# Climate change poll



## Wisneaky (Oct 12, 2015)

After reading about our president and how he feels that climate change is the single most important thing I started to wonder how other people feel about climate change. Please feel free to share your thoughts.


----------



## Circus (Oct 12, 2015)

"Climate change is more important than national security."

A gun doesn't help much if your dead.


----------



## Wisneaky (Oct 12, 2015)

Circus said:


> "Climate change is more important than national security."
> 
> A gun doesn't help much if your dead.


Climate change doesn't matter much if your dead either does it?


----------



## pdxdave (Oct 12, 2015)

I actually voted "what is climate change". I mean this not because I have no idea what climate change is, but because I think that many things needs to be clarified on this debate. For one, I agree that yes climate change is happening. However, really the question is what is causing the climate change ? Is it man-made, or a natural progression of change which we know has existed for millenia ? Is there a natural tendency towards cooling right now, but our pollution is causing warming ? Or is there a natural tendency towards warming that is overpowering pollution that is actually causing cooling ? We really don't know what the cause/effect relationship is here ! 

Furthermore, I believe that the issue of climate change is being used to mask the real, more serious issue. What I mean is that climate change itself is just a symptom. If we go to the doctor with a severe headache, I'd hope they don't just give us a couple tylenol and send us home! There could, and likely is something more serious going on. Climate change is a potential symptom of a much greater issue of which there is no denial, and that is the pollution of our environment, land, sea and air. Climate change is just a small subset of issues in a subset of arenas (air mainly). So it does us a disservice to debate climate change. I'm concerned about things like skyrocketing rates of cancer, asthma, mental illnesses, depleted resources, specie extinction, etc. Known real-issues that can affect our day to day lives and in many cases have clearly defined human-activity driven causes. Climate change is a diversion, likely intentional.


----------



## Circus (Oct 12, 2015)

Circus said:


> A gun doesn't help much if your dead.


 


Wisneaky said:


> Climate change doesn't matter much if your dead either does it?


 
That's the problem with polls, too unidirectional. Both are important, at least for those vested in the status quo.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 12, 2015)

Where is the choice:

I can't wait for the climate to change in a month so I can start a fire and convert a high carbon fuel into a gas and water vapor!


----------



## mass_burner (Oct 12, 2015)

It really doesn't matter either way. Humans are very short-term acting.


----------



## Starstuff (Oct 12, 2015)

It is real. It is important. And it is man-made.And the vast majority of scientists agree.

Also, as the Pentagon has said, climate change _IS_ a matter of national security.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 13, 2015)

I have lived my life to be able to answer with integrity this question by a grandchild: "Grandpa, what did you do once you knew?" First my three children and their spouses, now my grandchildren, know by my actions what I have done and still am doing.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 13, 2015)

Starstuff said:


> It is real. It is important. And it is man-made.And the vast majority of scientists agree.
> 
> Also, as the Pentagon has said, climate change _IS_ a matter of national security.




So, since polls can be written toget whatever answer you want, let's start by asking what questions were asked and the order theory were asked.  Then let's look at the raw data vs the final data.   Call me skeptical on polls in general.  Look what they are doing with Presidental polls.  I haven't spoken to anybody who loves Trump or Hillary, yet they magically lead them all


----------



## Circus (Oct 13, 2015)

pdxdave said:


> Climate change is a diversion, likely intentional.


 
video: Merchants of Doubt . The climate change debate is the intentional deversion (fossil fuel delaying tactic).  Escaping methane from rotting permafrost and hydrates is quickly removing, if not already removed, any choice.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 13, 2015)

Starstuff said:


> It is real. It is important. And it is man-made.And the vast majority of scientists agree.
> 
> Also, as the Pentagon has said, climate change _IS_ a matter of national security.




But yet still, nearly half the people in this country - many of them highly educated and intelligent, have blindly accepted the brainwashing that its a hoax. Along with other ridiculous pseudoscience $%(*&$% like vaccinations causing autism.

Maybe we will all die form new polio outbreaks before CC gets us?  

I don't hold high hopes we (as a society) will do anything about it before our homes start floating into the ocean.  Or even then.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 13, 2015)

pdxdave said:


> Furthermore, I believe that the issue of climate change is being used to mask the real, more serious issue. What I mean is that climate change itself is just a symptom



Its been argued that its a "symptom" of overpopulation... That is the real problem is the unsustainability of infinite growth in population on a planet with finite natural resources is the true dilemma.  Nobody is willing to touch that one, I think even China is starting to give up on the one child idea.


----------



## pdxdave (Oct 13, 2015)

mass_burner said:


> It really doesn't matter either way. Humans are very short-term acting.


What do you mean by that ?
If you mean that, in the grand scale of earth we'll be gone in a "short" amount of time and leave little lasting impact, the earth will be fine, then yeah I agree. We won't destroy the planet, but we are altering it's ability to sustain certain life forms including ourselves.


----------



## begreen (Oct 13, 2015)

The length of time that humans have been on the planet doesn't really matter, it's the rate of impact that is important.  95% of all mammals on earth are now domestic. Species extinction is at least 1000x times the background rate. Some estimate it as high as 10,000%. CO2 rate of increase is insane.





Overpopulation is the issue and will be THE issue for future generations.
"Human population cannot increase forever at an exponential rate; it will level off -- but the Earth cannot support indefinitely even its current population. The pain does not come gradually, but all at once, in these cases."
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/econ/bartlett.htm


----------



## pdxdave (Oct 13, 2015)

begreen said:


> The length of time that humans have been on the planet doesn't really matter, it's the rate of impact that is important.  95% of all mammals on earth are now domestic. Species extinction is at least 1000x times the background rate. Some estimate it as high as 10,000%. CO2 rate of increase is insane.
> 
> View attachment 163695
> 
> ...


Agree - overpopulation is a core issue and needs to be dealt with. CO2 is a huge issue also, whether it impacts climate change or not. High levels of CO2 have been proven to decrease mental functioning. We are well over 2 times the historical atmospheric CO2 level, and still rapidly increasing. We have no clue as to what the effect is of this lifelong moderate increase is, there's simply no way to study it since everything and everybody on earth is exposed to it and a baseline with which to compare is impossible.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Oct 13, 2015)

Well, I'm doing my part to curb over-population..........no kids for me!  lol


----------



## Ashful (Oct 13, 2015)

If we accept overpopulation is the driving force, and I suspect there's good argument to say it is, do we have data to show the primary offenders?  Nationalities?  Ethnicities?  Religion?  Population control can be a touchy subject.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Oct 13, 2015)

Ashful said:


> If we accept overpopulation is the driving force, and I suspect there's good argument to say it is, do we have data to show the primary offenders?  Nationalities?  Ethnicities?  Religion?  Population control can be a touchy subject.



women..........end of story


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 13, 2015)

Overpopulation is historically dealt with by epidemic.  We're in for a big one.   With a global economy typical stops aren't there.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 13, 2015)

Step 1: Figure out how someone makes a buck more fixing climate change than not fixing it.
Step 2: Get out of the way

We are almost done with step 1.


----------



## blades (Oct 13, 2015)

Happens twice a year every year like clock work.  That said , when the talking heads start figuring in all the natural causes of various green house gases, I might stop and listen.  Course when I grew up we were supposed to freeze to death due to starvation because the planet was becoming too cold to support vegetation. Not to mention the on going threat of Nuclear winters ( cold war -finger on the button ect.) Therefore none of the options in the poll work for me.


----------



## mass_burner (Oct 13, 2015)

pdxdave said:


> What do you mean by that ?
> If you mean that, in the grand scale of earth we'll be gone in a "short" amount of time and leave little lasting impact, the earth will be fine, then yeah I agree. We won't destroy the planet, but we are altering it's ability to sustain certain life forms including ourselves.


I didn't mean that, but I agree. I meant that humans will not put any real effort/ money/sacrifice to solve any issue that's not obvious, personally threatening and seemingly easy to solve.


----------



## Starstuff (Oct 13, 2015)

blades said:


> Happens twice a year every year like clock work.  That said , when the talking heads start figuring in all the natural causes of various green house gases, I might stop and listen.  Course when I grew up we were supposed to freeze to death due to starvation because the planet was becoming too cold to support vegetation. Not to mention the on going threat of Nuclear winters ( cold war -finger on the button ect.) Therefore none of the options in the poll work for me.



I've seen this old school "global cooling" red herring thrown about from time to time, and from what I've read, it really was not a seriously supported or pursued scientific theory even when it was in its heyday. Really wish it would stop being interjected into the conversation. It has no place other than to reinforce a head-buried-in-the-sand mentality.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 14, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Step 1: Figure out how someone makes a buck more fixing climate change than not fixing it.
> Step 2: Get out of the way
> 
> We are almost done with step 1.



I guess I am going to take offense at my own post...  I suppose fair is fair.

My response is too pat.  I think that **with current tech** we can get pretty far down the 'fixing AGW' path, at negative cost to the economy, especially if health and welfare are included in the costs.  I think the international agreements that are coming together before Paris are evidence for this truth....these folks are not pledging to destroy their economies...they think they will make money at it and save on public health bills.

But it is also clear (as in numerous recent stories) that the current round of pledges is *not enough* to leave a world that resembles what we have now, let alone the one we grew up in.

Of course, the utopian in me would say that tech will improve and get cheaper on a learning curve, and we will slide down emissions more in the future than we currently anticipate (again, only after costs have fallen _even further_) and it will be ok.

But I have two concerns.

1) Tech IS hard to predict, along with the global economy.  We could roll out RE at scale and clean up the FF system (e.g. with a lot of gas switching) and the RE costs could hit a firm floor, and health issues from FF could go to zero, and our incentives to go further to reduce AGW would then go to zero....that is, we would need to spend actual money to go further.  I think this will not be our choice, but the next generation's.  Will they do it?  It will depend on how rich they are...so anybody's guess.

2) People get used to a degraded environment.  Kids born after all the trees have been cut down don't miss the forest.  They ignore the old timers going on about the bears in the woods...that are all gone now.

I think that 1 and 2 suggest an outcome where the global environment just does a slow slide downwards (rather than the predicted catastrophe), maybe with the occasional replenished wild space or fishery.  In other words, something resembling what we have been doing to Mom Earth for the last 10 centuries, without really appreciating it.


----------



## Oregon aloha (Oct 14, 2015)

Not only global cooling, global warming is what they called it until they couldn't support their theories so they renamed it climate change so we would follow along like sheep and support policies that helps the business that gave to their campaigns. It's easy for them to get scientists to support climate change as it always will be changing like it has for centuries. Not only people contribute to the change, but every animal and plant has an effect, but of course they leave that part out as it doesn't support their agenda.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 14, 2015)

Actually the scientists have been calling it Anthropogenic Global Warming = AGW for a long time now.

They also call it Ocean Acidification and Extinction.

And it doesn't matter what we call it.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 14, 2015)

Oregon aloha said:


> Not only global cooling, global warming is what they called it until they couldn't support their theories so they renamed it climate change so we would follow along like sheep and support policies that helps the business that gave to their campaigns. It's easy for them to get scientists to support climate change as it always will be changing like it has for centuries. Not only people contribute to the change, but every animal and plant has an effect, but of course they leave that part out as it doesn't support their agenda.



Who is this "they" that could not suport there theories? The "controversy' is mostly a fabrication of the conservative media and fossil fuel industry shills (i.e. Mr Junk Science Steve Milloy and others) Within the scientific community itself there is broader consensus about the broad strokes of climate science  than there is about , say, the origin of the universe for example. In fact, many conservative groups that used to deny that climate change was happening at all have soften their position and accepted the reality and now shift to trying deflect responsibility of fossil fuels being the cause.

The funny thing is that scientists working off grant money are not getting rich doing climate science.  The business that stand to make or loose tremendous amounts of money are the oil/gas/coal majors.  Exxon Mobil made 300 *billion *dollars in revenuses last year... If the IPCC is hiding that kind of money to support climate scientists and advocates I'd like to know who to call - I haven't seen my cut!

Using the term "climate change" rather than global warming is simply a sop to people who cant appreciate that very small temperature differences over long time scales cause major changes in the ecosystem and think if they walk outside and its not 80 degrees on Christmas day it must be a hoax.  (Climate x= Weather) Similarly this argument that it must be false because "they change their minds" is a red herring arising from a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method itself - good science evolves , revises, and updates as new evidence is found.


----------



## Oregon aloha (Oct 14, 2015)

jharkin said:


> Who is this "they" that could not suport there theories? The "controversy' is mostly a fabrication of the conservative media and fossil fuel industry shills (i.e. Mr Junk Science Steve Milloy and others) Within the scientific community itself there is broader consensus about the broad strokes of climate science  than there is about , say, the origin of the universe for example. In fact, many conservative groups that used to deny that climate change was happening at all have soften their position and accepted the reality and now shift to trying deflect responsibility of fossil fuels being the cause.
> 
> The funny thing is that scientists working off grant money are not getting rich doing climate science.  The business that stand to make or loose tremendous amounts of money are the oil/gas/coal majors.  Exxon Mobil made 300 *billion *dollars in revenuses last year... If the IPCC is hiding that kind of money to support climate scientists and advocates I'd like to know who to call - I haven't seen my cut!
> 
> Using the term "climate change" rather than global warming is simply a sop to people who cant appreciate that very small temperature differences over long time scales cause major changes in the ecosystem and think if they walk outside and its not 80 degrees on Christmas day it must be a hoax.  (Climate x= Weather) Similarly this argument that it must be false because "they change their minds" is a red herring arising from a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method itself - good science evolves , revises, and updates as new evidence is found.



They are the polical force that is moving us in the direction of their choosing and labeling those that opose them as wrong and out of touch. It is all made up using science out of context. These folks are opposed to money that oil makes and belittle the oil producers and show them in a bad light. Rather than celebrating their success. It's all political.


----------



## semipro (Oct 14, 2015)

"They" are the same people that:

Recognized a suspected association between smoking and lung cancer
funded related research,
performed the research,
publicized those findings,
educated the public on the risks of smoking
established regulatory safeguards and public policies
enforced/enabled civil liabilities against those that flaunted those policies or sought to deceive consumers
and arguably saved millions of lives by doing the above
Those of you that get your news from talking heads may think I'm referring to the government.  I"m not.

BTW, if you apply that same level of "proof" that climate deniers want then "the correlation between smoking and lung cancer has not been established with sufficient certainty to require corrective action".  (my quote, not from the article).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...sive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/   (yeah, more scientific gobbledygook)


----------



## jharkin (Oct 14, 2015)

semipro said:


> BTW, if you require that same level of "proof" that climate deniers want then "the correlation between smoking and lung cancer has not been established with sufficient certainty to require corrective action".  (my quote, not from the article).
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...sive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/   (yeah, more scientific gobbledygook)



Which is why its not surprising that prominent climate deniers like Milloy are also in the pocket of Philip Morris denying that smoking is harmful.  Not to mention trying to tell us Asbestos is not bad either 


follow the money..... follow the money....


----------



## begreen (Oct 14, 2015)

I don't see the kind of global leadership that is going to work together for human interests. Currently the agenda is more corporate. That means critical changes like weaning off fossil fuels, dramatic reduction livestock raised for meat consumption, and a dramatic reduction in waste are not going to happen. Hope that changes but at this point leadership is lacking. I am not hopeful for a tech solution.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 15, 2015)

I see two major kinds of tech solutions. One addresses the "symptom_s" _of climate change; for example, higher sea walls for rising oceans, altered genetics for plants that are productive with drier, wetter, warmer, or colder weather; drugs to deal with the spread of diseases; more funding to battle wildfires, flooding, etc; more construction to deal with outdated sewers and other infrastructure; and the like. This is like big pharma that likes to treat disease because of continuing demand for the product and huge profits, and not cure the disease. These symptomatic solutions are problematical because the patient still will die.

The second solution addresses the cause of climate change, which is mostly related to use of fossil sourced energy. While big profits also are here for the tech that produces carbon free energy, this tech faces big uphill battles because widespread adoption requires fundamental changes and threatens profits based on fossil carbon as well as profits from symptomatic "solutions" to climate change. 

Both types of tech solutions are needed. My hope is that tech solutions that address the cause are the priority.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 17, 2015)

To the OP: the 'framing' of the poll is a false dichotomy and part of current right-wing talking points.  The GOP is currently trying out a strategy of painting folks who are concerned about global warming as weak or disinterested in national security.  CF: Karl Rove discussing Bernie Sanders after the debate.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/qotd-karl-rove.html

In reality the two things are not mutually exclusive, and have long been seen as synergistic.  Renewable Energy is part of a AGW solution and reduces the need for foreign oil, etc.


----------



## BrotherBart (Oct 17, 2015)

This will get people moving.

"Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Malting barley is a key ingredient of beer."


----------



## begreen (Oct 17, 2015)

Large scale loss of agricultural land is definitely a threat to national security, especially when it affects beer.


----------



## begreen (Oct 17, 2015)

Good po


woodgeek said:


> To the OP: the 'framing' of the poll is a false dichotomy and part of current right-wing talking points.  The GOP is currently trying out a strategy of painting folks who are concerned about global warming as weak or disinterested in national security.  CF: Karl Rove discussing Bernie Sanders after the debate.
> 
> http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/qotd-karl-rove.html
> 
> In reality the two things are not mutually exclusive, and have long been seen as synergistic.  Renewable Energy is part of a AGW solution and reduces the need for foreign oil, etc.


Good point.  Changed wording on security to be more neutral.


----------



## begreen (Oct 17, 2015)

“This isn’t only about global food security; it’s about global security – period.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/climate-change-food-security-key-global-stability-kerry-says/


----------



## semipro (Oct 18, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Where is the choice:
> 
> I can't wait for the climate to change in a month so I can start a fire and convert a high carbon fuel into a gas and water vapor!


You mean "weather" rather than "climate" don't you? 
I get the wordplay but the differentiation is key to the understanding of AGW.  Still far too many confuse the two.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Oct 18, 2015)

semipro said:


> You mean "weather" rather than "climate" don't you?
> I get the wordplay but the differentiation is key to the understanding of AGW.  Still far too many confuse the two.


*climate*
[klahy-mit]  /ˈklaɪ mɪt/

 Synonyms 
 Examples 
 Word Origin 
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.


----------



## Lumber-Jack (Oct 18, 2015)

This is an interesting video that deals with historical and predicted future CO2 levels and it's effects it might have on Earth.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 18, 2015)

I just spent the 2nd weekend rewiring and insulating the family cabin.  In all of the stud bays there is now 2" closed cell foam with a radiant barrier cut to fit and then foamed around for a perfect air seal.  Last night it dropped down to 25 and I cooked myself out of the place with a 1 cubic foot stove.  I had to open a ceiling vent to let the heat out.  It's going to be a great winter of ice fishing!   Provided it gets cold enough for the lake to freeze and all that.  You never quite know what to expect with those computer models and weather forecasting.  Maybe they will be wrong and this will be the year without any snow!  Except it was snowing yesterday for a bit.  Well, maybe there won't be any more snow.   Then it will just be open water fishing.  Oh the horror!


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 18, 2015)

Oh yeah, I just opened one of the few remaining bottles of "Cold Snap" left from last year to celebrate the impending season of temperate weather.


----------



## Snagdaddy (Oct 18, 2015)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ist-persecuted-for-debunking-climate-hysteria

The few scientists that have the guts to break with the official narrative of climate change are persecuted.  See the above article for one example.

The central theme of the United Nations is that of overthrowing the autonomy of the nation-states and replacing that with a global government.  This can be seen within all of the U.N. policies.  The meme of climate change fits into this plan.  The U.N. solution to climate change resembles a global wealth redistribution.  The problem with their plan is that it will further impoverish the poor by cutting off their resources.

When the money is followed, it leads to the City of London, which is the financial district in England, otherwise known as, "the city within the city".  It leads back to funding by our federal government....funding that was taken from us in order to support pre-ordained conclusions.  Who is fool enough to go up against the machine?  Most scientists are not.


----------



## semipro (Oct 18, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> *climate*
> [klahy-mit]  /ˈklaɪ mɪt/
> 
> Synonyms
> ...


Thanks.  Exactly, "averaged over a series of years" not month to month.[/QUOTE]


----------



## begreen (Oct 18, 2015)

Snagdaddy said:


> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ist-persecuted-for-debunking-climate-hysteria


If coastal cities flood and crops fail, then the poor will bear the brunt of climate change.

Not that that source might be extremely biased. The New American is entirely owned by the John Birch Society. This thread is heading to the can.


----------

