Survey finds majority of Americans think climate change is real

That is of course unless you are an evangelical christian or republican because you know... facts, who needs them.

http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/12/prri-rns-december-2012-survey/

the survey includes things about climate change, the end of the world and some other religious stuff
some key points-

More than one-third (36%) of Americans believe that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence that we are in what the Bible calls the end times. Roughly 6-in-10 (59%) Americans disagree.
Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white evangelical Protestants believe that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of what the Bible calls the end times, compared to roughly 1-in-5 Catholics (21%) and religiously unaffiliated Americans (15%).
Four-in-ten (40%) independents, 35% of Democrats, and one-third (33%) of Republicans agree that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence that we are in what the Bible calls the end times.
By contrast, more than 6-in-10 (63%) Americans say the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of global climate change, while one-third (33%) disagree.

More than 8-in-10 (86%) Democrats and three-quarters (75%) of independents believe the temperature on earth has been rising over the past few decades, compared to 54% of Republicans.

Seven-in-ten (70%) Democrats and 65% of independents agree that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of global climate change, compared to only 43% of Republicans. A majority (55%) of Republicans disagree.
Nearly 7-in-10 (69%) religiously unaffiliated Americans, 6-in-10 (60%) Catholics, and half (50%) of white evangelical Protestants agree that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of global climate change.

Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans agree that God is in control of everything that happens in the world, while nearly 4-in-10 (38%) disagree.

Only 2% of Americans believe that the end of the world, as predicted by the ancient Mayans, will happen by the end of this year.
However, 15% of Americans believe that the end of the world, as predicted by the Book of Revelation, will occur in their lifetime.

The best thing about this survey is the fact that the numbers for those who believe climate change is real are going up. It is really only republicans left as a demographic that have decided science isnt real.

As the poll numbers continue to go up we can only hope the democrats will see this as a reason to embrace change in the policy on energy.

Green Energy being developed at the expense of old types of energy (derived from petrol, gas, coal, etc.) will become a reality if one of two things happen:
1. A lobby for the advancement, R&D and Subsidy of the 'Green Energy' market pushes legistaltion through the houses of representatives.
2. An idealist gets picked by the president to be in a position of power to influence regulations and the attitude of the administration towards such 'Green Energy'.
With that said, even if the polls show that Climate change is something most Americans believe in, there's a long way from that and towards actually following the Kyoto protocols (Or what's left of it these days... poor initiative). With that said, there's no way in hell rising economies such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia would agree to such demands if the USA, an economic powerhouse, would not pave the way (even then you're more likely to see the second coming of christ than have all of them agree).

EDIT: So I just read over all of the statistics. Hilarious stuff at the end.

The biggest problem with global climate change fixes is that people may believe there is global climate change but don't think them paying an extra 20 cents at the pump will fix it. And in the short run they're right, it will take decades before something like this has a massive impact on global warming.

Also you didn't list this but technically there is still a majority that don't think man has anything to do with global climate change. 35% of the people that believe the climate has something to do with bizarre weather patterns believe that it's natural climate swings and not man made. While there is growing support for the theory of green house emissions it's still not at the level needed for sweeping change in the US.

im pretty certain "religious America" has believed its in "the end times" since about the 1800s.

ye checked: "The Great Disappointment" 1844...sheesh...

anyways...

the only thing i have to say about climate change is this: man made or not we still have to deal with it.

so basically i wouldn't feel to smug if you think you've got a brilliant argument against electric cars or something as back in reality what you really need to be talking about is shit like moving New Orleans inland by about 50 miles and shit like that.

imo we are not prepared for the reality and neither is the level of political debate/will...except in maybe places like Holland.

PS. US "gas" prices are artificially low in the context of the global market. if that's what you're worried about then again:
"not prepared for the reality and neither is the level of political debate/will".

I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

cthulhuspawn82:
I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

Most working climate scientists think that climate change is a real phenomenon which will have some rather dire consequences.

Chemists have predicted since the 19th century the effects of greenhouses gases on the atmosphere. Anyone who even bothered to crack open a book about it know that climate change is real.Some research in the levels of carbon dioxide go back to 1958. Have you even bothered to learn about the positive feedback loop of the potential loss of albedo from the melting of the arctics? Or what about the possible changes in ocean currents?

The scientific community has more or less agreed that it has an anthropogenic cause ( that's man made in layman's terms). The only question is to what extent climate change will change the planet's systems.
(I certainly hope you're not going to go into the "research" of Doctor Lindzen. Clouds are a feedback mechanism, not a forcing mechanism, yet Lindzen is claiming that reactive mechanism will somehow save us- without providing any evidence whatsoever.)

You have to remember that climate change also entails some systems slowing up or speeding up. For example, when Larson-B (an ice shelf) broke up, it scared some people who specialized in cryology because it was simply not supposed to happen so fast.

Apart from this guy here, color me surprised. I was far too pessimistic and I'm happy to hear that.

EDIT: You also forgot. When "fire rains from the skies", and we "win", everyone loses. That's why there's the precautionary principle.

Look even from the point of view of people who don't know about climate change, living in a sustainable manner will only have positive long term economic consequences.

TheIronRuler:

EDIT: So I just read over all of the statistics. Hilarious stuff at the end.

I just found that depressing. Power of education, ladies and gentleman.

cthulhuspawn82:
I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

One of my professors, let's call him J, was discussing this issue, and likening it to people raising the possibility that there might be a bomb on a plane. Public and political reaction so far to climate change would be similar to most of the passengers saying "There's no bomb. And if there were, it'd be too expensive and time-consuming to look for it." J's of the opinion that the wiser reaction would be "You know what? Before taking off, let's check."

Part of the point of that analogy is to highlight the foolishness of waiting until after a disaster happens to try to mitigate it. It's not about being right, it's about taking precautions to avoid potential hazards. This is viewed as the only responsible approach in many contexts, to the point where failure to do so is grounds for dismissal, lawsuits, or criminal charges. In the context of climate change, for some reason, there doesn't seem to be any desire to take any precautions at all, despite evidence that some of the initial effects of climate change are already taking place.

This seems strange, and not in our best interests. It suggests that the indecision only exists for ideological reasons, which is not really the best justification for gambling with our future.

Good, about time. I really don't have much else to say to this. The USA is one of the last major economies to block any sort of proper protections and if they were to actually change their political stance (not just the public one, but the latter often needs to precede the former), the international community might be able to put enough pressure on China and India as well. Until now, the idea was "China and India won't do anything, so we won't do anything either", i. e. kick the can down the road until it leads off a cliff.

As for the religious part of it... there's a variety of "reasonings" I'm aware of. For example, some (including elected officials) have argued with the whole covenant-thing after Noah's Ark (rainbow, oooh, purty!) to support that climate change cannot have any serious effects (never mind the Pacific Islanders who currently think about relocating their entire populace; and they're only the beginning), while others believe that their god will destroy the world soon anyway, so lets rape and pillage the planet as much as possible because long-term consequences are simply irrelevant. There won't be any more children or grandchildren who have to live on a screwed-up world, after all!

Both are very problematic, obviously, and it's good to see these "reasonings" lose their grip on the populace at least. At some point the politicians (including the Democrats who get massive amounts of money to avoid proper regulations as well) have to bow to pressure.

McMullen:

cthulhuspawn82:
I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

One of my professors, let's call him J, was discussing this issue, and likening it to people raising the possibility that there might be a bomb on a plane. Public and political reaction so far to climate change would be similar to most of the passengers saying "There's no bomb. And if there were, it'd be too expensive and time-consuming to look for it." J's of the opinion that the wiser reaction would be "You know what? Before taking off, let's check."

Part of the point of that analogy is to highlight the foolishness of waiting until after a disaster happens to try to mitigate it. It's not about being right, it's about taking precautions to avoid potential hazards. This is viewed as the only responsible approach in many contexts, to the point where failure to do so is grounds for dismissal, lawsuits, or criminal charges. In the context of climate change, for some reason, there doesn't seem to be any desire to take any precautions at all, despite evidence that some of the initial effects of climate change are already taking place.

This seems strange, and not in our best interests. It suggests that the indecision only exists for ideological reasons, which is not really the best justification for gambling with our future.

I can also use this analogy to back up what I was saying. Imagine if during a flight someone proclaims a bomb is on the plane and its about to go off. People are going to be frightened that the plane is going to blow up. But lets say the plane reaches its destination safely, the next flight gets on, and they make it to their destination safely as well. Lets say the plane has safe and uneventful flights for the next 20 years, but on every single flight that same guy is there yelling at the passengers that a bomb is on board and its about to explode.

Sooner or later people are going to stop taking that guy seriously. People expect to see "results". When Al Gore talks about Polar Bear extinction and Manhattan being under water and then years later none of those things happen, people start to lose faith. The problem with global the climate change theory is that its been around for over a century, telling us that the sky is falling. And maybe it is, maybe its all true, but when someone says the end is neigh and you find yourself still sitting pretty 100 years later, it makes the theory a little hard to swallow.

cthulhuspawn82:

McMullen:

cthulhuspawn82:
I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

One of my professors, let's call him J, was discussing this issue, and likening it to people raising the possibility that there might be a bomb on a plane. Public and political reaction so far to climate change would be similar to most of the passengers saying "There's no bomb. And if there were, it'd be too expensive and time-consuming to look for it." J's of the opinion that the wiser reaction would be "You know what? Before taking off, let's check."

Part of the point of that analogy is to highlight the foolishness of waiting until after a disaster happens to try to mitigate it. It's not about being right, it's about taking precautions to avoid potential hazards. This is viewed as the only responsible approach in many contexts, to the point where failure to do so is grounds for dismissal, lawsuits, or criminal charges. In the context of climate change, for some reason, there doesn't seem to be any desire to take any precautions at all, despite evidence that some of the initial effects of climate change are already taking place.

This seems strange, and not in our best interests. It suggests that the indecision only exists for ideological reasons, which is not really the best justification for gambling with our future.

I can also use this analogy to back up what I was saying. Imagine if during a flight someone proclaims a bomb is on the plane and its about to go off. People are going to be frightened that the plane is going to blow up. But lets say the plane reaches its destination safely, the next flight gets on, and they make it to their destination safely as well. Lets say the plane has safe and uneventful flights for the next 20 years, but on every single flight that same guy is there yelling at the passengers that a bomb is on board and its about to explode.

Sooner or later people are going to stop taking that guy seriously. People expect to see "results". When Al Gore talks about Polar Bear extinction and Manhattan being under water and then years later none of those things happen, people start to lose faith. The problem with global the climate change theory is that its been around for over a century, telling us that the sky is falling. And maybe it is, maybe its all true, but when someone says the end is neigh and you find yourself still sitting pretty 100 years later, it makes the theory a little hard to swallow.

and then when the bomb finally goes off and no one even bothered over 20 years to even look for it (or even take basic measures to prevent the issue)even though some what reasonable arguments that raised concern no measures where taken ever.
BUT
because arguably climate changes effects e.g. rise sea levels are effecting people and enough research has been done to make this concern valid it would be more like
A man claims in an airport that bombs (big ones) are on all the planes stating that they will go off in the future. every one ignores him and continues on then he produces evidence that their are bombs but still ignores no measures are taken to prevent remove them. but none of them go of on the flight. then a few flights later one goes off and every one still ignores him and he states that the explosion proves that their are more bombs. still is ignores due to searching all the planes would cost to much. (you all see where is going i hope i suck at writing long things)
and here we are today and that man has a phd in Yes there is a bomb here from the best uni in the world
(------> which is hypothetical a legit degree from legit uni for this case <---- is important)
so the case is its not some random making a claim its most of the scientific world supports this theory which makes people that theirs is claim change.
that's a better one.
OT sorry for rant.
although i think that the climate change is real there still needs to be intelligent decision on where its man made or not which is where scientists are at but still the general population and politics claim its not real in any way or even take note of changing to a sustainable energy source. is what is hard to understand

It would be nice if only 2% of the population believed the Mayans predicted the world would end in 2012, but no everywhere I go people think the mayans predicted the world would end in 2012. Even the stupid people making that survey are not intelligent enough to take out " AS THE MAYANS PREDICTED" which was a LIE.

Yes, I know you were specifying the whole climate change aspect here, but seeing that in that survey made me want to Hurl.

cthulhuspawn82:
I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence BOO!

bowandsword:

although i think that the climate change is real there still needs to be intelligent decision on where its man made or not which is where scientists are at but still the general population and politics claim its not real in any way or even take note of changing to a sustainable energy source. is what is hard to understand

It's anthropogenic. Yes, human beings are contributing to accelerate a process that while completely natural, should not be happening so quickly.

cthulhuspawn82:

Sooner or later people are going to stop taking that guy seriously. People expect to see "results". When Al Gore talks about Polar Bear extinction and Manhattan being under water and then years later none of those things happen, people start to lose faith. The problem with global the climate change theory is that its been around for over a century, telling us that the sky is falling. And maybe it is, maybe its all true, but when someone says the end is neigh and you find yourself still sitting pretty 100 years later, it makes the theory a little hard to swallow.

It's funny. Environmentalists actually exaggerate a lot, but that's mainly because people don't listen or bother to understand otherwise. If I said there was an increase of 0.5 C on the global average, it would be hard to truly describe the potential consequences of such a "small increase". The disasters movies are not nothing at all like the real potential consequences. Instead you'll just see more droughts where there should just have been a dry season, more floods in rain seasons and more hurricanes since they will find warmer waters more often. Winds are heavily affected by temperature.

image

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/winds.html

Here. Read this.

Speaking of that global climate change is actually having an effect in the present day.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

cthulhuspawn82:
I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

The whole idea behind climate change is if sea levels go up a fraction of an inch every year, in 1 year that doesnt matter but in 50 thats a couple feet. Climate change is easy to mitigate now, but in 50 years its going to be really expensive to retrofit the entire coast. The idea is change unstainable behavior now, so we dont have fire raining from the sky in 50 years. The long term impacts of climate change are what matter, not the short term.

The bomb analogy doesnt work because climate doesnt have acute transitions. It's more like the current spending issues in washington, it really doesnt matter if we reign in spending now, because there is plenty of money. However, if we keep spending the same way, it will matter in 20 years. Most projections suggest Social Security will be insolvent in 20-40 years, so do we wait until we need to find trillions of dollars at once, or do we make changes now?

cthulhuspawn82:

McMullen:

cthulhuspawn82:
I was hoping this craziness was dying down. You might be able to scare children with stories of melting ice caps and rising sea levels wiping out entire cities, but as the years turn into decades and New York still inst underwater, people tend to stop being frightened.

Here is the thing environmentalists don't understand about doomsday prophecies. When fire starts raining from the sky, you have every right to smugly turn up you nose and shout "I told you so". At that point all of us skeptics will be eating crow and apologizing for not believing you. But until the earth splits open, don't bother practicing your victory speech.

One of my professors, let's call him J, was discussing this issue, and likening it to people raising the possibility that there might be a bomb on a plane. Public and political reaction so far to climate change would be similar to most of the passengers saying "There's no bomb. And if there were, it'd be too expensive and time-consuming to look for it." J's of the opinion that the wiser reaction would be "You know what? Before taking off, let's check."

Part of the point of that analogy is to highlight the foolishness of waiting until after a disaster happens to try to mitigate it. It's not about being right, it's about taking precautions to avoid potential hazards. This is viewed as the only responsible approach in many contexts, to the point where failure to do so is grounds for dismissal, lawsuits, or criminal charges. In the context of climate change, for some reason, there doesn't seem to be any desire to take any precautions at all, despite evidence that some of the initial effects of climate change are already taking place.

This seems strange, and not in our best interests. It suggests that the indecision only exists for ideological reasons, which is not really the best justification for gambling with our future.

I can also use this analogy to back up what I was saying. Imagine if during a flight someone proclaims a bomb is on the plane and its about to go off. People are going to be frightened that the plane is going to blow up. But lets say the plane reaches its destination safely, the next flight gets on, and they make it to their destination safely as well. Lets say the plane has safe and uneventful flights for the next 20 years, but on every single flight that same guy is there yelling at the passengers that a bomb is on board and its about to explode.

Sooner or later people are going to stop taking that guy seriously. People expect to see "results". When Al Gore talks about Polar Bear extinction and Manhattan being under water and then years later none of those things happen, people start to lose faith. The problem with global the climate change theory is that its been around for over a century, telling us that the sky is falling. And maybe it is, maybe its all true, but when someone says the end is neigh and you find yourself still sitting pretty 100 years later, it makes the theory a little hard to swallow.

You win gold at the Mental Gymnastics event, congratulations!

Point 1: Holding up Al Gore and claiming that his hyperbole invalidates the entire fucking field of climate science is idiotic. Ignore the Greenpeace activist, the PETA twats, the former politicians looking for attention, and instead have a gander at the tens of thousands of men and women in metaphorical(and sometimes literal) white coats, who have spent the last fifty years meticulously gathering and analysing data, and who's every measured, reasoned prediction so far has been validated. If you're going to argue against the concept, at least have the decency to actually argue against the concept, rather than one person's publicity-driven characterisation of it.

Point 2: Your use of the analogy is flawed(to be frank, the analogy itself isn't ideal either, but what the hey); in reality, the bomb did go off, and tore a big fucking chunk out of the side of the plane, but some of the passengers are sitting there with the wind howling past their faces yelling "WHAT HOLE? I CAN'T SEE ANY HOLE! EVERYTHING'S FINE!". Just because some people refuse to acknowledge the problem doesn't mean there is no problem.

Point 3: The concept of Climate Change as a valid hypothesis is not 100 years old. It was first raised as a serious possibility in the late 50's, and the consensus began to build during the 70's. I don't know why I'm bothering though, anyone who can seriously call themselves a "skeptic" while gleefully sucking down whatever random Conservapedia-level bullshit("There's no such thing as climate change! Okay maybe there is but it's so minor it will never have any actual effect! Okay so maybe it's having an effect, but it's the sun's fault! No, wait, actually it's volcanoes! No, wait, it's not actually happening again!") they can find is not interested in having their opinion challenged by reality.

Yes, we get it, republicans are dumb religious people ho ho ho look at the cavemen and their silly superstitions truly we are beyond such silly things.

Having been ALIVE in the last year alone of course I believe in climate change, and I've done so for years, despite the fact that I'm an economic conservative. However, ideology often takes a back seat to living and such so it's not like I'm against.

I'm also a cynic who believes both major political parties are firmly in the arms of the industrial sectors and won't move much on this either way, even though they may make noises and motions of doing so.

I'd also like, before we put something into place, to see evidence that it will actually make a difference; I'm not saying it can't, but again, cynic. If someone can use 'we must do X to save the world' as a means to slip in something completely unnecessary to that goal (politicians slipping things into bills my god what madness) then I believe they will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Eb8RwPM3I <- Spoilers to the ending of STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl

Bentusi16:
Yes, we get it, republicans are dumb religious people ho ho ho look at the cavemen and their silly superstitions truly we are beyond such silly things.

Having been ALIVE in the last year alone of course I believe in climate change, and I've done so for years, despite the fact that I'm an economic conservative. However, ideology often takes a back seat to living and such so it's not like I'm against.

I'm also a cynic who believes both major political parties are firmly in the arms of the industrial sectors and won't move much on this either way, even though they may make noises and motions of doing so.

I'd also like, before we put something into place, to see evidence that it will actually make a difference; I'm not saying it can't, but again, cynic. If someone can use 'we must do X to save the world' as a means to slip in something completely unnecessary to that goal (politicians slipping things into bills my god what madness) then I believe they will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Eb8RwPM3I <- Spoilers to the ending of STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl

Why are you even bringing up republicans in here? We're talking about stupid people.

See when someone says that the body can stop rape, or that the world will end in rapture, or that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell they're fucking stupid. You shouldn't feel the need the defend them because they might be of your party. Unless stuff like that comes out of your mouth, we're not targeting you at all.

So relax. 50% of the U.S is apparently republican. They can't all be like that, from what I can see of the survey.

That being said sustainability entails both mitigation and adaptation. This goes from using aerosols, to imposing a carbon tax, to lowering suburban sprawl and building mass transit, to researching renewable energies. In some areas, it's building levees or closing down buildings built right on chaparrals or floodplains.

So yeah. There is going to be an effect one way or another, whether it's slowing and mitigating climate change or living with the consequences.

Frission:

Bentusi16:
Yes, we get it, republicans are dumb religious people ho ho ho look at the cavemen and their silly superstitions truly we are beyond such silly things.

Having been ALIVE in the last year alone of course I believe in climate change, and I've done so for years, despite the fact that I'm an economic conservative. However, ideology often takes a back seat to living and such so it's not like I'm against.

I'm also a cynic who believes both major political parties are firmly in the arms of the industrial sectors and won't move much on this either way, even though they may make noises and motions of doing so.

I'd also like, before we put something into place, to see evidence that it will actually make a difference; I'm not saying it can't, but again, cynic. If someone can use 'we must do X to save the world' as a means to slip in something completely unnecessary to that goal (politicians slipping things into bills my god what madness) then I believe they will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Eb8RwPM3I <- Spoilers to the ending of STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl

Why are you even bringing up republicans in here? We're talking about stupid people.

See when someone says that the body can stop rape, or that the world will end in rapture, or that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell they're fucking stupid. You shouldn't feel the need the defend them because they might be of your party. Unless stuff like that comes out of your mouth, we're not targeting you at all.

So relax. 50% of the U.S is apparently republican. They can't all be like that, from what I can see of the survey.

That being said sustainability entails both mitigation and adaptation. This goes from using aerosols, to imposing a carbon tax, to lowering suburban sprawl and building mass transit, to researching renewable energies. In some areas, it's building levees or closing down buildings built right on chaparrals or floodplains.

So yeah. There is going to be an effect one way or another, whether it's slowing and mitigating climate change or living with the consequences.

It is really only republicans left as a demographic that have decided science isnt real.

Bentusi16:

Frission:

Bentusi16:
Yes, we get it, republicans are dumb religious people ho ho ho look at the cavemen and their silly superstitions truly we are beyond such silly things.

Having been ALIVE in the last year alone of course I believe in climate change, and I've done so for years, despite the fact that I'm an economic conservative. However, ideology often takes a back seat to living and such so it's not like I'm against.

I'm also a cynic who believes both major political parties are firmly in the arms of the industrial sectors and won't move much on this either way, even though they may make noises and motions of doing so.

I'd also like, before we put something into place, to see evidence that it will actually make a difference; I'm not saying it can't, but again, cynic. If someone can use 'we must do X to save the world' as a means to slip in something completely unnecessary to that goal (politicians slipping things into bills my god what madness) then I believe they will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Eb8RwPM3I <- Spoilers to the ending of STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl

Why are you even bringing up republicans in here? We're talking about stupid people.

See when someone says that the body can stop rape, or that the world will end in rapture, or that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell they're fucking stupid. You shouldn't feel the need the defend them because they might be of your party. Unless stuff like that comes out of your mouth, we're not targeting you at all.

So relax. 50% of the U.S is apparently republican. They can't all be like that, from what I can see of the survey.

That being said sustainability entails both mitigation and adaptation. This goes from using aerosols, to imposing a carbon tax, to lowering suburban sprawl and building mass transit, to researching renewable energies. In some areas, it's building levees or closing down buildings built right on chaparrals or floodplains.

So yeah. There is going to be an effect one way or another, whether it's slowing and mitigating climate change or living with the consequences.

It is really only republicans left as a demographic that have decided science isnt real.

Where is that written?

EDIT: Oh. Never mind. Good point.

Climate change is real! It's colder today than it was 5 months ago. Clearly this is a sign that Ra has abandoned us and Fenrir has returned because not enough people eat corn. And why? Because the gov'n'ment is paying people to not grow corn! These subsidies no doubt the root cause of our national deficit! It why Hawaii has nicer whether than the northwest, because they still have working volcanoes to sacrifice the virgins. Our sexual education is damning us to another endless winter! Wake up people!

DevilWithaHalo:
Climate change is real! It's colder today than it was 5 months ago. Clearly this is a sign that Ra has abandoned us and Fenrir has returned because not enough people eat corn. And why? Because the gov'n'ment is paying people to not grow corn! These subsidies no doubt the root cause of our national deficit! It why Hawaii has nicer whether than the northwest, because they still have working volcanoes to sacrifice the virgins. Our sexual education is damning us to another endless winter! Wake up people!

Who are you making fun of?

I can't really tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.

EDIT: Oh. You're saying in other words that we shouldn't rejoice on the survey since some people might have very stupid reasons for "believing" in climate change.

Am I right?

Chances are the climate change is coming from the sun, seeing as how the rest of the solar system is feeling odd effects in conjunction with our own weird weather.

I think I'll just leave this here.

Who needs man-on-the-street surveys?

evilneko:
I think I'll just leave this here.

Who needs man-on-the-street surveys?

Well the thing with "skeptics" is that no one of the scientific community will be swayed, but it's enough to confuse the general public.

Frission:

bowandsword:

although i think that the climate change is real there still needs to be intelligent decision on where its man made or not which is where scientists are at but still the general population and politics claim its not real in any way or even take note of changing to a sustainable energy source. is what is hard to understand

It's anthropogenic. Yes, human beings are contributing to accelerate a process that while completely natural, should not be happening so quickly.

covering my ass here
But accelerated by us yes 100% agree
how much like 10-1000 times faster then natural due to our action
i have no idea not educated in the matter
but will blindly follow an entire community dedicated to research on the matter
and oil WILL run out maybe then we will see change

Good to hear. Probably too late for anything effective to be done, but if it at least stops things getting worse than they would be anyway then its a plus.

Of course climate change is real. Earth changes all the time. 10,000 years ago there was a mile of ice on top of where I'm sitting. The rain forests of South America are not some ancient holdover from the time of dinosaurs, they're actually fairly new on the timeline of life. And so forth.

The problem, as is so often the case, is a lack of understanding. People throw around numbers like "there is X amount of Bad Stuff released from car exhaust each year" without understanding that Earth does things like this, on an incalculably greater scale, to itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa. Somehow we are still here.

The trick is understanding not only how much influence man has, but the degree to which that influence really affects the Earth's natural cycles. To my mind, we haven't studied climate long enough or thoroughly enough to understand much of anything about it. This lack of understanding allows people to make whatever sort of snap judgment or knee-jerk emotional outburst they feel like, which might be funny if their rubbish weren't further clouding the issue.

Climate change exists, yes. Are humans causing it? That's still up for discussion and unbiased research. Should we be researching more renewable power sources? Most definitely, but let's fix the broken grid first. Should we listen to hippies gassing on about solar and wind? Absolutely not! "Green" energy is worthless as a primary power source. The future is nuclear of various types, whether the greenies like it or not. Once we work out fusion and maybe room-temperature superconductors, energy isn't even an issue.

Ravinoff:
Climate change exists, yes. Are humans causing it?

Johnny Impact:

The trick is understanding not only how much influence man has, but the degree to which that influence really affects the Earth's natural cycles. To my mind, we haven't studied climate long enough or thoroughly enough to understand much of anything about it.

RE: It's anthropogenic. Yes, human beings are contributing to accelerate a process that while completely natural, should not be happening so quickly. The question is the amount and the range of the effects

Here's a video. I'm in sustainability. PM if you have questions, but don't make such assertions.

http://www.deb.uminho.pt/fontes/enviroinfo/publications/atoz-a.htm

http://www.eenews.net/gw/

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899/
List of sources.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series209.html
This is a link to the habitable planet. A movie.

There has been ongoing research from 1958 on the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Ravinoff:

The future is nuclear of various types, whether the greenies like it or not. Once we work out fusion and maybe room-temperature superconductors, energy isn't even an issue.

Here's an article from Amory Lovins, against nuclear power. A big proponent of energy effiecieny if you've heard of him.
http://grist.org/article/2009-10-13-stewart-brands-nuclear-enthusiasm-falls-short-on-facts-and-logic/

"Today, most dispassionate analysts think new nuclear power plants' deepest flaw is their economics. They cost too much to build and incur too much financial risk. My writings show why nuclear expansion therefore can't deliver on its claims: it would reduce and retard climate protection, because it saves between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar, 20 to 40 times slower, than investing in efficiency and micropower."

In its first half-century, nuclear power fell short of its forecast capacity by about 12-fold in the U.S. and 30-fold worldwide, mainly because building it cost several-fold more than expected, straining or bankrupting its owners. The many causes weren't dominated by U.S. citizen interventions and lawsuits, since nuclear expectations collapsed similarly in countries without such events; even France suffered a 3.5-fold rise in real capital costs during 1970-2000. Nor did the Three Mile Island accident halt U.S. orders: they'd stopped the previous year. Rather, nuclear's key challenge was soaring capital cost, and for some units, poor performance. Operational improvements in the '90s made the better old reactors relatively cheap to run, but Stewart's case is for building new ones. Have their economics improved enough to prevent a rerun?

On the contrary, a 2003 MIT study found new U.S. nuclear plants couldn't compete with new coal- or gas-fired plants. Over the next five years, nuclear construction costs about tripled. Was this due to pricey commodities like steel and concrete? No; those totaled less than one percent of total capital cost. Were citizen activists again to blame? No; they'd been neutralized by streamlined licensing, adverse courts, and Federal "delay insurance." The key causes seem to be bottlenecked supply chains, atrophied skills, and a weak U.S. dollar - all widening the cost gap between new nuclear power and its potent new competitors.

Today's main alternatives aren't limited to giant power plants burning coal or natural gas. Decentralized sources provide from one-sixth to more than half of all electricity in a dozen industrial countries and, together with more efficient use, deliver the majority of the world's new electrical services. Booming orders did lately raise wind-turbine and photovoltaic prices too, but they're headed back down as capacity catches up; PVs got one-fourth cheaper just in the past year, and reactor-scale PV farms compete successfully in California power auctions. New U.S. wind farms - "firmed" to provide reliable power even if becalmed - sell electricity at less than typical wholesale prices, or at a third to a half the cost utilities project for new nuclear plants.

Rather than viewing nuclear power within this real-world competitive landscape, Stewart simply waves away its competitors."

Read the whole of it. Please.

If you're going to gamble the future on a pipe dream even bigger than renewable energies, then you're the one being unrealistic here.

EDIT: Actually thinking about it also refrain using the term hippies and greenies. You sound really ignorant, that way.

Jesus, there's so much misinformation here.

1) We're not too late.

2) Yes, Climate change has an anthropogenic origin.

3) Temperature change is a natural process, but humans are accelerating it and creating new problems. That's why it's climate change.

Johnny Impact:
Of course climate change is real. Earth changes all the time. 10,000 years ago there was a mile of ice on top of where I'm sitting. The rain forests of South America are not some ancient holdover from the time of dinosaurs, they're actually fairly new on the timeline of life. And so forth.

The problem, as is so often the case, is a lack of understanding. People throw around numbers like "there is X amount of Bad Stuff released from car exhaust each year" without understanding that Earth does things like this, on an incalculably greater scale, to itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa. Somehow we are still here.

The trick is understanding not only how much influence man has, but the degree to which that influence really affects the Earth's natural cycles. To my mind, we haven't studied climate long enough or thoroughly enough to understand much of anything about it. This lack of understanding allows people to make whatever sort of snap judgment or knee-jerk emotional outburst they feel like, which might be funny if their rubbish weren't further clouding the issue.

Are you a climate scientist? Do you have a university-level education on this subject? I ask because I keep seeing sentiments like this from people, the idea that "we've not studied the subject for long enough" and "human beings can't possibly have a big impact on such a massive natural system", and do you know what those expressing such opinions all have in common? Zero education on the subject.

And no, the University of Google does not count.

I mean, I can understand the so-called "skeptics", they're batshit-insane conspiracy theorists but if you put that aside and take the basic premise as a given, I can at least grasp where they're coming from, but I will never be able to understand how an ordinary person who doesn't subscribe to the whole "green activists and scientists are engaged in a secret conspiracy to make me pay an extra dollar a gallon on gas!" shtick can find the sheer, unbridled hubris necessary to decide that their baseless intuition is more valid than tens of thousands of highly-educated experts performing rigorous experiments.

Since you seem to be possessed of at least a modicum of rationality, I implore you to go to youtube and watch the climate science series on potholer54's channel - he is a former BBC foreign correspondent who has also done some science journalism, and his videos are fully-sourced with links to every scientific paper or article he discusses. If I recall correctly, one of those videos quite handily debunks the whole "volcanoes dun it!" concept.

Most of the problem with people denying climate change is threefold:

1) Many people go under the "if I don't see the immediate effects, it's not happening!" They are skeptical, not because they understand the data and the studies, but because they do not understand them; they merely think they do. Combine that with the toxic attitude of "I am entitled to say anything I want and not be criticized for it", and we have droves of arm-chair skeptics flying out of the woodwork. For an example in my own field, laypeople become skeptical of my arguments if I cite someone such as Nietzsche or Machiavelli, not because they understand either thinker (the former was anti-anti-semitism, and the latter was not a 'Machiavellian' in the modern sense), but because of things they may have heard, a poor reading they have had, and/or a lack of critical self-awareness.

2) Absolutism: "If we are not in a period of absolute crisis (i.e. masses dying, the world on fire, etc.), then we are fine, there's no point in taking action." This leads from the first point, of course, but our capabilities of perception are essential to understanding; if we are unaware of their limitations we can fall prey more easily to their shortfalls. Most people are not going to stop and say, "wait, are my biases preventing me from fully understanding the situation for what it is?", or "perhaps my understanding of the world is limited by my social and biological aspects". That attitude seems to be more prevalent among those with academic training (though not exclusive, and never with absolute certainty; professors are not perfect, after all). People forget that they are categorizing, and that the world does not fall necessarily into what we perceive as absolute states - the damage we cause is cumulative, things decay and heal over time, and the latter requires effort and action on our part, just as if we were cells in a larger body: if our arm was cut and our blood cells did nothing to close the wound and prevent bad bacteria from entering the bloodstream, then we might become infected, and over time the wound would fester, perhaps killing us or forcing us to remove the limb entirely. The effects of climate change and the acts required to reverse them are not like a bomb that explodes and instantly levels everything around it. A continuous active struggle is required by everyone with whatever influence and power they may have, no matter how 'insignificant'. The problem, however, is the third point:

3) Our ability to care beyond our immediate situation is extremely difficult unless we are already prone to abstract and critical thinking. To expect all humans to understand based on an appeal to their rationality is both a biological and sociological impossibility. We are not, after all, merely rational beings; our emotions, desires, instincts, senses, and limited perspective can all contribute to our inability to understand. Whether we are capable of managing them depends on a complex multiplicity of factors. Furthermore, if a person has not developed and honed their rational sense into a sharp practical tool, expecting them to wield it in its blunt form is expecting too much, and remains a fundamental misunderstanding of how humans function. Being rational is not an absolute state which all humans either have or do not have; it too is an ongoing struggle.

This is not to excuse the deniers; rather, I believe that understanding them better can lead to potential ways to help them understand why it is essential that we take action. The Sanskrit term for this is upaya, sometimes translated or explained as "skillful means". One seeks to understand the particular situation, so that one may adapt teachings to help alleviate suffering, dissatisfaction, and self-destruction. There is no easy way, no particular state to be achieved. To live is to continuously struggle and become; if we as a species are incapable of understanding that and do not apply ourselves as such, then we will continue to see nonsense such as anthropogenic climate-change denial.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked