Do you believe human activities are making the earth warmer?

Printer-friendly version

Do you believe human activities are making the earth warmer and what is your attitude?

If you think human activities are only partially responsible for making the Earth warmer, for the purpose of this poll, you should choose one of the "I believe...." options.

(You can vote anonymously. PLEASE take just a few seconds to vote. A better picture of public opinions to this issue will be invaluable for scientists as well as policy makers or anyone in search of solutions. At the minimum, the poll makes people consider this issue and the issues around it.)

Plumes of (greenhouse?) gases released by a factory on Highway 5
Plumes of (greenhouse?) gases released by a factory on Highway 5

Comments

Science is not about believing it: Science is about the data, and comparing it to reality. the data show, in the case of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) robustly and incontrovertibly, we are the proximate cause of the heating of the globe in the past 150 years, far beyond any other natural forcing. To deny that is to deny gravity exists, or that the Earth is spherical.

There are many primary, peer-reviewed resources that back this up, and almost all can be sourced through the website, SkepticalScience.com

    I totally agree. However, this poll was not designed to prove one point or the other. Just when we think how anyone could argue with the rock solid evidence of the anthropogenic climate change, there are plenty of deniers who will be glad to start a debate any time if you are available. Disagreement is probably one of the most grueling matters for mankind. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody just thinks like me?

    The poll is aiming to reveal the whole spectrum of the different attitudes of general public towards this issue. I think solving the climate issue is going to take lifestyle changes for a few generations. People need to be willing to make these changes. The non-believers need to be converted. The unawares need to be educated. The aware people need to know what to do. The skeptics need to be provided with evidence. When the poll results are meaningful statistically, the people who work as liaisons between scientists and general public can take actions based on the results. Very simple minded, but with enough data it might actually work. First of all, we need to get well sampled and enough of people to vote. 

Thank you for helping!

Biyd

If AGW is so concrete why is there so much data manipulation, deception and out right fraud by the people that promote it the most. How can that possibly be ignored by you people that believe in it. Along with that is the fact that the biggest promoters (Al Gore, BHO and other were also the ones to set up the carbon exchanges and tried to set them selves up to make a huge fortune of this. Along with that is the lack these same people do not even come close to living their lives as if this was an issue. 

I believe in conserving energy and curbing pollution (carbon is no a pollutant) but this is notthing more than a scheme for more government control over our lives, just as Obamcare is less about healthcare and more about government control over our lives. 

What is different between now and the 1920's when the polar ice caps were melting more than they are now? I remember in the 1970's when the next ice age was coming and that was totally off bas also. 

 

Please let me or Biyd know what options this poll should include in order to have a better coverage of all attitudes towards this issue. The Earth thanks you!

Jo

It's disturbing to see the big discrepancy between the number of FB likes and number of total votes. I suspect many people's votes are not recorded due to one main reason, not enabling javascript on their browser. If you have trouble seeing your vote, please go to the following url to check if javascript is enabled on your browser. If not, follow the instructions on the web page for each type of browser. Thanks!

http://www.enable-javascript.com/

Changed wording of the option for people who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Just added one more option to the poll: I believe humans are partially responsible for the warming, but I think nature will heal itself.

Let's get people of all view points to vote, not just friends who agree with you, i.e. get your enemies to votedevil. This way, maybe we have a chance of getting meaningful results from this poll and your votes won't be wasted.

Received a comment from a voter, so I added one more option: Doesn't matter to me either way. I am more concerned about coping with adjusted climates than reversing the effects.

Received some tips and added two more options:

  • Compared to pollution, wealth inequality and resources exploitation, climate is the least of my concern.

I hope by the time this poll closes we won't already have 100 options indecision.

This is a great start and I hope the numbers can be used for anyone looking for persuasive proof of people's belief, understanding and resolve. However, there needs to be one last response option.

"I believe and I will not only help but also promote the awareness among general public and help draft legislative proposals and pressure my government to ensure that steps are taken to reduce our impact on this planet."

After doing more and more on my end of things, I realize that my drop in the bucket is just that. We need to make sure those industries and utilities polluting at the largest scale have limits by which they need to live, or are required to offer clean alternatives to the public.

Thanks for the suggestion. Added one more option. Due to character limitation, I shortened the option to:

""

In light of a climate skeptic's viewpoint, I added the following option:

"I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, but I support conserving energy and stopping polluting our lands and seas."

Too bad I didn't add this one earlier, as the people voted the existing "I don't believe..." option might actually want to vote for this option. Hopefully when we get an astronomic number of votes, the small numbers that already voted won't really matter.

Biydng, I am uncomfortable with being described as a "Climate skeptic" because that implies I am skeptical about the climate...I may be pessimistic, sometimes optimistic and at other times downright brassed off by the climate, but not skeptical.

It seems to me this whole debate is polarised and if you do not accept the pseudo-science of ACC then you are somehow less than human and ostrcised or insulted by many people. What I find distressing about this whole debacle, and make no mistake, this is a debacle, is that as has been pointed out above it is the ACC proponents or those with a vested interest who really push this forward, who get the lobbyists to address Politicians, who refuse to talk to anyone who doubts it. I have personally known researchers and scientists whose careers have been tarnished because they publicly stated they did not believe in ACC. Many I know claim to believe it, but privately refute it on scientific grounds, they do not speak out because they know their funding and careers would be in serious jeopardy.

Now despite my science qualifications I do not work in this field, I am an Electrical Engineer and work in the Building Services Industry (Critical Environments) where energy conservation is a key dynamic, and reducing the PUE of the DC as near to 1 is the driving force.

Here are the reasons (simplified) why I do not accept Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC);

  1. Humans are polluting the environment, and this must stop, the pollution harms people's health, increases asthma and other respitory problems, but there is no causal link that has been confirmed to a high level of plausibility that these same pollutants are impacting anything other than localised atmospheric quality conditions and perhaps atmosphere temperatures.
  2. The temperature changes claimed are often from "when records begun" which is often about 35-50 years. The planet is ~5 Billion years old, so based on a human life time that is assessing a persons health by measuring their temperature for approximately 1/1000th of a second...something no sane person or doctor would accept.
  3. Historical records give an indication of localised climate for around 4,000 years, and there is marketed variation within that timeframe, with long periods of both mean temperature increases and decreases, showing that natural variation takes place in sometimes short periods of time and can last decades to centuries.
  4. Ice Core samples whilst indicative, have not be proven to be as reliable as many claim. The rate of ring deposition is guesswork and the chemical reactions of the gases trapped has been called into question many times, even by those who work with ice Core samples. 
  5. Claims that the Sun has no impact on the climate of the planet are simply ludicrous, without the nearby star we would simply not exist. The Sun is 99.999% of all energy received at the surface of the planet and variations in it's output clearly do impact the atmosphere and thus climate of the planet.
  6. The Earth has a very complicated motion in space, a result of the variable angle of the axis, the motion of the magnetic poles, the precession of the orbit, the precession of the Lunar orbit and many very complicated effects that I simply do not have time to explain here...these all impact our climate.
  7. Many people, including so called researchers, do not understand fully how the atmosphere works, it is extremely complicated and bordering on the impossible to model globally. Cells have cells within them, that change continually. Within the troposphere the cells interact little with each other, only at higher levels doe the climate become truly global.
  8. Changes in the Sun's magnetic activity seem to have a major impact on our climate, historical records from the Chinese and other sources show how lower magnetic activity causes a cooling of the atmosphere across the globe, yet this is often dismissed by environmental campaigners, even though the true nature of the relationship is very poorly understood.
  9. Heating of the ocean, which acts as a a heat sink for the planet, is poorly understood. Many ocean currents are only now being modeled, and some appear to have circulation periods that run for decades, and some, such as the Gulf Stream, appear to have natural variation in their movement that may have many century long periods. 
  10. Often ignored are maps, such as the famous Piri Reis map, that clearly shows areas of the globe, made from earlier maps I should note, that show portions of Antarctica (Namely Queen Maud Land) WITHOUT Ice covererage. Many believe that all of current Antarctica has been covered for millions of years, but this is untrue, large swathes of the continent where ice free during the last Ice Age (Which was a northern hemisphere phenomena) and this included the majority of Queen Maud Land.
  11. There is much talk of ice melts in Eastern Antarctica, around the Ross Sea ice shelf, but little mention that western Antarctica has more ice that any records show with the ice pack exceeding all previous recorded limits. Further it is often ignore than one of Earth's largest super volcanoes sits below the Ross Sea and is the cause of Ross Island, the volcanic island that is home of Mount Erebus, the most southerly identified active volcano.

Now I could expand all those points further and I could add many more, but there is little space here and I have no desire to listen to you all snoring as you fall asleep reading it. But this is a base layout of what I believe. I am always open to all views and viewpoints so long as they are not personal attacks, this is about science, nothing moe and nothing less.

Well said! Thank you!