Global Warming Poll

[enigma99]

Please, no comments on the topic of Global Warming!

I do not want this to be debated here and is simply a poll. There are a lot of debate for global warming in the forum, so I thought it would be fun to see an unscientific survey.

Edited June 9, 2014 by enigma99

[Funkthulhu]

2 things:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -NDgT

This poll will end in tears...

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Can we take a poll on how long this thread remains? I vote our Hawaiian Big Brother will delete this no later than tonite.

[enigma99]

So far, it's showing almost an evenly divided poll... Interesting

Edited June 10, 2014 by enigma99

[Walter John]

Yes, yes, same old allusions, the thing is, what is the effect on palm trees, in particular, to areas where borderline to no go species may in the future be okay to grow. Where once was impossible, is now possible.

[_Keith]

Since very erratic swings in weather are attributed to it, it very well may have the opposite affect most think it will have, that is growing palms from warmer climates.

[Funkthulhu]

Since very erratic swings in weather are attributed to it, it very well may have the opposite affect most think it will have, that is growing palms from warmer climates.

What Keith said. The overall average will rise, but the yearly fluctuations may negate the benefits. Scenarios like the polar vortex breakout we had this winter may become more common due to a destabilized Jet Stream. We may very well see brief hard freezes further south than we have previously.

[Bill H2DB]

I can't check any of the boxes , because each is too either/or .

Seems to me that a better question would be along the lines of

"How much do you think that Human activity is affecting the World climate ?

with some various choices .

My personal opinion is that since World consumption of fossil fuels is over

200 Million BOE's per Day , there is an effect. The only question is how much ?

Come back in a few million years , and the rock will still be here , along with whatever

life forms have survived/ developed / landed(?) .

Maybe some Claxton Fruit Cakes too .

[MattyB]

I'm pretty sure that global warming is a conspiracy made up by Jesus and the democrats but China and Wal-Mart are trying to make it come true which is why all their workers should be paid a higher minimum wage before any more terrorists get let loose.

[MattyB]

Please, no comments on the topic of Global Warming except for my own comments which I shall pose in the form of a question above

[Funkthulhu]

*snerk!*

[enigma99]

Please, no comments on the topic of Global Warming except for my own comments which I shall pose in the form of a question above

LOL... good one. I think some debate is good, its just we always end up out of control and PalmMod shuts it down

[enigma99]

Tied 11/11. No wonder we get such passionate debates going here. Thanks for all who participated in the poll

[Moose]

2 things:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -NDgT

This poll will end in tears...

Shocking to me how some learned people could vote the way they did. Perhaps political followings can turn an intelligent person into a ...

[Xerarch]

2 things:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -NDgT

This poll will end in tears...

Nice quote but I must add an asterisk, TRUE science is true whether or not you believe in it, or in other words truth is true whether or not you believe in it. Science is only as good as the latest version of it. Newton was awesome, he is still awesome, but, it turns out that his laws are not really true in an absolute sense. They do however work really well for every day sized objects, just not for extremely small or extremely large ones.

As for GW, I don't care to pick any fights with either side, I am however curious to know what science will be saying about it hundreds of years from now.

[_Keith]

2 things:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -NDgT

This poll will end in tears...

Nice quote but I must add an asterisk, TRUE science is true whether or not you believe in it, or in other words truth is true whether or not you believe in it. Science is only as good as the latest version of it. Newton was awesome, he is still awesome, but, it turns out that his laws are not really true in an absolute sense. They do however work really well for every day sized objects, just not for extremely small or extremely large ones.

As for GW, I don't care to pick any fights with either side, I am however curious to know what science will be saying about it hundreds of years from now.

Comment right on the money. Science at the time, no matter what time in history has always been sure.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change or not is going to be left to the scientists, not polls or politicians. All I know is that it's our collective responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it. That principle is what should guide us in whatever decisions we make, both at a personal level and at a legislative level.

[Funkthulhu]

I would just like to say that Science is not just a random idea that happens to fit the pieces. This is a tested, long-term theory of how the world works. Saying "it's what the science says now, but what about a hundred years from now?" is not only undermining what scientists are doing now, but also trying to say we don't know what we're doing and we should pass this problem on to future generations.

The Science is real and true and factual now, future scientists will only confirm this. GW-Deniers are hoping for some sort of paradigm shift that will support their position, but it just isn't going to happen. This is the dynamic climate we're stuck with, we need to stop feeding the fire, and we need to accept that science is not a political tool or on par with an opinion poll.

But hey, we've all learned from cable news that anybody's uneducated opinion is just as valid and important as that of a subject's trained professionals, so let's just keep saying something isn't true because we don't like it...

[_Keith]

Just to be clear, I am not disputing the science, only stating history. Perhaps mankind is now advanced enough to be irrefutable in its theories. Regardless of the climate change cause, I am not betting on it. As far as to stop adding fuel to the fire, well, that'll happen when the petro dries up. And neither you nor I probably wants to be around when that happens, because it is not likely to be pretty.

[Stevetoad]

[Alicehunter2000]

....

[Alicehunter2000]

Please, no comments on the topic of Global Warming!

I do not want this to be debated here and is simply a poll. There are a lot of debate for global warming in the forum, so I thought it would be fun to see an unscientific survey.

2 things:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -NDgT

This poll will end in tears...

I would just like to say that Science is not just a random idea that happens to fit the pieces. This is a tested, long-term theory of how the world works. Saying "it's what the science says now, but what about a hundred years from now?" is not only undermining what scientists are doing now, but also trying to say we don't know what we're doing and we should pass this problem on to future generations.

The Science is real and true and factual now, future scientists will only confirm this. GW-Deniers are hoping for some sort of paradigm shift that will support their position, but it just isn't going to happen. This is the dynamic climate we're stuck with, we need to stop feeding the fire, and we need to accept that science is not a political tool or on par with an opinion poll.

But hey, we've all learned from cable news that anybody's uneducated opinion is just as valid and important as that of a subject's trained professionals, so let's just keep saying something isn't true because we don't like it...

A self-fufilling prophecy........

[Alicehunter2000]

[Funkthulhu]

Please, no comments on the topic of Global Warming!

I do not want this to be debated here and is simply a poll. There are a lot of debate for global warming in the forum, so I thought it would be fun to see an unscientific survey.

2 things:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -NDgT

This poll will end in tears...

I would just like to say that Science is not just a random idea that happens to fit the pieces. This is a tested, long-term theory of how the world works. Saying "it's what the science says now, but what about a hundred years from now?" is not only undermining what scientists are doing now, but also trying to say we don't know what we're doing and we should pass this problem on to future generations.

The Science is real and true and factual now, future scientists will only confirm this. GW-Deniers are hoping for some sort of paradigm shift that will support their position, but it just isn't going to happen. This is the dynamic climate we're stuck with, we need to stop feeding the fire, and we need to accept that science is not a political tool or on par with an opinion poll.

But hey, we've all learned from cable news that anybody's uneducated opinion is just as valid and important as that of a subject's trained professionals, so let's just keep saying something isn't true because we don't like it...

A self-fufilling prophecy........

I suppose, in a way, I had hoped that the most vocal deniers on the board were in the minority and that this poll would show that (but that they would stampede the comments leading to the tears).

But now that there are some numbers to compare, I can see how many really don't know or have the wrong conceptualization of what global warming is. It's not as bad as it could be, added together there are 24 out of 36 who admit there is warming of some kind. . . That's better than the national average of surveyed people (unless you're from Europe or an Island currently underwater in the pacific.).

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Please, no comments on the topic of Global Warming!

I do not want this to be debated here and is simply a poll. There are a lot of debate for global warming in the forum, so I thought it would be fun to see an unscientific survey.

2 things:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -NDgT

This poll will end in tears...

I would just like to say that Science is not just a random idea that happens to fit the pieces. This is a tested, long-term theory of how the world works. Saying "it's what the science says now, but what about a hundred years from now?" is not only undermining what scientists are doing now, but also trying to say we don't know what we're doing and we should pass this problem on to future generations.

The Science is real and true and factual now, future scientists will only confirm this. GW-Deniers are hoping for some sort of paradigm shift that will support their position, but it just isn't going to happen. This is the dynamic climate we're stuck with, we need to stop feeding the fire, and we need to accept that science is not a political tool or on par with an opinion poll.

But hey, we've all learned from cable news that anybody's uneducated opinion is just as valid and important as that of a subject's trained professionals, so let's just keep saying something isn't true because we don't like it...

A self-fufilling prophecy........

I suppose, in a way, I had hoped that the most vocal deniers on the board were in the minority and that this poll would show that (but that they would stampede the comments leading to the tears).

But now that there are some numbers to compare, I can see how many really don't know or have the wrong conceptualization of what global warming is. It's not as bad as it could be, added together there are 24 out of 36 who admit there is warming of some kind. . . That's better than the national average of surveyed people (unless you're from Europe or an Island currently underwater in the pacific.).

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

[Funkthulhu]

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Why, Axel, are you presuming to suggest that acceptance of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has anything to do with politics?!?

I am Aghast!

That can't be possible, otherwise there we wouldn't have been able to use facts to disprove an ideology! (waitaminute....)

Edited June 16, 2014 by Funkthulhu

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

garbage_paradigm.gif

What about this, David?

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Why, Axel, are you presuming to suggest that acceptance of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has anything to do with politics?!?

I am Aghast!

That can't be possible, otherwise there we wouldn't have been able to use facts to disprove an ideology! (waitaminute....)

Erik, some people get their facts about climate change from the cable guy, that's just the way it is. I have to admit, I laughed pretty hard when I heard his lines about dinosaurs driving SUVs. He missed it, but not by much, the dinosaurs apparently farted a lot. http://www.livescience.com/20125-dinosaur-farts-climate.html.%C2'>

[Funkthulhu]

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Why, Axel, are you presuming to suggest that acceptance of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has anything to do with politics?!?

I am Aghast!

That can't be possible, otherwise there we wouldn't have been able to use facts to disprove an ideology! (waitaminute....)

Erik, some people get their facts about climate change from the cable guy, that's just the way it is. I have to admit, I laughed pretty hard when I heard his lines about dinosaurs driving SUVs. He missed it, but not by much, the dinosaurs apparently farted a lot.

Well, at least he's representing with a Nebraska Hat. . . where I live. . .

[Xerarch]

I'm afraid I may have nudged this thread toward inevitable shutdown upon suggesting that science does not have a record of being 100% perfect throughout history. It really wasn't my intent, sorry everyone.

[Dypsisdean]

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Looking at this logically and with no bias intended one way or the other - it makes absolutely no sense to me why someone's position on Global Warming should have anything to do with one's political leanings - NONE. So it is mystifying to me why this issue lines up so distinctly along party lines - almost in lock step.

Tell me your position on Global Warming and I can tell you (with reasonable accuracy) what your position is on totally unrelated topics like abortion, minimum wage, public education, states rights, religion, unions, etc. These "positions" have no connection or correlation whatsoever with the science surrounding climate change - ZERO.

Something else must be going on here. You should look at yourself and ask, (if either a Dem or Rep), "why is my position on Global Warming the same as everyone else with my political philosopy?" Tell me your position on Roe v. Wade, Corporate Tax rates, and Gun Control, and I can tell you your position on Global Warming? But if I told you I could predict your position on vaccines causing autism based on your favorite pizza toppings - you would think I was crazy.

So, are you really thinking for yourself, or just going with the flow and allowing yourself to be conditioned and manipulated to "group think?"

[Funkthulhu]

I'm afraid I may have nudged this thread toward inevitable shutdown upon suggesting that science does not have a record of being 100% perfect throughout history. It really wasn't my intent, sorry everyone.

Nah, don't worry about it.

Science hasn't always been 100% perfect, that's why we have the term Paradigm Shift. But we're over 40 years on this subject and there is no shift in sight, and all new tech just seems to underscore what they found previously.

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Looking at this logically and with no bias one way or the other - it makes absolutely no sense to me why someone's position on Global Warming should have anything to do with one's political leanings - NONE. So it is mystifying to me why this issue lines up so distinctly along party lines - almost in lock step.

Tell me your position on Global Warming and I can tell you (with reasonable accuracy) what your position is on totally unrelated topics like abortion, minimum wage, public education, states rights, religion, unions, etc. And these "positions" have no connection or correlation whatsoever with the science and facts surrounding climate change - ZERO.

Something else must be going on here. You should look at yourself and ask, (if either a Dem or Rep), "why is my position on Global Warming the same as everyone else with my political philosopy?" Tell me your position on Roe v. Wade, Corporate Taxe rates, and Gun Control, and I can tell you your position on Global Warming? But if I told you I could predict your position on vaccines causing autism based on your favorite pizza toppings - you would think I was crazy.

Except, the pizza topping thing, if real, would be correlation not causation.

There is also a strong correlation between economic ideology, income and party affiliation. That party affiliation also happens to have a strong correlation with support or denial of global warming.

The super-rich tend toward one party over the other, they have a lot of sway over that party, and that party is rife with deniers. What does that say about how their economic ideology conflicts with facts that make it difficult to make money on big oil and other industry that produces CO2?

There are a lot of questions here, but we should be clear that being a member of a political party does not Cause you to support or deny Anthropogenic Climate Change, but there is a Correlation. . .

Edited June 16, 2014 by Funkthulhu

[Dypsisdean]

What does that say about how their economic ideology conflicts with facts that make it difficult to make money on big oil and other industry that produces CO2?

There are a lot of questions here, but we should be clear that being a member of a political party does not Cause you to support or deny Anthropogenic Climate Change, but there is a Correlation. . .

I would suggest your (and your party's) dislike of big corporations like Big Oil came long before talk of Global Warming was mainstream.

So while this may not "cause" you to reach certain conclusions, perhaps it "persuades" you - without you even being aware that it does. And the correlation in his case is so strong, that it effectively has the same outcome as "cause." So it's really just semantics.

[Xerarch]

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Looking at this logically and with no bias intended one way or the other - it makes absolutely no sense to me why someone's position on Global Warming should have anything to do with one's political leanings - NONE. So it is mystifying to me why this issue lines up so distinctly along party lines - almost in lock step.Tell me your position on Global Warming and I can tell you (with reasonable accuracy) what your position is on totally unrelated topics like abortion, minimum wage, public education, states rights, religion, unions, etc. These "positions" have no connection or correlation whatsoever with the science surrounding climate change - ZERO.Something else must be going on here. You should look at yourself and ask, (if either a Dem or Rep), "why is my position on Global Warming the same as everyone else with my political philosopy?" Tell me your position on Roe v. Wade, Corporate Tax rates, and Gun Control, and I can tell you your position on Global Warming? But if I told you I could predict your position on vaccines causing autism based on your favorite pizza toppings - you would think I was crazy.So, are you really thinking for yourself, or just going with the flow and allowing yourself to be conditioned and manipulated to "group think?"

I've thought about this very thing a lot, I've tried to figure out why political views tend to correlate so strongly with things that aren't apparently related.

[Dypsisdean]

I've thought about this very thing a lot, I've tried to figure out why political views tend to correlate so strongly with things that aren't apparently related.

The first step in getting right answers is to ask the right questions. So you are on the right track.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Looking at this logically and with no bias intended one way or the other - it makes absolutely no sense to me why someone's position on Global Warming should have anything to do with one's political leanings - NONE. So it is mystifying to me why this issue lines up so distinctly along party lines - almost in lock step.

Tell me your position on Global Warming and I can tell you (with reasonable accuracy) what your position is on totally unrelated topics like abortion, minimum wage, public education, states rights, religion, unions, etc. These "positions" have no connection or correlation whatsoever with the science surrounding climate change - ZERO.

Something else must be going on here. You should look at yourself and ask, (if either a Dem or Rep), "why is my position on Global Warming the same as everyone else with my political philosopy?" Tell me your position on Roe v. Wade, Corporate Tax rates, and Gun Control, and I can tell you your position on Global Warming? But if I told you I could predict your position on vaccines causing autism based on your favorite pizza toppings - you would think I was crazy.

So, are you really thinking for yourself, or just going with the flow and allowing yourself to be conditioned and manipulated to "group think?"

Very good point! So now that we've established the "group think" correlation, is there anyway to actually have a discussion that addresses the science and leave the sheep herd mentality behind?

[_Keith]

Funk. Hope you are OK. Been watching the news. I will land in Omaha in 2 hrs. I hope softly.

[Dypsisdean]

Very good point! So now that we've established the "group think" correlation, is there anyway to actually have a discussion that addresses the science and leave the sheep herd mentality behind?

Not really - because the ambiguous nature of this "science" allows for the same "group think" by those conducting the research. In fact, it is even more of a factor in those close knit professional organizaions, especially when they stand to benefit from one conclusion over another.

Speak up and express your doubts about the official "findings" of your Group - and see how long you remain employed, or who gets the next promotion.

I am equally suspicious of the Big Oil funded studies as those funded by Big Gov. They both have a lot of chips on the table, and I wouldn't doubt both would pull an ace from their sleeve if they could get away with it.

[Hammer]

I'm afraid I may have nudged this thread toward inevitable shutdown upon suggesting that science does not have a record of being 100% perfect throughout history. It really wasn't my intent, sorry everyone.

Nah, don't worry about it.

Science hasn't always been 100% perfect, that's why we have the term Paradigm Shift. But we're over 40 years on this subject and there is no shift in sight, and all new tech just seems to underscore what they found previously.

Look at the PalmTalk demographics: the majority are from Southern California, which is mostly red, the second majority from Florida which is also mostly red, and the strongest age group is 45 years and older, and having a palm habit is typically reserved for people who own property and have some extra money to spend on palms, all tending more red. All of these put the majority of PalmTalkers on the red side of the fence. The fact that the poll came out the way it did is nothing short of a miracle. In my edibles growing circles this poll would have been seriously slanted towards the left.

Looking at this logically and with no bias one way or the other - it makes absolutely no sense to me why someone's position on Global Warming should have anything to do with one's political leanings - NONE. So it is mystifying to me why this issue lines up so distinctly along party lines - almost in lock step.

Tell me your position on Global Warming and I can tell you (with reasonable accuracy) what your position is on totally unrelated topics like abortion, minimum wage, public education, states rights, religion, unions, etc. And these "positions" have no connection or correlation whatsoever with the science and facts surrounding climate change - ZERO.

Something else must be going on here. You should look at yourself and ask, (if either a Dem or Rep), "why is my position on Global Warming the same as everyone else with my political philosopy?" Tell me your position on Roe v. Wade, Corporate Taxe rates, and Gun Control, and I can tell you your position on Global Warming? But if I told you I could predict your position on vaccines causing autism based on your favorite pizza toppings - you would think I was crazy.

Except, the pizza topping thing, if real, would be correlation not causation.

There is also a strong correlation between economic ideology, income and party affiliation. That party affiliation also happens to have a strong correlation with support or denial of global warming.

The super-rich tend toward one party over the other, they have a lot of sway over that party, and that party is rife with deniers. What does that say about how their economic ideology conflicts with facts that make it difficult to make money on big oil and other industry that produces CO2?

There are a lot of questions here, but we should be clear that being a member of a political party does not Cause you to support or deny Anthropogenic Climate Change, but there is a Correlation. . .

Hey Funk, may want to recheck the stats on education and net worth/income and party affiliation. The stereotype is dated.

Ok, continue arguing amongst yourselves.

[Dypsisdean]

Hey Funk, may want to recheck the stats on.......... net worth/income and party affiliation. The stereotype is dated.

Especially in Congress.