POLL: Is Climate Change something you're concerned about?
Posted by wwadmin on Tue, 19/07/2011 - 08:00
Filed in:
Over the weekend we ran two articles about Climate Change. The main article was from Dr James Renwick at NIWA answering the many questions sent in by you with regards to climate change.
We have a simple poll - from all the scientific evidence, news stories and debates you've heard over the years, is Climate Change something you're genuinely concerned about?
- Homepage image / Rebecca Stynes
.png)
Comments
Why are we even talking about it?
The poll shows a massive 65% are unconcerned. Despite the most intensive PR campaign the world has ever known, from media to governments to scientists, over 20 solid years, could the propaganda pressure be any heavier? Yet the people are not stupid. At the end of it all only 35% are prepared to get worried. They know when the emperor has no clothes. Why pretend 35% is relevant? Why not widely publicise, daily, that two thirds of the whole population want to talk about real problems?
Warmers, be honest, you are a small minority.
As previously explained Ken,
As previously explained Ken, people's opinions on matters of science are irrelevant. What is relevant is what has been published in the scientific literature. Your opinions are even less relevant because you are incapable of understanding even the most basic points of the science. eg your belief that CO2 sinks.
Just my observation
From what I have read the science community are not arguing whether climate change is occurring or not. On that point I understand both sides are in agreement. The questions are about whether or not it is caused by carbon emission from human activity or if it is a natural event, and how this whole issue has been responded to by the governments.
I thought the cosmic rays
I thought the cosmic rays stuff would get dredged up in this thread - any excuse to dodge the reality.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
'Bye folks - time for something more interesting, like chess problems, or watching paint dry.
One of the down sides to
One of the down sides to living in a democracy is that people think that their opinion should count on everything. That an opinion poll or public debate can solve anything. But science is not a democracy. If 99% of people believe a wrong thing, then 99% of people are wrong. Global warming is either happening or not, and how you feel about that is irrelevant. What matters is what is shown in peer reviewed scientific papers. Read them. If third party quotes a source to you, read it. If you don't agree with what those papers contain, get youself a degree, gather your own data and publish your results. If you're not willing to do that then you should at least remain agnostic on the subject, and don't tell me you know it's not happening.
Absolutely right Gary. We
Absolutely right Gary. We live in an absurd world where "all opinions have equal merit", regardless of the matter in hand. Various weather forums/sites, including one I have just left, get infested with smart-aleck know-all amateurs who think they can argue the toss with climate experts, even though they wouldn't dream of doing so with brain surgeons or airline pilots in their specialty fields of knowledge. Unfortunately, these people are encouraged by a coalition of individuals and organisations who have strongly ulterior motives, and a hell of a lot of money and influence - and a few superannuated and disaffected has-beens who simply want to lash out against their erstwhile colleagues, knowing full well that they won't be around when the time of reckoning comes. I saw a disgraceful example of this at a recent session presented by Kevin Trenberth (anyone in the climate business will know who I'm referring to). The late Augie Auer said a few years back that in 5 years' time climate change would be "yesterday's topic" - Tui time for sure!
Gary that is a brilliantly
Gary that is a brilliantly written comment - sums it up perfectly!
- WeatherWatch.co.nz
Just one of a number of
Just one of a number of developing stories of people affected by that which deniers say doesn't exist:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/kivalina-a-climate-change-story/#more-8356
Climate Change
Having a background in trouble shooting and problem solving, I learned to assume nothing and test everything, so that a solution can be found with a minimum of logical tests.
The entire process by which the problem of climate change has been identified, and the solution suggested, appears to be completely illogical. Unproven assumptions based off other unproven assumptions are nothing but flawed, circular reasoning. If ice is melting at the poles,then investigate and prove why, not assume, it is carbon (or anything else) related . In problem solving, one can take ane educated guess at the solution, but this is often wrong, and even if it is not, there is no proof that you were right, partially right or missed the solution completely. If I am to believe anything that is to effect my life, or my childrens lives, I want proof that I can use logically. Dave
A lot of people are sitting
A lot of people are sitting on their hands about this...... waiting to see if anything is going to happen.
