Reality Check: Global Warming is a Serious Problem

Reality Check: 83% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is a Serious Problem

In what can only be considered a tidal wave of public opinion, a new Yale research survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes toward the environment and global warming. Fully 83 percent of Americans now say global warming is a "serious" problem, up from 70 percent in 2004....

Most dramatically, the survey of 1,000 adults nationwide shows that 63 percent of Americans agree that the United States "is in as much danger from environmental hazards, such as air pollution and global warming, as it is from terrorists."

In other words, 63% of the American public now agrees with the 2003 Pentagon report that, while speculative, said as much.



100-Year Forecast: New Climate Zones Humans Have Never Seen

If global warming continues unabated, many of the world's climate zones may disappear by 2100......



The arguments against humanity's impact on Global Warming reminds me of the same sorts of arguments that suggested smoking wasn't bad for your health. People would say smoking wasn't harmful but then there would be an age limit when to buy smokes - as everyone knew it would be detrimental to children's health. I wonder, of those still left that think global warming is not caused (in part) by humans - how many would support wholesale dumping of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Anyway, it looks like the American public is finally getting the picture.

Michael

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem is that nothing we do now will have any effect for about a century or more. No one is going to give up much to stop something that isn't going to stop in a fuckin' century! ...okay, except for a few radical doo-gooders and such.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well then, why not just dump refuge straight into the Ocean, I mean hell it's a big ocean - probably gonna take at least a generation before all the sea-life is dead...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because it's not about the dumping in the ocean for the regular civilian. It's about doing something individually when most feel that corporations and others do a million times worst , so whats the difference, if they don't stop, what does it really matter ?

 

Global warming, my ass.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/190307theropes.htm

 

Yes, your ass will get warmed as well.

 

What god-awful reporting.

And 68 percent of Americans believe in angels. The point?

Apparently they didn't even bother to read the Pentagon report. It's not speculative. It wasn't attempting to make any prediction at all about what might happen to the climate. It was what might happen and what we could do about it in a worst case scenario exercise.

"We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. "

"Rather than predicting how climate change will happen, our intent is to dramatize the impact climate change could have on society if we are unprepared for it."

http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf

Gee, I wonder where they will go? Brilliant fucking study, "if the climate changes the environment will change". No shit Sherlock. Glad to see they're working overtime on finding solutions.

~Raithere

 

one step at a time.

Oh, and to get anything done you have to have the people to back you. Which is why we need American support.

Michael

 

Towards what?

Science based on conjecture is not science. Alarmist bullshit and articles such as this are merely political tools and have nothing to do with fixing real problems.

~Raithere

 

What interests me is all this "concern" about global warming and lowering carbon production yet our governments insist on bringing as many immigrants here as possible which will only increase carbon production. When I hear our governments eliminating immigration, then I'll know they're seriously concerned. Otherwise, it's bullshit.

 

We can put them to work in the carbon sequestering mines.

 

Most of the stuff that needs to be done to slow down the CO2 rise is stuff any sensible people would do anyway.

But it requires government - you know: governing, collective action for the common good, sober assessment of alternaitves and their consequences by adults acting in the community's long term best interest.

For Americans, who have been subjected to 50 years of corporate propaganda about the evils of government (the only curb on corporate power, coincidently), the idea of collective action for the common good is hard to grasp, maybe. It's something like a war - - - but nobody wins and no horrible enemy is stomped - - - doesn't make sense - - - - wait a minute, this means liberals are going to raise taxes !!! And another hopeful notion bites the dust.

 

reducing CO2 emissions.

And while we're at it, hows about working towards becoming energy self-sufficient? Why not invest in cleaner and greener forms of energy? Really, it's a win win. OIL is a limited supply, so why not have the USA lead the technological way forward? Is it really that hard to grasp?

 

How do you figure?

~Raithere

 

More people = more cars.

 

cars are overrated. They should do something abouth boats and abolish stone coal electric power plants and give nuclear energy some slack.... and stop burning down the damed rainforest

 

More people = more pollution and environmental damage of all types. The Sierra club doesn't talk about the bad environmental effects of legal and illegal immigration because some Jew gave them 100 million dollars on the condition they shut up about it.

[link removed]

Just what is the cost to buy off the Sierra Club—once the most respected environmental organization in America?

A low nine figure sum does the job according to the Los Angeles Times in its story last fall about David Gelbaum, one of the key funders of the 112-year-old environmental organization. ["The Man Behind the Land" by Kenneth R. Weiss, Oct. 17, 2004]

A nice round $100 million was enough for Executive Director Carl Pope to toss the principles of honesty, democracy and conservation out the window.

Many of us involved in the grassroots effort to restore population sanity to the Sierra Club were suspicious that the mysterious $100 million in donations might have immigration strings attached.

After all, the 1996 switch from common sense to political correctness was an abrupt change from the earlier position that the Club should work to "bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world."

Our suspicions were correct. The LA Times article revealed that shadowy funder Gelbaum donated generously on condition that the Sierra Club not address immigration as an environmental issue.

Said Gelbaum, "I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

The story continued:

“Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.

” ‘I asked, 'Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?' ‘Gelbaum said. ‘Abe didn't speak English that well. He said, 'I came here. How can I tell them not to come?'’

"I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents."

Gelbaum's reasoning is patently anti-environmental. It assumes that this country can absorb millions of new foreign residents annually who come with dreams of American level consumption.

 

a 100 million isn't to be sneezed at you take it at shut up... There is no global warming it's a mith to sell air conditioners.

No how much could my voice persuade you?

No I won't say that more people are the problem altough it obviously are but blaming cars so every body will be forced to buy a new hybrid car when it's only like 1/x of the co2 emision everybody knows the little graphics of CO2 emissions going up and up but the actual figures on how much are actualy car (see consumer) related is never shown clearly. I believe planes and boats and mass transportation like trucks combined should at least produce 2/3 of the transportations emisions. They should focus more on those.

 

good idea, as long as the US isn't taking the initiative.
as soon as the US does anything "for the common good" we'll have roaches like samcdkey crawling out of the woodwork screaming what a bastard the united states is.