Another blooming climate survey

[Calrissian]

I went for the 'we totally screwed' option.

Of course, any decent science student would tell you, because of the millions of inter-connected variables involved in the climate system, it can NEVER be proved either way whether humans are the main cause of the coming Doommmmmmm !

Calrissian: can't wait for the end.

[HighPressure]

HP; can you remove 'and that of the majority', so other people who haven't voted yet are not given 'hints about which they 'should' choose.

Thanks.

I'll edit this in a munite, as well.

:)P

I have removed it but does sort of ruin the remark so I deleted the lot

[parmenides3]

HP: sorry about that! We'll talk about what the survey shows after a few more people have voted, if that's okay with everyone. Personally, I am finding the results interesting already. Once again, thanks to all who have taken the time to vote.

:)P

[Mondy]

Yes. I too am finding the answers quite eye-opening; says a lot.

I await the summary with interest.

[jethro]

Opted for number five but there are overtones of number three in my thoughts; I do think politics plays a large part of both the media portrayal and individual countries responses. Maybe, given that politics crops up fairly frequently in other threads, there is room for a similar poll on that subject?

[HighPressure]

Opted for number five but there are overtones of number three in my thoughts; I do think politics plays a large part of both the media portrayal and individual countries responses. Maybe, given that politics crops up fairly frequently in other threads, there is room for a similar poll on that subject?

For me there is 3 parts to GW debate which often get mixed and necessarily mix and I am as guilty as most of hoping around.

The 3 issues to me are:

1- The question being asked of by this poll is the core question.

2- What we should do about it.

3-Political interference and trust in governments to both deliver the truth and to deliver a solution or best shot at it. (Now this is actually the biggest issue for me and one that I think often clouds peoples judgement in the first 2 question).

So I would love to see another 2 polls follow this one along them lines.

[John Cox]

It's the Sun wot causes it. But you knew i'd say that anyway

You I and i must be the two votes in that category :lol:

[parmenides3]

I'm glad that you and Mondy have voted, John; I really want to think that what we end up with is a realistic representation of the range of people's individual opinions, so thoughts of every 'colour' are equally welcome. BTW: if either of you thinks that the poll is in any way unfair or skewed, I'd also like to hear about that, too.

HP: this is the first time I've tried a poll. Framing the questions took a lot of thought. When this one's done, I might be tempted to try something along similar lines about the two ideas you mention.

:)P

[jethro]

For me there is 3 parts to GW debate which often get mixed and necessarily mix and I am as guilty as most of hoping around.

The 3 issues to me are:

1- The question being asked of by this poll is the core question.

2- What we should do about it.

3-Political interference and trust in governments to both deliver the truth and to deliver a solution or best shot at it. (Now this is actually the biggest issue for me and one that I think often clouds peoples judgement in the first 2 question).

So I would love to see another 2 polls follow this one along them lines.

Agreed.

I do think there is a great deal more science/research to be done before any conclusions can be reached upon the reason behind GW. Even my non professional, but interested joe public, trawl of the net can come up with questions which doubt the certainty of what we have been presented with as facts. I know there are many people who disagree; the simple premise being Co2 is a green house gas, GHG's cause warming, the temps have gone up, Co2 emissions have risen due to man, ergo it's down to us. Solution: reduce carbon emissions and the world will return to the hunky dory state it previously enjoyed. I personally don't believe it's that simple. And no, that's not because I'm a cynic or think I know better than scientists or believe in conspiracy theories. It's purely that the Earth is a very complex system of processes we know little about, basing theories on half known systems and presenting them as facts is scientifically flawed.

What we should do about it scares the living daylights out of me when I read some of the half baked ideas proposed by some. If we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that we, as a species have messed up the climate, then surely the best course of action is to cease doing whatever it is which has caused the problem, and wait and see if the climate sorts its' self out. Messing with it further when we don't really know how the various systems interract is asking for trouble.

And the politics...one of the biggest issues for me too. Not so much our own government or taxation. If Carbon is proven to be the cause, then I am more than happy for each and every purchase I make to have its' carbon impact indexed and taxed accordingly. I'm a grown up (most of the time) and take responsibility for my choices. So therefore if I choose to eat Apples from New Zealand instead of the orchard down the road, I will willingly pay tax for the carbon emissions it has taken to fly them half way round the world. However, when it comes to World Order and the developed world as we know it panicking over Third World developement, or our government, or the USA, or whoever wanting to promote their own agenda whilst hiding behind AGW, to further their own cause, then I draw the line.

Bring on the political poll, someone, please.

I do apologise if this sounds like a rant, blame the Vodka...

[Gray-Wolf]

I just think many people do not 'multi task' when thinking of the effects of climate shift.

It is OK to think whether we are affecting global temps/weather patterns/climate systems and come to a conclusion but that is not taking into account the human aspect of things.

Without global warming humanity wouldn't/isn't in fine fettle is it? Overpopulation, starvation,disease, malcontents pinning dissatisfaction onto religious difference, energy poverty......

Even without upsetting things climate wise without major commitment ( and self sacrifice) by the developed nations great swathes of the worlds population are consigned to lives neither you or me would envy. I know Christ told us there would be poor always but there is 'poor and poor' isn't there? Against our peers we are poor but, compared to many, we live like kings!

Pop in the smallest bit of climate shift and the pressures increase (more frequent African droughts/Indonesian floods/Indian drought/flood, Chinese flood/drought not to mention the salt panning breaking surface in the mid-west [grain basket of the world] USA).

The slightest shift will continue the SST Anoms globally and continue to influence storm strength/frequency across swathes of the Sub-Tropical/Tropical world.

It would seem if things continue with no further rises parts of the polar/Antarctic ecosystems are changed beyond recovery (circumpolar winds in Antarctica,permafrost melt in Siberia/Alaska)

And lets not forget the 1/8th of world population living at, or near ,sea level today. Stronger storms mean bigger surges (even if no further sea level rise takes place [ask our coastal posters if they can see any damage/'high' high tide marks from last winter])

And finally, Lady P. if we were incapable of affecting nature (being so small and weeny) why are we still not mid the great Forrest with it's Aurochs, bears, beavers, elk and wolves?

[BrickFielder]

If we don't do something about emissions in the next few years, we are in real trouble. Action is needed now to mitigate the threat of serious warming and other impacts

I think this is probably a seperate question because you could answer Yes to this and not believe that CO2 is responsible for warming. Tackling emission is probably a good idea for reasons of health ,sustainability of threaten species and other reasons outside of climate change so you could answer yes to this while answering yes to any other of the questions.

[M'Lady]

And finally, Lady P. if we were incapable of affecting nature (being so small and weeny) why are we still not mid the great Forrest with it's Aurochs, bears, beavers, elk and wolves?

Sigh. Obviously I am being very misunderstood.

My dear Mr Wolf, I have not said we are incapable of affecting nature. That would be incredibly stupid of me.

What humans cannot do (IMO) is to affect nature to the point where the planet fails.

Humans might affect it to the point where the planet fails to sustain human life... but the planet itself will survive.

(And the humans will, no doubt, move on to bugger up Mars.)

And I don't know where your great forest is... have you checked down the back of the sofa? It's amazing what can fall down there. B)

[parmenides3]

Brick: you are right, of course, but this should be read in the context of the survey question; the implication, that we are dealing specifically with the temperature effects of emissions, rather than other effects, should, I hope, be reasonably clear.

Lady P: I agree with you that the world will still go round whether or not we are on it, and that nature will respond to changes accordingly and, eventually, adapt and start again. But I'd also venture to suggest that, if there were a risk of human extinction (I really think this is very, very unlikely), that we would be compelled to act.

:)P

[M'Lady]

Lady P: I agree with you that the world will still go round whether or not we are on it, and that nature will respond to changes accordingly and, eventually, adapt and start again. But I'd also venture to suggest that, if there were a risk of human extinction (I really think this is very, very unlikely), that we would be compelled to act.

B) P

Oh, I'm sure we would be compelled to act if we were threatened with extinction... whether it's Bruce Willis and his team in their vests, bare knuckle fighting with a rogue asteroid, or me and my family paying our weekly visits to the recycling centre.

You see, although I refuse to subscribe to the doom and gloom theories... I do agree with preserving, conserving and sharing the earth's resources.

(And may I just say how delightful I think you are? You have such a polite and gentlemanlike manner. Well done! )

[Nath]

For me its the "we are screwed" option. I fear that if this poll were in 2017 100% will be voting for this as it will be becoming very clear that humans have caused huge damage to this planet.

I genuinely believe that in my lifetime there will be mass starvation and death of literally millions of people due to GW having severe effects on water supply and crop growing.

[parmenides3]

Aah, you say the sweetest things. See that blush? Do be careful not to compliment me too often, though; it will go to my head.

Let's take it as given (for the time being) that extinction of humankind is not on the cards. (Yes, it might be, but bear with me...).

Instead, we can think in terms of 'the sum of all human suffering'. Now, the world we live in is full of suffering. We are unbelievably fortunate to be living in a society which has proportionally less, and less extreme suffering than many places on earth. Let's say that you could add up all of the avoidable suffering; hunger, disease, poverty, violence; that is X amount of suffering.

What the IPCC is trying to tell us is that, by creating an imbalance in the climate system which leads to more average warmth and that quicker than we would be able to adapt readily to, we are going to be in a world (actually, more likely our kids/grandkids), in which the sum of all suffering is going to be greater. Quite a lot greater. And most of that suffering will be visited on those who already suffer greatly, compared to us.

Now, Lomborg came along a few years ago and said; hang on; should we be spending our money on dealing with future suffering, or with present suffering? There are many things which can be done with money to make the world a better place, instead of spending it on reducing CO2 emissions.

The trouble with this view is that it doesn't make the future go away. It doesn't stop more future suffering. If you don't believe that the IPCC, or the science that supports it, is right, then there is nothing to worry about for the future. But what if it is right? What are the odds? What if only some of the predicted warming happens?

And this is where a judgement about science (accurate or inaccurate) become a moral issue. If there is a perceivable risk that the sum of all human suffering is likely to increase because we (collectively) insist on burning all the fossil fuel we can find, and refuse to slow down 'progress' because it might lead to a recession, then what is the right thing to do? Should we allow that risk to continue, or even increase, knowing that it will probably cause more future suffering, or do we strive to reduce that risk, at our own cost, so that the sum of future suffering might be lessened?

Blimey, this is a bit negative. I hope it is illuminating, though.

Kissy kissy, :)P

[sundog]

i say we strive to reduce the risk even if it is too our own cost.we have to think about future generations at all cost! i dont see why this is even an argument we have to act and act now.it really annoys me when some people argue if gw is man made or not ,there is no point in taking the risk,and thats the bottom line.why do people have health insurance,car insurance,house insurance etc because of risk! maybe there are some natural factors involved which i think there might be but still it just isnt worth taking the risk imo

[Roger J Smith]

So far, this poll demonstrates that weather-conscious people in the UK at least are more inclined to place the blame for generally accepted warming at least partly on natural variation.

That is interesting because public opinion is clearly more behind the alarmist reasoning of the AGW lobby.

One thing that the media have not covered very well in all of this, would relate to the business opportunities for a certain wealthy Canadian businessman in the trading of carbon credits as outlined in the Kyoto accords.

The political party in Canada which is most responsive to this influential person and his various influential friends has decided to campaign on this issue as though it were an emergency rather than a complex problem.

That is of course their free choice to make, but there are troubling overtones of potential corruption involved in all of this -- the science has always been very incomplete, to say the least, and with the history of natural variations so well known in the atmospheric sciences community, I continue to think that it borders on scientific fraud for our community to have such an unbalanced approach to this complex question.

Indeed, one is very inclined to see political rather than scientific motives as being prominent in this reasoning process. The question is far from proven as alleged, and I think Net-weather's membership should be proud of being more resistant than the "leading scientists" as they like to be called. No doubt it is warming up and especially in Europe, by the recent evidence, but the idea that human activity is the prime cause or even a major cause remains very much unproven and there are dangers in assuming that it has been demonstrated, because our response and our political process both depend on getting this right.

I think the media and the scientists have got it wrong -- instead, we should be planning for the possible inevitability of natural warming and its consequences. But that's no reason not to clean up the atmosphere. By the way, the supreme irony in the Canadian situation is that the political party I mentioned was in power most of the past half century and did very little about actual pollution levels in Canada when it had almost unlimited power and resources, having stolen $50 billlion from our citizens through the employment insurance fund that rarely paid out benefits under draconian regulations. And the fastest way that the business cartel can enrich itself would be to sell Canadian and other developed nation pollution credits to third world polluters such as China and India.

That's what is really going on in this debate, and some of the most strident voices you hear don't want any of this to reach the public -- a whole science has been compromised by the appearance of large amounts of money for "research" which in my view is just the continual restatement of already known opinions that were never worth much in the first place.

[parmenides3]

Hi Roger. Thanks for joining in. Please can we hold of on discussions of the poll results for a while, so that there is no undue influence on others?

The main reason I started this poll is that I was not convinced that public opinion was clearly defined. I also want to test the hypothesis that public opinion largely reflects what is produced in the media.

On your final comment, though: you are characterising climate science as being 'bought off' by vested interests, and simply a restatement of existing opinions. I would point out that the enitre global spend on climate research is less than one week's worth of the US military budget; that funding across the world has been cut in real terms over the past few years, and would draw your attention to a very good new blog by Michael Tobis, called 'Only in it for the Gold'. Tobis is a climate scientist. Site: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/

If science simply restates what is already known, it is useless. Climatology is a very young area of research in scientific terms, and there are new data, hypotheses and ideas being tested all the time: it is, as you yourself have pointed out, not a 'done deal' by a long way. I respect your right to have this opinion, but would venture to suggest that it is based to some extent on your personal experience. Therefore I would also suggest that it is only one way to view climate science and not necessarily a fair one.

Regards,

:)P

Edited April 15, 2007 by parmenides3

[stormchaser1]

Morning everyone

Well ive chosen the 2nd one , and im affraid i agree with mondy

in My opinion [ i will prob get slated for this ] i believe the goverment are wasting peoples money away , WHY NOT JUST LET NATURE TAKE ITS CAUSE] whats going to happen in say 30/ 40/ 50/ even 100 years time , IF the climate cools down which i think it will [again my opinion] all that money gone to waste , Ok so we have a warming period , things have to warm so they can cool back down , again personally i think they have taken this GW to far .

again these are my views ,

nigel

[M'Lady]

Aah, you say the sweetest things. See that blush? Do be careful not to compliment me too often, though; it will go to my head.

Thank you for your reply dearheart, it was indeed very illuminating... !

Personally I'd like to think that it is possible to reduce suffering today, whilst at the same time reducing the potential for suffering for future generations.

I really don't have a 'damn the future' attitide... I recycle, I try to walk rather than use the car, I have reduced our water consumption in the house and I'd like to invest in solar panels, a small wind turbine and a full set of low energy bulbs when we move to our new house (if we ever move *grumble*).

I've always been uneasy with the amount of money spent on space exploration (fantastic though it is to expose more and more of mankind's ignorance and insignificance!) when there is so much on this planet that the money would be better spent on.

The suffering of this generation and generations to come bothers me greatly... and I firmly believe that humanity could (and should) ensure everyone has enough... but this more properly belongs in a sociological thread methinks... and I'm sure finding out that Lady P has a social conscience will be the death of some people on here!

I shall leave your thread alone now; as I'm beginning to feel like I am hijacking it. Many apologies.

[parmenides3]

Thank you for your reply dearheart, it was indeed very illuminating... !

Personally I'd like to think that it is possible to reduce suffering today, whilst at the same time reducing the potential for suffering for future generations.

I really don't have a 'damn the future' attitide... I recycle, I try to walk rather than use the car, I have reduced our water consumption in the house and I'd like to invest in solar panels, a small wind turbine and a full set of low energy bulbs when we move to our new house (if we ever move *grumble*).

I've always been uneasy with the amount of money spent on space exploration (fantastic though it is to expose more and more of mankind's ignorance and insignificance!) when there is so much on this planet that the money would be better spent on.

The suffering of this generation and generations to come bothers me greatly... and I firmly believe that humanity could (and should) ensure everyone has enough... but this more properly belongs in a sociological thread methinks... and I'm sure finding out that Lady P has a social conscience will be the death of some people on here!

I shall leave your thread alone now; as I'm beginning to feel like I am hijacking it. Many apologies.

Hijack away, hot ankles. This sounds right up your street: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/04/1...g-sachs-appeal/

The first broadcast should still be available as a podcast.

Thanks for voting, nigel.

:)P

Edited April 15, 2007 by parmenides3

[stormchaser1]

Morning Parmenides3

Your welcome.

Ive tryed to keep away from these debates , as in the past ive been slated really bad for giveing my opinions , i even got banned once from a forum [all because i give my opinion]

nigel

[parmenides3]

Morning Parmenides3

Your welcome.

Ive tryed to keep away from these debates , as in the past ive been slated really bad for giveing my opinions , i even got banned once from a forum [all because i give my opinion]

nigel

If anyone on NW bans you simply for giving your opinion, I will personally complain to the mods. If you are banned for being stroppy and rude, it's your own fault, though. The whole point of a forum is to encourage communication between people. One of the most interesting forms of this is lively debate. Personally, I think NW gets the balance just about right (well done to the team for that).

I'd point out to you and anyone else, that it is important to distinguish between disagreement and slating; sometimes we are insensitive in the way we disagree with people, sometimes we are too sensitive in what we read into others' comments. Try to assume the best of others, and if they have said something which bugs you, tell them so.

I'd also point out that 'sorry' is a very useful word, which is too little used these days. People who stand on high horses (especially when there are two of us) are likely to get hurt.

:)P

[Iceberg]

I've (maybe unsurpisingly) have gone for the last option.

IMO even at current levels we will have to pay too high a price, ulitimately the price might be far more than we can possibly afford. Cheery thoughts for such as sunny sunday evening.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Iceberg