a group called the "Right Wing Underground" would come out against not only Global Warming but, also AGW. :roll:

Here's another article for ya: Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says
Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real/quote]

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting.

Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

We all know this from our local meteorologists who pretty much are wrong most of the time and only look at 3 to 5 days at a time.

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."


Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
 
I'd first say that of course there's an "amount of science" that would sway my opinion. After all, I accept that the Earth is round. If no amount of science would sway you...well...I don't know what to say to that, except that I sincerely hope you are in a profession where no one relies on your judgment for their safety.

That said, what's particularly amusing about this subject is the way so many take an extreme stance, as if the entire science is anything more than educated guesswork. It's an incredibly complex subject and our measuring instruments worldwide are now and have always been an absolute joke. We have almost no idea whether current scientific data effectively captures the "global-warming" trend at all, and anything you may read regarding "historical data" is even less reliable.

BS fearmongering, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom