Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

And in a new poll...20% of respondents believed 20% of respondents will vote for the '20% of respondents will vote' option.

longview said:

The evidence is that the Global average temperatures based on the GISS have increased by .8 C since 1880.
At the same time CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to 401 ppm.
The AGW predictions from the IPCC say doubling the CO2 level will result in a temperature
increase between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Baede et al:

We are 43% of our way to doubling CO2, but the diminishing response curve of CO2
means we should have seen 52% of the effect, about .6°C.
This means all of the remaining variables of warming are contained in .2°C, over 133 years.
.2°C per century is well within the natural variability.
Does this mean Human activity is not causing some warming, of course not,
it does mean the warming will likely be in the low end of the IPCC prediction,
and not catastrophic.
We have real problems to worry about, without having to create artificial ones.

Click to expand...

You're drawing a lot of conclusions and throwing a lot of things out there backed by what?

Personally, I believe there is at least significant global warming...but I am far from certain.

Having said that, I think the government should take a definitive stand on what it believes is the case.

I also think that if the government does (or ever does) believe that there is significant global warming going on - then they should decide on a formula to determine how 'polluting' individual companies/corporations are and then publish those findings on a monthly basis.

Then I think they should do nothing (outside of environmental disasters obviously) and leave it up to the public to decide whether or not to boycott those companies that are the more egregious polluters.

Verax said:

You're drawing a lot of conclusions and throwing a lot of things out there backed by what?

Click to expand...

Well, Let's start at IPCC AR-5, who cites Baede et al as, "1.2.2 key concepts in climate Science"
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Within Baede et al, they lay out where the beliefs of catastrophic AGW are based.

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation.

Click to expand...

The temperature record is the GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The J-D volume goes from -.21 C to +.59 °C, that's .8 °C most places.
CO2 level, we can go with NOAA, 401 ppm (the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm is widely accepted)
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

So doubling CO2 from 280 ppm would raise the level to 560 ppm,
at 401 ppm we are 121/280= .43% of our way towards a doubling of CO2.
Since Baede et al said the 1.2 °C was only ±10%, a simple curve fit will be close enough.
4X(log560)-4X(log280)=1.204 (a little high, but within ±10%)
4X(log560)-4X(log401)=.580 (this is the remaining part so) 1.2 °C- .580 °C= .62 °C

The observed increase is .8 °C,
The direct response of CO2 is .62 °C.
The difference is .18 °C.

My curve fitting may not be accurate, but the number was only ±10%,
all the rest is very basic math.

DA60 said:

Having said that, I think the government should take a definitive stand on what it believes is the case.

Click to expand...

Please. Let's have fewer "definitive stands" from government. Let's get back to fostering some freedom and individualism.

DA60 said:

Personally, I believe there is at least significant global warming...but I am far from certain.

Having said that, I think the government should take a definitive stand on what it believes is the case.

I also think that if the government does (or ever does) believe that there is significant global warming going on - then they should decide on a formula to determine how 'polluting' individual companies/corporations are and then publish those findings on a monthly basis.

Then I think they should do nothing (outside of environmental disasters obviously) and leave it up to the public to decide whether or not to boycott those companies that are the more egregious polluters.

Click to expand...

True, but sense we oscillate between a left right government, any consistency on climate change will be difficult.

Fenton said:

You're equat scientific accuracy to computer models built on corrupted data.

You do realize that don't you ?

Click to expand...

No...carbon is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause the planet to heat, and we're releasing a very large amount of greenhouse gases. You can argue over the models being a degree off here or not taking something specific into account but there's no doubt we're doing something that is causing havoc to the planet's current climate.

iliveonramen said:

No...carbon is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause the planet to heat, and we're releasing a very large amount of greenhouse gases. You can argue over the models being a degree off here or not taking something specific into account but there's no doubt we're doing something that is causing havoc to the planet's current climate.

Click to expand...

Huh ?

I'm referring to the " science " that is supposedly monitoring the increase in temperature.

Your assertions should be backed by something objective, but without ACCURATE data your assertions are only opinions.

I just want to thank the liberal, progressive, and militant members who absolutely proved my point in the op.

Think about the responses so far...

I posted a poll that simply said that proponents of AGW in this country were in the minority, and further gave my opinion as to how they would respond to this information. ie; dumb, inflexible, attacking the poll, or myself from a 'victim' standpoint....etc.

They did exactly that.

Now, we hear all the time in these debates how 'the science' is settled, and how 'a majority' agree with them. That is simply NOT true. So, instead of addressing the simple point of how that small part of the overall argument is shown so with this poll, the knee jerk reaction of the AGW disciple is to employ the tactics of personal destruction, rather than introspective response to bolster their case.

I wasn't looking to have yet another thread arguing about all the facets of AGW, or whether or not it even exists as a response to man's actions, but rather trying to take small bites, we first have to agree that the so called science is settled. The majority of people in this poll say no.

j-mac said:

I just want to thank the liberal, progressive, and militant members who absolutely proved my point in the op.

Think about the responses so far...

I posted a poll that simply said that proponents of AGW in this country were in the minority, and further gave my opinion as to how they would respond to this information. ie; dumb, inflexible, attacking the poll, or myself from a 'victim' standpoint....etc.

They did exactly that.

Now, we hear all the time in these debates how 'the science' is settled, and how 'a majority' agree with them. That is simply NOT true. So, instead of addressing the simple point of how that small part of the overall argument is shown so with this poll, the knee jerk reaction of the AGW disciple is to employ the tactics of personal destruction, rather than introspective response to bolster their case.

I wasn't looking to have yet another thread arguing about all the facets of AGW, or whether or not it even exists as a response to man's actions, but rather trying to take small bites, we first have to agree that the so called science is settled. The majority of people in this poll say no.

Click to expand...

From ad Homs to straw men. Well done!

Hint: a public opinion poll does not address whether the science is settled(it is not, but not in a way you understand), and no one is claiming a majority of any one except scientists agree with the science.

Redress said:

From ad Homs to straw men. Well done!

Click to expand...

Neither was employed here, (except by you)...

Hint: a public opinion poll does not address whether the science is settled(it is not, but not in a way you understand), and no one is claiming a majority of any one except scientists agree with the science.

Click to expand...

:lamo Are you serious....I can't even begin to count how many times I have been told in AGW debates right here at DP that "the majority of American's agree with the AGW side.."

Also, I suggest you go back and read the poll and my writing...I am not saying that the science is settled or not. I am saying that a poll says that YOU saying that the science is settled is just not believed by a clear majority of Americans.

What Global Warming cultists fail to see is that every one of their "solutions" to this debatable science involves implementing their most beloved left-wing measures. Red flag!

Basically, if we destroy our economy ten times over and live like cavemen, we'll have fewer hurricanes. That seems to be the argument.

If you came forth with REAL solutions, perhaps people would listen to your bought-and-paid-for scientists' claims more seriously. As it is, we might as well put Michael Moore and Bill Maher in charge of the decisions.

What evidence do you have for that it will destroy the economy and make people live like cavemen?

That today you have a global drastic increase in both solar and wind energy. Also look at solar energy, that have in a few years gone from being a small industry to being a so important industry that it almost started a huge trading war between China and the EU.

World Solar Power Capacity Increased 35% In 2013 (Charts) | CleanTechnica

2013 Wind Energy Installations Stall In U.S., Surge In China

BBC News - EU and China reach deal in solar panel dispute

Also a study last year estimated the cost of reducing C02 to only 1 % of GDP.

Halving CO2 emissions by 2050: New report says it will cost $2 trillion a year

You can also look at the cost for your Americans to be dependent on foreign oil. From the overthrow of democratic Iran government in the 1950 that lead the way to the Islamic revolution in the late 70's and USA gaining a new dangerous enemy. The oil crisis during the 1970. Two costly war with Iraq.

USA also have to support and have military stationed Saud Arabia. One of the worst brutal dictatorship in the world. Also country of origin of Usama Bin Laden and most of the hijackers during 9/11. Also it's rich Saud Arabians that fund the radical Islamic schools in Pakistan, that is a breeding ground for terrorist.

j-mac said:

From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...

Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Whether its settled or not, what's frustrating to me is we should all agree that radical middle eastern extremists have painted a bulls eye on our backs and have targeted America. The one sure way to drive them into bankruptcy is by modernizing our transportation. In doing this, we simultaneously defund the brutal dictators that have more control over the US than any president since Dwight Eisenhower. We also end any "vital interest" need to be entangled in middle eastern affairs and marriages of convenience with homicidal tyrants. To complain its just to expensive is to ignore the business model of every new technology to hit the market since the personal computer: extensive at first but in short order just by being on the market prices drastically drop while the product drastically improves. To say its just too expensive is to completely ignore the costs of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, neither of which would have occurred if not for the indirect connection they have to our oil dependency. We have the power to defeat terrorism but it seems many of my conservative friends would rather not do that if it means cooperating with their fellow Americans with because our would be common objective is not driven by the same motive.

"There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." — President Ronald Reagan. First Inaugural Address, January 21, 1981.. I think we need to decide who we're going to listen to; Reagan or Rush.

j-mac said:

Neither was employed here, (except by you)...



:lamo Are you serious....I can't even begin to count how many times I have been told in AGW debates right here at DP that "the majority of American's agree with the AGW side.."

Also, I suggest you go back and read the poll and my writing...I am not saying that the science is settled or not. I am saying that a poll says that YOU saying that the science is settled is just not believed by a clear majority of Americans.

Click to expand...

Then you'll have no problem provinding a few examples of these frequent occurrences.
A sizeable number of Americans believing they've been anally probed by aliens doesn't mean the science community agrees with them.

Verax said:

This is the result of ignorance. People who don't understand science but think they do. I will never understand why people think that an idea they had while looking out the window is just as valid as a scientist... A professional, a person who went to college and got a degree, who spent many years studying after college and while working in the field many years as a career.

I've said this many times in the environmental forum and I will say it again here. Almost all of the questions about global warming can be answered simply by reading an introductory science textbook. The remaining questions can be answered by studying climate science and reading the IPCC's reports.

If you don't know anything about these things, you should not have an opinion that you think AGW is X(anything), because you have no idea. If you are going to have an opinion at least do a bare minimum of research and learn basic science first, it is not that hard at all. If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet. It is laughably stupid and you will immediately spot it once you learn a few basic things.

Click to expand...

I've said this over over again. If environmentalists wish to alarm me with their data about global warming - or whatever they want to call it now, they'd better show they are truly alarmed about global warming.

If global warming is chronic (It may be or not, who knows, maybe it's cyclic? All we have is visual data of receding ice around the poles and we don't know what causes it) and earth threatening, wouldn't anyone try anything to cool the earth? For example, shoot debris in the upper atmosphere to help create a mini ice age?

Do you know there are 3 major greenhouse gases that could theoretically trap heat in the atmosphere? (1)Water vapor is the most prevalent - at 95% of all greenhouse gases. (2)CO2 is the second highest in concentration at under 5% of total greenhouse gases. (3)Methane has been scientifically proven to be approximately 25 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

What do environmentalists who believe greenhouse gases cause a deadly heating of the earth propose to stop global warming? Solely eliminating CO2? Really? That's your answer? That's your show of concern? ARE YOU CONCERNED? If you aren't concerned, why should I be concerned?

Smeagol said:

Whether its settled or not, what's frustrating to me is we should all agree that radical middle eastern extremists have painted a bulls eye on our backs and have targeted America. The one sure way to drive them into bankruptcy is by modernizing our transportation.

Click to expand...

I know this will be shocking Smeagol, but I agree...And I do think that the majority of American's although skeptical of the AGW rhetoric that wants to control their energy use through enslaving them to a carbon credit exchange scheme that really is no more than creation out of whole cloth of a parallel fiat currency, they want to see innovation that is cleaner, reliable, less expensive than what they shell out now, and realistic.

I think that most would agree that we could make the ME oil imports largely irrelevant if we truly exploited our own energy right here in this country while we transition. I have often wondered why our transportation system doesn't transition over to natural gas right now....It would be a relatively easy switch, and infrastructure is in place for it...Burns cleaner, and we have so much more than the petroleum products we currently make. But it would be cheaper than gas, and possibly slow down the need for all this 'green' nonsense, so we are manipulated by not getting it.

In doing this, we simultaneously defund the brutal dictators that have more control over the US than any president since Dwight Eisenhower. We also end any "vital interest" need to be entangled in middle eastern affairs and marriages of convenience with homicidal tyrants. To complain its just to expensive is to ignore the business model of every new technology to hit the market since the personal computer: extensive at first but in short order just by being on the market prices drastically drop while the product drastically improves.

Click to expand...

I don't think you'd get much argument for this part, and rational people would like to see that as well, but the alternatives that are being rolled out now are unreliable, costly, don't offer the same service as what is in place, and are being crammed down our throats without regard for if they are truly helping or not. It is crony capitalism.

To say its just too expensive is to completely ignore the costs of the war on terror and the
war in Iraq, neither of which would have occurred if not for the indirect connection they have to our oil dependency.

Click to expand...

And I believe that is too simplistic. Whether or not you believe that removing Saddam Hussein was the right course of action at the time, done is done. I think one thing that achieved is if nothing else made American's on both sides of the isle very skiddish about getting involved in things like that in the future. Or not, I learned not to under estimate the lack of intellectual ability of those we send to DC to represent us.

We have the power to defeat terrorism but it seems many of my conservative friends would rather not do that if it means cooperating with their fellow Americans with because our would be common objective is not driven by the same motive.

Click to expand...

As long as rational liberals bow to authoritarian progressives to run the show in this regard, and abandon civil, rational discourse rather than heavy handed definitions of "cooperation" meaning "do it my way, or be destroyed", then common objective or not, all we are accomplishing is division....Which IMHO, seems to be the goal of the current make up of the party in charge right now.

cabse5 said:

I've said this over over again. If environmentalists wish to alarm me with their data about global warming - or whatever they want to call it now, they'd better show they are truly alarmed about global warming.

If global warming is chronic (It may be or not, who knows, maybe it's cyclic? All we have is visual data of receding ice around the poles and we don't know what causes it) and earth threatening, wouldn't anyone try anything to cool the earth? For example, shoot debris in the upper atmosphere to help create a mini ice age?

Do you know there are 3 major greenhouse gases that could theoretically trap heat in the atmosphere? (1)Water vapor is the most prevalent - at 95% of all greenhouse gases. (2)CO2 is the second highest in concentration at under 5% of total greenhouse gases. (3)Methane has been scientifically proven to be approximately 25 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

What do environmentalists who believe greenhouse gases cause a deadly heating of the earth propose to stop global warming? Solely eliminating CO2? Really? That's your answer? That's your show of concern? ARE YOU CONCERNED? If you aren't concerned, why should I be concerned?

Click to expand...

Everything you talked about has been taken in account in the climate science underpinning AGW, if you educated yourself on the matter as I suggested you would know this.

Curbing Co2 emission is one of the mitigation strategies. Many proposals have been made such as ejecting sea water up into the sky. The less carbon we put in the air the less warming problems we have to deal with in the first place which means mitigation strategies will require less scope so it makes sense to do that first and if we need to take additional steps then we'll do that as well.

Yes I am concerned, mostly because people aren't listening to the scientists as this survey seems to show. It is a global problem that takes a global solution which means a lot of people working together. It is a terribly difficult problem to solve not so much because of technical limitations, but because of human nature.

I don't know if there is chronic global warming or not.. no one has provided the proof. AGW.. so man is the only causer of global warming. Give me scientific facts. Not your ideology. Your anti-pollution ideology.

Water vapor is always in the atmosphere. It's a never-ending cycle. Rain to water vapor to rain.

You just admitted global warming isn't a chronic and debilitating situation: "so it makes sense to do that first <reduce CO2, because global warming is man made, don't you know>and if we need to take additional steps then we'll do that as well." I wondering, wait, I know environmentalists are more concerned with man's effect on environment than the evils of global warming.

Fenton said:

Huh ?

I'm referring to the " science " that is supposedly monitoring the increase in temperature.

Your assertions should be backed by something objective, but without ACCURATE data your assertions are only opinions.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I'm not up on your conspiracy theories....so every global research agency that does any sort of measurement of climate and climate patters are lying? How about all the scientists that research animals and habitats that have signaled warnings that they are seeing long term shifts in those habitats that are explained by global climate change?

You can wipe away all of science by claiming all of it is made up but that doesn't prove your case...it just makes you look you're a nut job

CanadaJohn said:

Didn't you just do exactly what you claim j-mac was doing - i.e. insult him for posting a poll rather than debate the merits of the poll?

Part of the problem with environmental science is that it is entirely counter to people's own experiences and all of the remedies appear to be ones that almost totally destroy the lifestyle people have worked hard to create. No wonder people, those well informed and those not well informed, challenge the validity of the "science" presented to them.

Click to expand...

That is what the AGW religionists just don't get. When we skeptics--and a skeptic is not the same thing as a denier despite how many times the AGW religionists say they are--when we skeptics observe again and again that what they say is happening doesn't happen, you have to think there is good reason to back up and look at it all more objectively or with a critical eye. If the popular scientific view was that there is no gravity, a great many of us would question that purely based on our observation that nothing that falls ever falls in any direction but down.

When we skeptics can observe that the doomday prophecies of the AGW cult fail to materialize again and again and again, we have to question whether anybody really knows what they are talking about. And when we observe that those promoting the AGW cult themselves do not demonstrate lifestyles that suggest they are in any way personally concerned about AGW, you have to question how deeply they believe it themselves. And when you observe that so very few scientists who are NOT receiving grant monies to promote AGW are buying into the doctrine, you wonder how much politics and money is running the show.

It is not a matter of being anti-science. It is a matter of observing the obvious.

cabse5 said:

I don't know if there is chronic global warming or not.. no one has provided the proof. AGW.. so man is the only causer of global warming. Give me scientific facts. Not your ideology. Your anti-pollution ideology.

Water vapor is always in the atmosphere. It's a never-ending cycle. Rain to water vapor to rain.

You just admitted global warming isn't a chronic and debilitating situation: "so it makes sense to do that first <reduce CO2, because global warming is man made, don't you know>and if we need to take additional steps then we'll do that as well." I wondering, wait, I know environmentalists are more concerned with man's effect on environment than the evils of global warming.

Click to expand...

Nobody mkes the strawman argument you set up. Man has contributed millions of tons of the greenhouse gas Co2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and you nonsensically opine that scientists who actually know what they are talking about are all part of a global conspiracy.

Manc Skipper said:

Nobody mkes the strawman argument you set up. Man has contributed millions of tons of the greenhouse gas Co2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and you nonsensically opine that scientists who actually know what they are talking about are all part of a global conspiracy.

Click to expand...

They're using computer models to justify huge tax increases and sub-standard technology.

You guys lost allot of credibility when the Politicians you defend promised to save the world....for a price.

Fenton said:

" Green energy " or renewable energy technology is a huge joke right now.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Extracting oil from sand, blowing off mountain tops and mixing water with horrible chemicals into the ground to extract shale is just SO MUCH BETTER!!!!11!!!!1

j-mac said:

From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...

Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Hmmm. So the fringe goes wild when multiple surveys of publishing climate scientists show 97% agreement that AGW is real and a problem.

Then a survey of the general public comes out and the fringe tries to make the case that AGW is still unsettled.

Funny.