PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Are Humans Causing Climate Change?



jimmygu3
11-30-09, 12:08 AM
There are a lot of threads on iTulip with arguments by the same few on both sides of this issue, but I am curious what the broader iTulip community thinks.

Question: Is human activity causing global climate change?

ThePythonicCow
11-30-09, 12:21 AM
There are a lot of threads on iTulip with arguments by the same few on both sides of this issue, but I am curious what the broader iTulip community thinks.

Question: Are humans causing global climate change?
Well, heck yeah, I'm sure we're doing something to the climate. It would be rather silly to suppose that we humans have zero affect on the climate.

Now, as to what else is affecting the global climate (sun, volcanoes, aliens, ...) and whether the human caused affects are up or down or sideways, seasonal or local, based on this or that mechanism (soot, CO2, water vapor, clearing land, pollution, chem trails, cow flatulence or electric power line fields), and as to what the long term impact of that affect might be, and as to what we might or should do to change this if anything, ... now that's more controversial.

In other words, I think your poll question is a tad too easy :D.

jimmygu3
11-30-09, 12:36 AM
Well, heck yeah, I'm sure we're doing something to the climate. It would be rather silly to suppose that we humans have zero affect on the climate.

Now, as to what else is affecting the global climate (sun, volcanoes, aliens, ...) and whether the human caused affects are up or down or sideways, seasonal or local, based on this or that mechanism (soot, CO2, water vapor, clearing land, pollution, chem trails, cow flatulence or electric power line fields), and as to what the long term impact of that affect might be, and as to what we might or should do to change this if anything, ... now that's more controversial.

In other words, I think your poll question is a tad too easy :D.

Understood- but I wanted to try to keep it as simple and neutral as possible. I see no way to incorporate any of the valid points you make into a 5-choice poll.

ThePythonicCow
11-30-09, 12:45 AM
Understood- but I wanted to try to keep it as simple and neutral as possible. I see no way to incorporate any of the valid points you make into a 5-choice poll.
I appreciate the motive to keep it simple.

However I predict you will get a response of 100% Yes, or if you get some No responses, I will presume that those respondents really answered some other question than the one you asked. For example their No might mean they do not think that humans are all of causing (1) substantial affect, that is (2) causing warming, caused by (3) CO2 in particular, which (4) will result in a catastrophy for civilization and hence which (5) does justify a massive political and economic response.

... too simple a question ... sorry :D.

ThePythonicCow
11-30-09, 12:50 AM
Also, unfortunately, given the low quality of the discussion on this topic, I suspect it is not possible to ask a neutral question.

Just as most politically aware Americans agree that at least one of their last few Presidents was lousy, similarly most climate aware humans agree that at least one of the two sides of this climate discussion is not speaking or acting in good faith.

In such a politicized environment, simple, neutral and useful polls are, as you observe, neigh impossible.

jimmygu3
11-30-09, 01:15 AM
I appreciate the motive to keep it simple.

However I predict you will get a response of 100% Yes, or if you get some No responses, I will presume that those respondents really answered some other question than the one you asked. For example their No might mean they do not think that humans are all of causing (1) substantial affect, that is (2) causing warming, caused by (3) CO2 in particular, which (4) will result in a catastrophy for civilization and hence which (5) does justify a massive political and economic response.

... too simple a question ... sorry :D.

OK, thanks again but I still disagree. The question involves the type of climate change currently discussed in the world today, not simply weather, or pollution, or insubstantial variations in temperature. The changing of the Earth's climate by humans. Any true climate change has a major impact on those whose climate is altered, and anyone who has read up on the issue knows what this question is talking about.

I think there are some here who maintain that we are only experiencing cyclical temperature swings that dwarf any impact that humans might have. Those people should answer "No" or "Probably not", as they do not think the climate of the earth is changing due to human activity.

If I had started it out with "The Union of Concerned scientists say..." I would have been condemned for push polling.

Jimmy

ThePythonicCow
11-30-09, 01:40 AM
Good luck with it Jimmy. Hopefully my complaints have not polluted your poll.

Kadriana
11-30-09, 08:46 AM
I worry more about us using up our resources than climate change. A lot of changes that peak oil and inflation might cause will help out the environment as a side bonus. Food becomes expensive so people start growing more of their own. Oil becomes more expensive so people drive less. Energy costs rise dramatically so people look more at producing their own power. My husband and I are at the early stages of this process not because we're hippies but because we're worried about inflation and wages not keeping up with prices.

ggirod
11-30-09, 10:13 AM
I worry more about us using up our resources than climate change. A lot of changes that peak oil and inflation might cause will help out the environment as a side bonus. Food becomes expensive so people start growing more of their own. Oil becomes more expensive so people drive less. Energy costs rise dramatically so people look more at producing their own power. My husband and I are at the early stages of this process not because we're hippies but because we're worried about inflation and wages not keeping up with prices.

Your worries are well founded and planning to provide your necessities outside the economy at large is a good idea. Choosing a home site with cooling in mind is one that people don't consider but should the planet start to warm a lot, air conditioning will supercede heating as a necessity and will be very expensive. Insulation and serious conservation (good also for heating in case the world climate stays as is) is a good adjunct to producing power because power you don't consume is power you don't need to buy. Setting aside some money for personal solar energy or wind turbines if you are in appropriate areas is a good idea too, since eventually the prices will fall to reasonable levels as technology improves the hardware and demand falters with further economic collapse. Growing food is, of course, an excellent idea and will probably be worth all the effort put into it when the economy starts to fail.

Probably the one thing that is not worth one iota of one's time is participating in polarized discussions on any of a wide variety of topics. Peak Oil, Peak Food, AGW, Medical Care, etc. are just some of the topics. Powerful people with lobbying, public relations, and political organization support are the only ones who achieve their objectives in the polarized environment (via decision paralysis and pointless disagreement) while the participants dissipate their emotional and intellectual energies in useless bickering. Instead, if people just saved their energies, investigated "covertly" on their own by reading credible (not polarized astroturf) materials on both sides and taking action with what they found, TPTB would be thwarted in their attempt to overthrow representative government. Maybe there would be a consensus of action if not one of politics. We forget that the free market is but the summation of the decisions of all the people. If, one day, lots of people decided not to use their credit cards, or to carpool and drastically cut back gas consumption (even in the relatively low price environment today) it would send an unmistakable message to TPTB that we are on to them and won't put up with it any more. Unfortunately, useless political expression substitutes for real action and TPTB get their agenda accomplished.

I harbor few illusions that individuals expressing their opinions through their actions will become powerful enough to have a major effect on TPTB in the world at large. But, neither will largely pointless bickering among the proles that saps everyone's energy. Instead, taking action on your own helps protect yourself from some of the consequences of misguided or absent actions by political institutions, and saves energy for battles that will need to be fought.

Now, to return to the question at hand, jimmygu3 was seeking information on climate change not in the form of an argument but in readable form to enable him to make up his own mind. I know that this source is probably considered to be controversial by some, but this multipage search result list from Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/search/index.cfm?q=global+warming&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=submit) states my position on the matter far better than I ever could. I have read, and agree with much of the content; verifying I read 900 some articles is impossible. I see no need to discuss it further, but present it only for information others might use in their investigations. Maybe a few others could present, without additional comment, search result lists they feel present similar quality information. I am a great believer that intact humans are capable of absorbing and considering information on their own and do not benefit in the least from a cacophony of bickering.

c1ue
11-30-09, 10:45 AM
This poll is useless.

If humans are causing climate change, but it is only 20% of the overall, and furthermore 75% of this human caused change is via irreversible factors - then what?

A better question would be:

Do you believe climate is changing catastrophically due to human derived fossil fuel usage and thus humans must limit their fossil fuel usage dramatically as a result?

Because that is what the real choice being put forward is.

jimmygu3
11-30-09, 11:05 AM
This poll is useless.

If humans are causing climate change, but it is only 20% of the overall, and furthermore 75% of this human caused change is via irreversible factors - then what?

A better question would be:

Do you believe climate is changing catastrophically due to human derived fossil fuel usage and thus humans must limit their fossil fuel usage dramatically as a result?

Because that is what the real choice being put forward is.

Thanks for the input, champ!

WDCRob
11-30-09, 11:05 AM
I don't think anyone knows for sure what those percentages are c1ue. What if it's 90% of the change is due to human activity and half of it is reversible? Or 20% of the change is due to human activity, but failing to act will cause catastrophic changes?

Regardless, stalling for fifty years and working night and day to confuse the issue, and then arguing that "it's too late to do anything now" is a page right out of big tobacco's and big oil's playbook.

we_are_toast
11-30-09, 11:28 AM
This poll is useless.


A better question would be:

Do you believe climate is changing catastrophically due to human derived fossil fuel usage and thus humans must limit their fossil fuel usage dramatically as a result?



I think a better question would be:
Do you believe climate is changing despite the fact that thousands of scientists around the world want to tax you and your family into extreme poverty so they can live their elitist, immoral lifestyles in their university ivory towers...:)

Of course your question is well structured Jimmy, the community at iTulip is smart enough to know what you're asking. Although this is an economic site and I've made some assumptions about who might participate here, I'm rather surprised at the results.


I worry more about us using up our resources than climate change. A lot of changes that peak oil and inflation might cause will help out the environment as a side bonus. Food becomes expensive so people start growing more of their own. Oil becomes more expensive so people drive less. Energy costs rise dramatically so people look more at producing their own power. My husband and I are at the early stages of this process not because we're hippies but because we're worried about inflation and wages not keeping up with prices.I'm not sure worrying will do much good, but you ought to be very concerned about both resource depletion and global warming. We have the technology, and there are experimental technologies, which can help us cope with resource depletion without causing a collapse of civilization. There are no technologies that will prevent the major impacts of global warming. The combination punch of both will require strong political will and wise policy decisions to prevent something humanity has never witnessed before.

Energy is certainly going to be a major concern in the near future, and there are many here who are very interested in the issue. Maybe it would be worthwhile for you to start a new thread about how your proceeding with the changes you want to make? You might find some very good suggestions from the community here and your case might be an example case that others might learn from.

a warren
11-30-09, 05:30 PM
Although this is an economic site and I've made some assumptions about who might participate here, I'm rather surprised at the results.

.

Yes. Unfortunately many people do not understand the scientific method. The responses here tend to indicate that economics is an art rather than a science, or more likely that these internets attract all kind of nutters.

chr5648
12-01-09, 02:25 AM
People need to stop over reacting, we should be happy that the temperature data has only 1 or so degrees (variation, increase, or decrease), whichever one suits your perception, in 100 years or whatever the numbers are the data of the week.

Humanity has been lucky to have the fairly stable climate over the past 5000-6000 years. I would sure hate to live through massive heat spells from volcanoes, sun spots, or any other factor that can increase temperature. I am also grateful to have not lived in an ice age, freezing my balls off.

So lets put $hit in perspective and stop arguing over something that HUMANITY COULDN'T CHANGE IF WE TRIED.

BK
12-01-09, 01:00 PM
It must have been the internal combustion engine that caused the Medieval Warming period. The warming was very beneficial to humans living in Northern Europe by greatly increasing the land the was available for farming - allowed farming at higher altitudes.http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

I remember my Western Civ Professor talking about some land that was farmed in 1000AD-1300AD would be farmed again until World War I or II.

I hate Polls - there is No way to know how much level knowledge someone might have about Climate or Weather. I'll admit I'm no expert on the Climate or the weather - so I didn't vote. I do find it hard to believe that the Government bureaucrats are interested in protecting American Citizens. Did Congress protect American home owners from an out of control Real Estate Market (No because it was generating lots of Tax Revenues and Campaign donations). Climate Scientist are interested in keeping their Big customer happy -look at how much in Federal Revenue flows into R&D...

c1ue
12-01-09, 04:51 PM
I don't think anyone knows for sure what those percentages are c1ue. What if it's 90% of the change is due to human activity and half of it is reversible? Or 20% of the change is due to human activity, but failing to act will cause catastrophic changes?

If a majority of the change were due to human derived CO2 and it was clear that reduction of MORE human derived CO2 would avert a catastrophe, then I would agree that the postulated action desired from Copenhagen etc seems warranted.

However, neither the human portion of climate change, nor the human derived CO2 portion of climate change, nor the CO2 portion period of climate change, nor even the degree(s) of climate change is clear.

All that is proven thus far is that CO2 has gone up and that there is a 1.5 degree/100 year trend.

The insurance angle is similarly ridiculous.

Paying $1000/year to insure a $200,000 replacement cost house is one thing.

Paying 40% of world GDP for the next 30 years in order to solve a problem which isn't proven via a solution which equally isn't proven is ludicrous.

This is even discounting the fact that the status quo desired would freeze billions of people in lower standards of living.

If all the AGW fanatics really want to do their share, I suggest they first go live in 3rd world conditions for a few years.

Simply driving a Prius and sticking some solar panels on the roof doesn't help.

Reducing your standard of living by 75%...that would. And if you did that, then China and India would be much more willing to 'do their share'