Probably is occurring now, as climate change is gradual.....
Does anyone remember the recipe for frog soup?
Place a frog in boiling hot water, it jumps out straight away!
Place a frog in in cold water, heat it slowly until the frog is cooked to death........
Hmmm, ok here's what it seems
Hmmm, ok here's what it seems like to me: A 'doctor' is telling you you're gonna get cancer in 30 years time, so you better pay up at take your medicine now, and keep paying and paying, even though the medicine (taxes on carbon) will make, at best, a insignificant difference to your 'illness' (global warming/climate change, opps now its global climate disruption..). Meantime, there are a bunch of equally qualifiied doctors saying, hang on a minute, we don't see any cancer coming at all, in fact, quite the opposite (cooling). Who'd pay and take the medicine in those circumstances?
I would say that is because a
I would say that is because a lot of people either:
1/ Don't believe it
2/ Don't care about it or
3/ Have had it drummed into them for years and are over it. Refer #2
We're all being held liable for mass CO2 emissions - things like coal-burning keep cropping up. Take an average NZ'er who doesn't burn coal, who barely burns wood any more (can anyone say heat pump...) and who's carbon footprint is largely using the car.
I remember a few years back people getting so tired of it and I said back then that the greenies would have to change tact because people were getting angry about it. It went something like this:
"blame blame blame blame blame...you're so bad" to
"Look how easy it is to act - if everyone does it, we're on our way! You can make a difference!"
Simple, subtle but still managed to drive it home. Make people feel good about it and you'll buy yourself a few more years of it.
Now people are being taxed up the wah-zoo and they're fed up. Most people recycle, most people try to do right 'by the environment' and it's still costing them an arm and a leg. And the picture just gets bleaker and bleaker.
Here's a bee in my bonnet: Mercury Energy spouting off on TV about the wind farms "Enough to power Wellington" - so why is the cost of power going up and up and up? It's pathetic. "Green" energy and prices are still ridiculously out of control.
Many people can barely afford to eat and heat. You're not going to gain a lot of buy in for climate change if there is no tangible result. i.e. cheaper resources that are 'green' and essentially are "free" - like wind (I know about the costs of equipment etc etc).
I'm not surprised people don't care anymore...
I'm just glad I never bought the whole sob story otherwise I'd be over it. Still peeved I don't get a choice and have to pay for something I don't believe in.
Climate is always changing, so people get used to it, like
...mankind has always done...it's all part of their silly game...a game that involves the reduction of the human population by some 80% ( culling out) eliminating the useless food eaters of this planet, so that the aristcrats who think they rule this planet have more for themselves...don't take my word for it, check out Georgia Guidestones, in the State of Georgia, U.S.A to see their declared intention!
[And, exactly how do they propose to do that? Well, how about poisoning the food supply for starters with the dumping industrial chemical waste products into your drinking water, viz fluoride...then how about forced vaccinations....and so on...]
You may be surprised, if not horrified by what you read ( referring here to the Guidestones)!!
Do the research....
Poll not even close!
True David, the poll speaks for itself and reflects international trends. The warmers who post on blogs seem desperate to tell everybody else what to think. They, fortunately are a dwindling minority. The skeptics usually don't bother posting because a) they have better things to do, and b) if the lack of evidence that the planet is not going to be burned to a crisp hasn't been realised by now then it probably never will be.
More nonsense Mr Ring - just
More nonsense Mr Ring - just plain boring. The truth is that the sceptics are getting ever more desperate and vocal, as their unscientific falsehoods are exposed.
Those who think otherwise should study this website at length, as an example.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/
Sceptic postings are totally out of proportion to reality amongst the educated, and climate scientists don't even inhabiting popular websites to refute them, because they have better things to do with their time.
Another point - sceptics' viewpoints are mutually contradictory (**), but they never criticise each other, for fear that their entire house of cards would collapse.
**: Since they don't /can't understand the facts and the science, they are subdivided thus:
(1) Those who think the world is cooling (this requires a particularly low ability to comprehend facts);
(2) Those who think it is neither warming or cooling;
(3) Those who agree that it is warming, but deny human influence;
(4) The really contemptible - those who know AGW is a real and continuing threat, but deny it publicly anyway. Naturally, this group contains a lot of politicans, oil and big business shills and self-styled "libertarians".
I'm actually starting to
I'm actually starting to think you don't know too much about climate change yourself RW (or you don't have a personal conviction about it)
Observation:
1. You never provide a single fact - it's always either stating the obvious (i.e. your 4 groups above - which incidentally covers every angle that skeptics could possibly hope to come from) or simple URL referrals
2. Knocking those who do argue it either, politically or scientifically
3. I guess as a desperate measure - just ridicule those that are willing to stick their neck out.
I've been watching your interactions and, you're very quick to pounce on someone and anyone but never actually address what they say.
When did you buy the climate change game? When it became popular? Al Gore's movie?
Want to debate 'the science'...try this (proper answers, don't fob it off):
The first article "Early Arctic Sea Ice Melt" chart in your link - refers only to summer months in the Arctic. Where is the rest of the year?
If I recall correctly, there are 12 months in a year and this "30 year span" only has 5 months.
We're missing 7 more. To paint a dramatic picture, one needs the whole picture - not a selected version.
For all we know, the previous 2 or 3 months may have been substantially different. 2010 & 2011 look to be tracking very high in early April.
Also, anyone who runs charts knows that you don't use 30 years of averages then 3 years of absolutes. It's either average or absolute, not both - unless you overlay the average with the absolute.
You average 2007, 2010 & 2011 - suddenly it's not so bad.
In fact, the average for 1979-2000 is listed at being 15.9 (mid-point). (+/- 2 points whatever that actually measure because it's not two whole points).
The average for 2007, 2010 & 2011 is 14.8
That's a difference of 800,000 sq km's.
Of course the lowest point for '79-'00 is 14.8 - funnily enough.
And where is 2001-2007?
The very beginning of the chart tells me there is fundamentally no difference. But where is all the missing data?
The "science" you provided is just as rubbish as what you're accusing others of.
I don't intend to waste my
I don't intend to waste my energy endlessly resupplying all of the facts you "want", especially when the likes of Ring and other ineducables will deny them regardless. There is a huge raft of material on Arctic ice at Hot Topic, also at uk.sci.weather, to name just two - do your own homework and check it out. {just as a tiny hint - it is the summer levels that are the main matter of concern...your very first sentence shows you have no idea of what that discussion is about!!!} You haven't a snowball's chance in hell (no general pun intended) of proving the experts at those sites wrong. I look forward to your appearance there - but won't hold my breath! {Just to give you a chance to learn something first though, you could read this:
http://neven1.typepad.com/
}
My point about the contradictory sceptic stances is clear, but apparently too subtle for you - the various deniers' stances are in conflict with each other - but they never overtly admit it! Instead, they provide faux support for each other.
I was the first respondent at Hot Topic to point out the downright lies Treadgold and his merry men were retailing about the NZ temperature series - a very long thread in which the ignorance and dishonesty of deniers was starkly laid bare. I was involved in correcting plenty of the nonsense retailed in it. Wouldn't like to buy into that one would you?
I am a believer in letting those most qualified to do so, to provide the most detailed explanations on the relevant topics - that's called academic respect.
Now stop wasting my time. Reinventing wheels is not constructive.
If you're a believer in
If you're a believer in letting those qualified to provide detailed explanations - then I'll naturally assume you are disturbed about this article...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/
"CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It's OK to enter 'the highly political arena of the climate change debate' provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark's heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation."
...so much for peer review and an open community.
Interesting article from someone
... with an open mind, doing his homework and demonstrating good will - something the opposition are sadly lacking!
yeah nah
Very dramatic and somewhat misguided David. You come across like a paranoid teenager. The guidestones were a poorly conceived and executed idea by a small group of people with too much disposable income. Fluoride is not poisonous and vaccinations are not compulsory (although they should be). Climate change is happening and humans, if not directly responsible, have certainly contributed to it. Time to teach the grandchildren how to sail.