with this poll, its a little misleading
if people answer to - and i know to well seeing these
type of polls that you cant take it seriously
since not all the correct options were covered in logic.
combinations of 2 or more of above
would have resulted in getting a more accurate and correct
poll.
example i wont answer to the poll
because i feel that the correct answer is
global warming is both natural and man-made
I have to agree that it is a bit misleading and not well worded. My thinking is that the current "global warming" is a precursor to the next ice age. If the past is an indication, the "warming" could be over real quick and ice covering most of the earth in just a few months or years. I will not be around to see this (I will be 60 in March) but if I had my druthers I would just like to see the expression on some peoples faces when I am vindicated.
RRE
Greg - I can't vote as I don't agree with any of the options you are offering - sorry.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is a natural cycle, but that isn't an option on your list unless it is qualified.
Is it harmless? That depends on who or what it is likely to affect, and it will affect someone or something somewhere and probably not to their advantage. Is it dangerous? Again that depends on how it will affect; for instance if it causes sea-level rise that won't be so good if you live on a Pacific Island with a maximum land height of 3'0", or if you're a polar bear relying on arctic pack ice on which to go hunting seals.
Humanity needs to clean up the pollution it is causing and stop wasting resources, but I do not think we are the cause.
...be it man made or not, its still dangerous, and from what I've seen and read, we (man) aren't fully to blame...sure aren't we heading back to Sirius in a few years anyway? Thats what I heard...
Hi Greg,
I suspect this has been done due to Bill's comment; a comment which I think is wrong. I might be wrong in thinking this - the reason for the vote, not his argument. Like many others, my category is not there so I can't vote.
What I would have voted, if it had been there, is 'don't know', which even then would have handed away a victory. Science cannot offer definites either way, so a 'yes' or 'no' can only be down to belief, even though scientific opinion is heavily towards a yes.
My argument is, seeing we cannot be sure, what is the most rational course to follow - ignore the possibility, or take measures in case it is happening, and is man-made?
To me, the latter is common sense. That is the crux of my argument.
some people in the world havent even hear of global warming
would be nice if poll reflected that to
otherwise that "dont know' category would have the
"not sure people which know about global warming"
as well as the
"few people that dont even know what global warming is".
it would be a misleading figure - thats why in some polls
become misleading.
......you want to open a new market and sell an unknown product to the masses who can afford it, first you must convince them that they need it........
Like ciamarra has stated above, there are many people who have never heard of "global warming" or "climate change". These live in poverty areas with no cash flow and therefore no market.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
maketing is all about targeting.....and when you target a large mass there is always some that will fall through the cracks, so to speek.
If "global warming/climate change" is fully global, then every person on this planet should be informed.......shouldn't they?
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
educating people would solve alot of problems in todays world - especially if we were education all taught the same things. we would still get outside influences like the media, people, other educational sources - but the core would be there and they could judge for themselves once educated.
its about 29 years since i learn about global warming, and it was shocking to see on a yahoo - some comments about people in the states not even knowing what it was about a year ago. would be nice if there was a basic united nations school coarse that was part of every school in the world for the kids of today.
For example, the proposed remedies for climate change involve changing consumer behaviour. Also, they involve investment in new infrastructure, and in research.
These things will be funded by consumers and tax payers. They must eventually sanctioned by voters, this is a long term issue. You can get some things past the voters for a decade or two, but nor for 50 years (at least in the US).
Given all that, if you don't consume, don't pay taxes, and don't vote - you are simply not important to industry, governemnts, and big media.
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
what I have said before.......clear felling leads to worse floods. Covering ground with houses, concrete and ashphalt means the water can't be obsorbed. Heat radiated from city's raises local ambient temperture. Local smog retains heat. Greater runoff into oceans reduces local salt levels which changes ambient tempreture. Humid air rising up from forests develope the correct atmosphere for rain. Take the forest and lose the rain........and much more. The natual cycle has been effected. But we have not caused the natual cycle, only amplified it.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
Global warming seems to be a natural cycle; whether it's harmless or dangerous depends on subjective point of view - to the Earth, it's harmless (even beneficial as a means of cleansing?), to certain species it's potentially lethal if they can't adapt. But mankind, on the whole, through ignorance, unconscious acts and a selfish, ego-centric arrogance contributes greatly to global warming.
Ironically, though, man's pollution has also contributed to the phenomenon of global dimming (particles from pollution in the atmosphere block the amount of sun reaching the Earth's surface), which has to a degree counteracted and slowed the rate of global warming.
Perhaps, unconsciously, we've given ourselves a pardon, a second chance to undo the damage we've done. Let's get to it, Earthlings!
I am so tired of Al Gore and his limtd. spectrum research. Of course if you look at a small enough scope of info. you can prove whatever your case might be. Check the science people. who is sponsering(sp?) the research? Where do the grants come from? Who benifits(sp?) from said "research"? These are all questions that need to be continously(sp?) asked in order to have an INFORMED opinion.
greg - remember
hi greg,
with this poll, its a little misleading
if people answer to - and i know to well seeing these
type of polls that you cant take it seriously
since not all the correct options were covered in logic.
combinations of 2 or more of above
would have resulted in getting a more accurate and correct
poll.
example i wont answer to the poll
because i feel that the correct answer is
global warming is both natural and man-made
Poll
I have to agree that it is a bit misleading and not well worded. My thinking is that the current "global warming" is a precursor to the next ice age. If the past is an indication, the "warming" could be over real quick and ice covering most of the earth in just a few months or years. I will not be around to see this (I will be 60 in March) but if I had my druthers I would just like to see the expression on some peoples faces when I am vindicated.
RRE
I can't vote
Greg - I can't vote as I don't agree with any of the options you are offering - sorry.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is a natural cycle, but that isn't an option on your list unless it is qualified.
Is it harmless? That depends on who or what it is likely to affect, and it will affect someone or something somewhere and probably not to their advantage. Is it dangerous? Again that depends on how it will affect; for instance if it causes sea-level rise that won't be so good if you live on a Pacific Island with a maximum land height of 3'0", or if you're a polar bear relying on arctic pack ice on which to go hunting seals.
Humanity needs to clean up the pollution it is causing and stop wasting resources, but I do not think we are the cause.
Regards, Kathrinn.
similarly
Similarly, my best guess doesn't realy fit the choices, so I won't pick one.
I am sure many people are tired of hearing my view on this issue, so I won't repeat it now. Maybe I repeat it tomorrow or next week, but not now :)
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
Well...
...be it man made or not, its still dangerous, and from what I've seen and read, we (man) aren't fully to blame...sure aren't we heading back to Sirius in a few years anyway? Thats what I heard...
GW
Hi Greg,
I suspect this has been done due to Bill's comment; a comment which I think is wrong. I might be wrong in thinking this - the reason for the vote, not his argument. Like many others, my category is not there so I can't vote.
What I would have voted, if it had been there, is 'don't know', which even then would have handed away a victory. Science cannot offer definites either way, so a 'yes' or 'no' can only be down to belief, even though scientific opinion is heavily towards a yes.
My argument is, seeing we cannot be sure, what is the most rational course to follow - ignore the possibility, or take measures in case it is happening, and is man-made?
To me, the latter is common sense. That is the crux of my argument.
who's bill
hi anthony -
who's bill and wheres his comment?
some people in the world havent even hear of global warming
would be nice if poll reflected that to
otherwise that "dont know' category would have the
"not sure people which know about global warming"
as well as the
"few people that dont even know what global warming is".
it would be a misleading figure - thats why in some polls
become misleading.
if........
......you want to open a new market and sell an unknown product to the masses who can afford it, first you must convince them that they need it........
Like ciamarra has stated above, there are many people who have never heard of "global warming" or "climate change". These live in poverty areas with no cash flow and therefore no market.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
demographics - marketing
hi thefloppy1
dont want to be a knit-picker - just mentioning
to bring some insight to marketing, demographics, logical possibilties
there may some with cash flow that live in good areas that never heard of "global warming.
example various disabled people, some foreigners, some elderly
yes, i'm sure there is.....but
maketing is all about targeting.....and when you target a large mass there is always some that will fall through the cracks, so to speek.
If "global warming/climate change" is fully global, then every person on this planet should be informed.......shouldn't they?
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
educating
educating people would solve alot of problems in todays world - especially if we were education all taught the same things. we would still get outside influences like the media, people, other educational sources - but the core would be there and they could judge for themselves once educated.
its about 29 years since i learn about global warming, and it was shocking to see on a yahoo - some comments about people in the states not even knowing what it was about a year ago. would be nice if there was a basic united nations school coarse that was part of every school in the world for the kids of today.
a valid point
Marketing could well be a factor, as you say.
For example, the proposed remedies for climate change involve changing consumer behaviour. Also, they involve investment in new infrastructure, and in research.
These things will be funded by consumers and tax payers. They must eventually sanctioned by voters, this is a long term issue. You can get some things past the voters for a decade or two, but nor for 50 years (at least in the US).
Given all that, if you don't consume, don't pay taxes, and don't vote - you are simply not important to industry, governemnts, and big media.
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
Not in list.
A natural cycle, greatly intensified by man's pollution, poor understanding, and stewardship.
exactly blade.....
what I have said before.......clear felling leads to worse floods. Covering ground with houses, concrete and ashphalt means the water can't be obsorbed. Heat radiated from city's raises local ambient temperture. Local smog retains heat. Greater runoff into oceans reduces local salt levels which changes ambient tempreture. Humid air rising up from forests develope the correct atmosphere for rain. Take the forest and lose the rain........and much more. The natual cycle has been effected. But we have not caused the natual cycle, only amplified it.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
Yes, you got it Bladerunner....
Global warming seems to be a natural cycle; whether it's harmless or dangerous depends on subjective point of view - to the Earth, it's harmless (even beneficial as a means of cleansing?), to certain species it's potentially lethal if they can't adapt. But mankind, on the whole, through ignorance, unconscious acts and a selfish, ego-centric arrogance contributes greatly to global warming.
Ironically, though, man's pollution has also contributed to the phenomenon of global dimming (particles from pollution in the atmosphere block the amount of sun reaching the Earth's surface), which has to a degree counteracted and slowed the rate of global warming.
Perhaps, unconsciously, we've given ourselves a pardon, a second chance to undo the damage we've done. Let's get to it, Earthlings!
Global Warming
I am so tired of Al Gore and his limtd. spectrum research. Of course if you look at a small enough scope of info. you can prove whatever your case might be. Check the science people. who is sponsering(sp?) the research? Where do the grants come from? Who benifits(sp?) from said "research"? These are all questions that need to be continously(sp?) asked in order to have an INFORMED opinion.
Correct
I would suggest this remains 'true' for all 'sides' concerned.
refer apc/tool post
http://www.dailygrail.com/taxonomy/term/...
Hi Greg, I think it's time
Hi Greg, I think it's time for a new pole. Six months of "Global warming" is enough.
Actually, I agree
This one is beginning to smell a little... stale ;-)
Maybe we can make one about Tunguska, now that we are going to celebrate its 100th birthday!
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie