• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Secondary AGW Poll

CO2 from human activities CAN affect climate and

  • is doing so and/or will do so significantly. I am a "warmer"

    Votes: 86 63.2%

  • is not and will not significantly affect climate. I am a "denialist"

    Votes: 14 10.3%

  • On Planet X we say, "Oh, no, not you again. We thought we had already eaten you."

    Votes: 36 26.5%
  • Total voters
    136

Badly Shaved Monkey

Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Badly Shaved Monkey
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
5,363
I think it would be interesting to ask those who voted in the other poll http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167746

that human CO2 CAN affect climate whether they regard themselves as "denialists" or "warmers" (using terms that seem to carry the same mildly pejorative connotation for both sides.)

Thanks all for taking an interest in my little self-education project.
 
Last edited:
Fair questions. Let's work it out and see if I've missed anything.

"Why no ' and/or ' for the the ' denialist ' choice ?"

Warming now AND in the future = warmer

Not warming yet, warming in the future = warmer

Not warming now AND not in the future = denialist

Warming now, but stopping in the future = Um, don't know. Didn't think anyon would want that choice.

"How about ' can , does, but not significantly ' ?"

Can, but not significantly = denialist for the purpose of this poll, I suppose.


"Who gets to determine what is ' significant ' ?"

Each for themselves. If this ever gets far enough definitions can be compared.
 
I guess this is mildly better than a poll with the following two options:

1) If the atmosphere reaches 400 ppm of CO2 the entire galaxy will explode. I am a warmer.

2) We could emit CO2 until the atmosphere is four hundred and eleventy twelve percent CO2 and it would just make our lungs tougher! I am a denialist.

Binary thought patterns much?
 
I don't think we've got enough CO2 producing capabilities to significantly affect the planet. In 100 years we're out of oil and natural gas, in five hundred there goes our coal supply. 700 years of pushing out fossil fuels is supposed to destroy the ecosystem... right.
 
MikeMangum said:
I guess this is mildly better than a poll with the following two options:

1) If the atmosphere reaches 400 ppm of CO2 the entire galaxy will explode. I am a warmer.

2) We could emit CO2 until the atmosphere is four hundred and eleventy twelve percent CO2 and it would just make our lungs tougher! I am a denialist.

Binary thought patterns much?
Click to expand...


OK, smartarse, you try and come up with a poll that allows for a fair representation in a few mutually exclusive choices.

The idea is to give a little structure for discussion.
 
GreenLines said:
I don't think we've got enough CO2 producing capabilities to significantly affect the planet. In 100 years we're out of oil and natural gas, in five hundred there goes our coal supply. 700 years of pushing out fossil fuels is supposed to destroy the ecosystem... right.
Click to expand...

So, for you, we need to make changes because fossil fuels are finite not because of AGW. Is the timescale much different for that dictated by amelioration of AGW?

Also death of ecosystem is a far more stringent limit than disruption of human society.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
So, for you, we need to make changes because fossil fuels are finite not because of AGW.
Click to expand...

Yes, due to the fact that we will soon be out of gasoline to power our vehicles, a switch will need to be made in order to continue America's power as a first world nation.

Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Is the timescale much different for that dictated by amelioration of AGW?
Click to expand...

I'm going to claim complete ignorance as to what this is supposed to mean to me. As far as I am concerned the increase of green house gases increasing into the atmosphere will bring the inevitable a little bit closer. That inevitability being that the sun will continue to grow, the Earth will move closer to the sun, and life will parish from too much solar energy irradiating the planet.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
OK, smartarse, you try and come up with a poll that allows for a fair representation in a few mutually exclusive choices.

The idea is to give a little structure for discussion.
Click to expand...

How about remove the labels and breaks things down into 2 seperate polls, assuming you are actually interested in learning other people's actual opinions instead of trying to push a manichean "my side good, other side evil", politically motived meme?

CO2 released by man's activities is:
1) the primary source of global warming
2) a significant source of global warming
3) a moderate source of global warming
4) a minor source of global warming
5) an insignificant source of global warming


Global warming from CO2 will result in:
1) catastrophic economic and ecological damage and extinction of a large fraction of all species
2) significant economic and ecologocial damage
3) moderate economic and ecological damage
4) minor economic and ecological damage
5) insignificant economic and ecological damage
 
Last edited:
MikeMangum said:
How about remove the labels and breaks things down into 2 seperate polls, assuming you are actually interested in learning other people's actual opinions instead of trying to push a manichean "my side good, other side evil", politically motived meme?

CO2 released by man's activities is:
1) the primary source of global warming
2) a significant source of global warming
3) a moderate source of global warming
4) a minor source of global warming
5) an insignificant source of global warming


Global warming from CO2 will result in:
1) catastrophic economic and ecological damage and extinction of a large fraction of all species
2) significant economic and ecologocial damage
3) moderate economic and ecological damage
4) minor economic and ecological damage
5) insignificant economic and ecological damage
Click to expand...

You are right. I could have done that. Doing this on a phone with no broadband is not easy.
 
The possibilities are limitless.. Here are a couple..

The rising ocean levels brought on by AGW will:
  1. Bring economic and lifestyle hardship on those who at some time in the past, chose to live in close proximity to the major surface constituent of the planet.
  2. Bring economic and lifestyle enhancement to those who now find themselves the owners of beachfront property.
 
I voted "not significant" since that is how I parse the intent of this poll, though to be more exact I would have wanted to say "not catastrophic", not "not significant". ( I think levels of effect _may_ be on such a level as to be argued to fit a "significant" definition in the century+ timeframe).
 
MikeMangum said:
About what I thought....



It's the label that's important...
Click to expand...

OK, offer a different pair of labels. I see "warmer" only being used pejoratively but it doesn't harm my self-image to identify with that label in the absence of a suitably pithy alternative.

"warmer" = "person who, on the balance of evidence that they have either independently assessed or accepted as coming from sources that carry genuine authoritative weight, considers that humans are contributing to significant impacts on climate through their release of CO2"

"denialist" = "...does not consider..."

It's far from concise. If you have a good pair of alternatives I'll happily adopt them.
 
Bluefire said:
I voted "not significant" since that is how I parse the intent of this poll, though to be more exact I would have wanted to say "not catastrophic", not "not significant". ( I think levels of effect _may_ be on such a level as to be argued to fit a "significant" definition in the century+ timeframe).
Click to expand...

I have a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint. I still wonder about where the boundary lies between "measurable", which I think is not meaningfully contestable, and "significant".

Bear in mind that I have not the expertise to really judge the evidence independently, but "common sense" makes me wonder whether global ecological systems are on such a fine edge as the quick headlines of the AGW advocacy organisations would suggest. If it was 2C warmer today, I'd still be wearing a woolly jumper and a coat. If Yellowknife was -21C instead of -23C I think it would still be pretty cold and white on the ground. I know there's a lot of information out there which would help me understand the sensitivity of various ecosystems, but do I really want to spend the time doing that. I suspect this is true of a lot of people who hover in the centre ground of public opinion on this matter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom