Poll: Global Warming On Back Burner

Poll: Global Warming On Back Burner

There are 75 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Oct 21, 2008, titled Poll: Global Warming On Back Burner. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Just a sliver of voters say global warming is the most important issue they are weighing in deciding whom to support for president.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

Tsailor

United States

#22 Oct 23, 2008
Tex wrote:
<quoted text>
It's about facing reality vs. wishful thinking.
You've got the issue right, but the conclusion reversed.
Tsailor

United States

#23 Oct 23, 2008
My apologies on the dupe post.

If I TRIED to post the exact same post twice, I couldn't do it.(I tried).

But somehow it happens spontaneously from time to time.

Anybody got a clue why?
Tex

Houston, TX

#24 Oct 23, 2008
Ray wrote:
John McCain for President.
Obama is supporting corn based ethanol tax funded subsidies. Its a carbon foot print nightmare. Its socialism.
I like the water car better.
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/06/15/jap...
You're right. Government subsidizing industry is socialism:
"As president, John McCain would continue some of the largest subsidies for oil and gas companies ..."
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/...

But I agree that ethanol is not a solution to our energy problem. We need to develop new technology and improve existing clean power technology.

McCain's accross the board spending freeze will delay much-needed research in clean power technology. Obama realizes that we need to invest in research now if we want the U.S. to be the leader in the technology of the future.

Obama has the forward-thinking approach we need to tackle this and other problems.

“Semper Fi”

Since: Sep 08

North Port, Fl

#25 Oct 23, 2008
Tex wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate change isn't an issue in this election because both candidates propose plans to limit greenhouse gasses.
That's because neither candidate is a delusional idiot. Climate change policy is not about conservatives vs. liberals or Democrats vs. Republicans. It's about facing reality vs. wishful thinking.
Its an issue of common sense vs gullible idiots. Man cannot, is not , will not, warm the planet. Period. Earth will have another ice age, it will increase its temp by 20 degrees again, then well have another ice age. Man Has no say whatsoever.
Tex

Houston, TX

#26 Oct 23, 2008
Tsailor wrote:
<quoted text>
Tex, please tell me that you know how many IPCC scientists actually signed on to the key finding that Global Warming is caused by human activity.
I can tell you right now it was not 2500. The number is somewhat less.(or fewer if your a stickler).
Since different scientists worked on different parts the IPCC report, it's hard to say all of them "sign off" on human-caused climate change. It's also worth noting that bureaucrats from the US, China and other countries succeeded in diluting the language of the report to make it less condemning of polluting countries (like the US and china).

But 8 of 10 climate scientists surveyed said human activity contributes to global warming.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_...

There are actions we can take to reduce the impact of climate change. These actions will save lives and improve quality of life for everyone. It is irresponsible to continue to pollute as we are doing.
Tex

Houston, TX

#27 Oct 23, 2008
Marc P wrote:
<quoted text> Its an issue of common sense vs gullible idiots. Man cannot, is not , will not, warm the planet. Period. Earth will have another ice age, it will increase its temp by 20 degrees again, then well have another ice age. Man Has no say whatsoever.
It's not that I don't respect your opinion, it's just that I respect the opinion of climate scientists more when they say human activity does contribute to climate change.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_...
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jd...
Tsailor

United States

#28 Oct 23, 2008
Tex wrote:
<quoted text>
Since different scientists worked on different parts the IPCC report, it's hard to say all of them "sign off" on human-caused climate change. It's also worth noting that bureaucrats from the US, China and other countries succeeded in diluting the language of the report to make it less condemning of polluting countries (like the US and china).
But 8 of 10 climate scientists surveyed said human activity contributes to global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Oh, please. We're not going to make this about how many scientists can dance on the head of a pin are we?

It's not about how many agree. It's about whether they're right. It's not about generalities, it's about whether specific claims hold up. One claim is there is a consensus, another is that the science is settled. Neither is true.

The link above is just one example that "real" scientists also disagree.(By saying "real" I'm not asserting that those accepting global are not real scientiests. I am disputing their claim that those who disagree are NOT "real" scientists.)

The answer to my previous question is "4". Some 52 scientists who did not have a prior vested interest in the material being considered reviewed that section, but only 4 specifically signed on to that claim.

Have you read any of the science either in favor or against? Can you form your own opinion? Or have you just decided to put faith in the 8 out of 10 scientists that someone else says support global warming is man made?

“Semper Fi”

Since: Sep 08

North Port, Fl

#29 Oct 23, 2008
Tex wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that I don't respect your opinion, it's just that I respect the opinion of climate scientists more when they say human activity does contribute to climate change.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_...
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jd...
There are just as many scientist who disagree with man made global warming. The media doesnt tell us about them because it doesnt fit their socialist agenda. And believe me, Man made global warming is nothing but a socialist fear tactic to weaken the USA, capitalism, and freedom itself. You watch what happens if they get their way.....and by the way, 1934,hottest year on record.

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#30 Oct 23, 2008
Small minded people don't think vary far ahead, they don't think out of the box, they deny the obvious, they rationalize, and are closed minded. So, we have so many who deny global warming, make excuses, etc The don't understand ecology; that tiny changes are cumulative. Ecosystems are healthy when they are homeostatic. The biosphere today is not homeostatic. Future generations will wonder how we could be so ignorant.

“Semper Fi”

Since: Sep 08

North Port, Fl

#31 Oct 23, 2008
Coolmind wrote:
Small minded people don't think vary far ahead, they don't think out of the box, they deny the obvious, they rationalize, and are closed minded. So, we have so many who deny global warming, make excuses, etc The don't understand ecology; that tiny changes are cumulative. Ecosystems are healthy when they are homeostatic. The biosphere today is not homeostatic. Future generations will wonder how we could be so ignorant.
What a bunch of garbage. Go ahead and be led around on a leash. The Man Made global warming lie was created for gullible sheep like you. Future generations will wonder how we could have gotten rid of capitalism and freedom if more ignorant people like you get your way. For every dollar you give to those communists, I will unleash a can of cfc's into the atmosphere just to aggravate you idiots.
Tsailor

United States

#32 Oct 23, 2008
Coolmind wrote:
Small minded people don't think vary far ahead, they don't think out of the box, they deny the obvious, they rationalize, and are closed minded. So, we have so many who deny global warming, make excuses, etc The don't understand ecology; that tiny changes are cumulative. Ecosystems are healthy when they are homeostatic. The biosphere today is not homeostatic. Future generations will wonder how we could be so ignorant.
When was the biosphere EVER homeostatic? Oh, yeah. I remember. "Snowball Earth". But that's conjecture anyway and a lot of scientists don't accept it.
Loquacious Louey

South Windsor, CT

#33 Oct 23, 2008
Tex wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the IPCC report is based on research from the world's leading experts on climate science. If believing scientists who have devoted their entire careers to the subject makes me gullible, then so be it.
I don't want to believe tha facts any more than you do, but we can't make the problem go away by ignoring it.
The UN appointed people to the IPCC based on their politics and their position on GW. Many former members have jumped ship and now disagree with their data-twisting reports.

The fact that many scientists careers are dependent on GW is an important factor though. There's an entire industry thriving on the GW alarmism.

I have to ask - if we must discount any scientist who's taken a dime from 'big oil' during their careers, shouldn't we be just as dismissive of those making money from their support of the other side?

Al Gore has become quite rich pushing the GW hysteria, so how can we believe a word he says when he has so much to gain? He has zero credibility with me, though hardly for that reason alone.

“DEMS AND THE MEDIA ARE ENEMIES”

Since: Oct 08

sw fla

#34 Oct 23, 2008
Marc P wrote:
<quoted text> Its an issue of common sense vs gullible idiots. Man cannot, is not , will not, warm the planet. Period. Earth will have another ice age, it will increase its temp by 20 degrees again, then well have another ice age. Man Has no say whatsoever.
You nailed it. Man made global warming is a bunch of BS. The democrats want the UN to take over the world, with the dems in charge. These as-holes need to be stopped.
Tsailor

United States

#35 Oct 24, 2008
Tsailor wrote:
<quoted text>
One source would be the IARC-JAXA site on Arctic ice extent data. Not only did we not set a new minimum this year, the ice is rapidly recovering to the extent that as of today it is the highest ice extent for this date in 5 years. That does not in itself end all concern but we heard all summer from the NSIDC how dire the situation was. Have they said one word about the ice recovery? Check it out. I'll tell you though that as of today the answer is, NO.
As of today (results for 10/23/08) still the highest ice extent in the last 5 years. Still no discussion from NSIDC.

By the way, this issue is whether humans are responsible for global warming, not what will happen if it continues. If humans aren't responsible, then humans can't stop it and we need to look for strategies to deal with the effects,... effectively.
Tsailor

United States

#36 Oct 24, 2008
Let the Data Speak for Itself (excerpts)
By Bjorn Lomborg, UK Guardian

Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected…

But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media’s addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies.…

But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected.

Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone - and certainly this is again much better than expected.
Tsailor

United States

#37 Oct 24, 2008
Tsailor wrote:
Let the Data Speak for Itself (excerpts)
By Bjorn Lomborg, UK Guardian
Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected…
But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media’s addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies.…
But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected.
Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone - and certainly this is again much better than expected.
Due to an editing error in this article the extent of the decrease in global temperature was given as between 0.01C and 0.1C per year, rather than per decade. This has been corrected.
Prospective Pax

AOL

#38 Oct 24, 2008
I sure hope you bought the book because it is going to be one of the coldest summers and forcast coldest winter in over a 100 years.

plus the global warming book will burn alot better than Al Gore's and Michael Moores, movie. You may have to purchase some carbon offset credits dimocrats to stay warm though!
Tsailor

United States

#39 Oct 24, 2008
Prospective Pax wrote:
I sure hope you bought the book because it is going to be one of the coldest summers and forcast coldest winter in over a 100 years.
I hadn't really thought about it for a long time, but I have recently realized that I never considered a "weather forecast" or more recently "climate prediction" worth a damb unless it included some discussion of how they came to their conclusions. Consequently I will take even this prediction with a grain of salt.

I was interest in the article I excerpted from because it discussed the facts versus the claims.
Tex

Sugar Land, TX

#40 Oct 24, 2008
Marc P wrote:
<quoted text> There are just as many scientist who disagree with man made global warming. The media doesnt tell us about them because it doesnt fit their socialist agenda. And believe me, Man made global warming is nothing but a socialist fear tactic to weaken the USA, capitalism, and freedom itself. You watch what happens if they get their way.....and by the way, 1934,hottest year on record.
No there are not. Scientists who study climate change overwhelmingly agree human activity contributes to it.

I've posted the suryey that shows this, and I've posted the IPCC report that explains the scope of the problem. Please face reality.
Tsailor

Edison, NJ

#41 Oct 25, 2008
Tex wrote:
<quoted text>
No there are not. Scientists who study climate change overwhelmingly agree human activity contributes to it.
I've posted the suryey that shows this, and I've posted the IPCC report that explains the scope of the problem. Please face reality.
Tex, I respect that you have a source you trust on this. But does it deserve your trust. Have you read investigated what it says, and what scientists critical of it's findings say? Or on the other hand do you just accept it to be authoritative? Or because the media reports it as authoritative? There are enough scientists critical of the findings to render the claim of consensus to be bogus.

A good place to start is a site called icecap.com . That stands for International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project. I does post articles and links to work challenging the global warming hypothesis, but you will also find occassional information from proponents. Following the links to original material should be very informative.

On the proponent side you can just Google and find the most popular sites supporting the concept.

Good hunting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Bob53 1,550,499
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr Common Sense 63,861
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Jun 26 weaponX 314,719
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Jun 26 True That 20,946
News Boulder, Colo., police regain lead role in JonB... (Feb '09) Jun 24 kauna 1,667
News Memorable Nights At The Shaboo -- Courant.com (Aug '07) Jun 23 Norch 164
News More Advice On Acura TL Transmission Failures A... (Apr '09) Jun 20 Dave 327

Hartford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hartford Mortgages