View Poll Results: Do You Believe Unchecked Man-Caused Climate Change will cause Severe Harm w/in 50 Yrs

Voters
138. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I do.

    61 44.20%
  • No, I don't.

    77 55.80%
Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 288

Thread: OT: Do You Believe in Global Warming/Climate Change Calamity Poll

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    OT: Do You Believe in Global Warming/Climate Change Calamity Poll

    The question:

    [QUOTE=Poll Question]Do you believe the current predictions that uncheked mankind-caused Global Warming/Climate Change can and will cause terrible harm to the Earth, including mass extinctions, mass flooding, human migrations and mass deaths, destruction of coastal cities, etc, etc, within 50 years?[/QUOTE]

    For purposes of this poll, I don't care WHY you believe or donot believe, just your basic "Yes or No" Position on these predictions.

    [U]To the Mods:[/U] I understand this is a Poltical, Social AND OT issue/question. However, in the interests of polling a very large user-base (as opposed to the small angry membership of the Political Forum) I would deeply and humbly request you allow this Poll to remain on the main board.

    Please feel free to delete replies, of course, from anyone who cannot remain civil in their discussion. Just don't "Political Forum" the Poll. We all already know were we stand and believe in there.

    Thanks.

    -WF
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-08-2007 at 02:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    An emphatic No!

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Camden, NJ
    Posts
    4,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    not in 50 years, no...maybe in a couple of hundred years, but by then we'll just build a fancy glass dome around the planet to hold in the atmosphere like in "Space Balls"...

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Reality
    Posts
    10,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    No long term studies.

    Ok, so the average temperature and climate has risen since we began documenting it. And the ozone layer is "deteriorating." Since we have no clue what the trends on these types of things were 100, 200, 300, 400+ years ago and etc, we have no way of knowing if this is just natural progression or not. :cool:

    Look at the ice age. Maybe if we had high levels of emmissions, and too many cars on the road, and air conditioners going non-stop, and aerosol spray cans, and etc back then we could have prevented the ice age thus saving all the dinosaurs because we would have raised the earth's core temperature. :rolleyes:

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- Delegates approved the world's first roadmap for stemming mounting greenhouse gas emissions Friday, laying out an arsenal of anti-warming measures that must be rushed into place to avert a disastrous spike in global temperatures.

    The report, a summary of a voluminous study by a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists, showed the world has to make significant cuts in gas emissions through the development of biofuels, increases in fuel efficiency, the use of renewable energy like solar power, and a host of other options.

    The document made clear that the world has the technology and money to decisively act in time to avoid a sharp rise in temperatures that scientists say would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts in some places and flooding in others. (Watch what proposals could help save the planet )

    Under the most stringent scenario, the report said the world must stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 2015 -- eight years from now -- to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels.

    Delegates said the approval of the report should conclusively debunk arguments by skeptics that combatting global warming was too costly, that it would stifle development in the world's poorer countries or that the temperature rise had gone too far for humankind to do anything about.

    "If we continue doing what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble," cautioned Ogunlade Davidson, the chair of one of the working groups at the weeklong conference in Bangkok, Thailand.

    Delegates hailed the policy statement as a key advance toward battling global warming and setting the stage for an even stronger international agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse emissions when it expires in 2012.

    "It's stunning in its brilliance and relevance," Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the group running the conference, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said of the study. "It's a remarkable step forward."

    The report "highlights the importance of a portfolio of clean energy technologies consistent with our approach," said the head of the U.S. delegation, Harlan Watson.

    Coming out of the meeting early Friday, delegates said science appeared to have trumped politics -- especially opposition from booming China, which wanted language inserted allowing for a greater buildup of greenhouse gases in the environment before action would be taken.

    Beijing and its supporters had argued that moves to make deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions risked stifling its spectacular economic growth, delegates said. But the final report included mention of a stringent emission target mentioned in an earlier draft.

    Delegates at the meeting had wrestled over how to share the burden of cutting emissions, how much such measures would cost, and how much weight to give certain policy measures, such as advanced nuclear power, an option supported by the United States.

    "This is still an excellent report," French delegate Michel Petit said, adding that China and the other developing countries ended up compromising on all major issues. "Nothing important was removed during the process."

    The report follows two studies by the IPCC earlier this year warning that unabated greenhouse gas emissions could drive global temperatures up as much as 6 degrees C (11 degrees F) by 2100, triggering a surge in ocean levels, destruction of vast numbers of species, economic devastation in tropical zones and mass human migrations.

    Even the most stringent efforts outlined in the report, however, would not save the globe from suffering. An increase in temperatures to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) could still subject up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species, the IPCC said.

    Environmental groups said the report demonstrates the world can afford to battle global warming and must do so immediately.

    "This is a roadmap that the IPCC is delivering," said Hans Verolme of WWF International. "It's time for the politicians to do more than just pay lip service to the issue of global warming, and to stop climate change before it's too late."

    Environmentalists said nations must carry forward this momentum by deciding on concrete actions at the Group of Eight summit of leading industrial nations in June in Germany and at a U.N. Climate Summit in Bali, Indonesia, in December.

    "With the final piece of the jigsaw in place, the picture of our options for the future is now in sharp focus," said Stephanie Tunmore, Greenpeace International climate & energy campaigner. "It is quite clear that immediate action to cut greenhouse gas emissions is required."

    China, the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter after the United States, pushed hard during the meeting, along with India and other developing countries, to raise the proposed cap on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, delegates said. (Watch how China is on track to being the world's top polluter )

    A draft of the report proposed the world limit concentrations of greenhouse gases to between 445 and 650 parts per million, but China sought to strike the lower range over fears it would hinder its booming economy, Michael Muller, Germany's vice minister for the environment, told reporters before the agreement was reached.[/QUOTE]

    .

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    2,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    I posted this in the Political forum and I didn't get many responses.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    52,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet]I posted this in the Political forum and I didn't get many responses.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe the tree-huggers didn't read it yet.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Murray Hill
    Posts
    7,459
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can't even bring myself to argue this anymore. It's like the 25% of Americans that can still find some way to support George W. Bush. No matter how much evidence, scientific and global consensus on this subject there are a set number of people that will throw the same tired, half-relevent arguments against it (ice-age, 1 degree's not a lot, volcanos).

    I'll get flak for not elaborating but I just can't get sucked in to another fruitless debate. People who don't believe in global warming at the present time will come to over the next 20 years. I won't say I told you so. I'll just be doing my part to curb it. Join in when the light goes on.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    13, Knights Who say Ni street, Long Island, NY.
    Posts
    7,824
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe it will..... but I think it will be a very gradual change.... nothing to cause mass extinction.... at least not in any of our lifetimes..... But I can say ... with each year.... I see a difference in climate and weather.... and its just plain ignorant and unresponsable to ingnore it anymore.
    Last edited by Starkweather; 05-08-2007 at 02:53 PM.

  10. #10
    Schluberator & Gadfly ®
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    IMHO, I think we're on a slippery slope and with all the crap we've put in the air, with more to come, it's going to happen exponentially. :(

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unchecked is fuzzy. I voted Yes even though i'm not a big believer in global warming. If everything was "unchecked" however there'd be consequences.. I don't think that's how it will pan out in the next 50 years though.

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    402
    Post Thanks / Like
    yes..but who the **** cares

    in 200 years 90 degrees will be like 100 degrees now...big difference.... :zzz:

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    hoboken
    Posts
    6,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    well, based on how you phrased your question, i don't think you'll get many 'yes' votes.. which i'm taking a wild guess and saying you're trying to prove some point.

    the facts are simple - man is directly affecting our atmosphere and environment, and is contributing to climate change

    but- who's to say this isnt just part of earth's climate cycle?

    50 years from now? probably a little too soon for the doom and gloom scenarios. does that mean mankind doesnt face some serious threats in the future if climate predictions prove to be true? eventually we will need to adapt


    how this is a partisan issue i'll never get. the earth is warming. man is partly to blame. can we do things to slow down the process? all indications seem to be yes- limit our dependence on oil seems like a good start.. oh wait- OIL. ah. yes. there's my answer.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    When Krakatowa blows again, it will make the so-called greenhouse gas crisis seem like a dog fart.

    Smoke em while ya gotta em.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    3,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    i voted no, but not because i don't think humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment, but because i don't think that global warming will cause the Apocalypse like the poll question sounds like it's asking.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    24,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Blair Thomas]I can't even bring myself to argue this anymore. It's like the 25% of Americans that can still find some way to support George W. Bush. No matter how much evidence, scientific and global consensus on this subject there are a set number of people that will throw the same tired, half-relevent arguments against it (ice-age, 1 degree's not a lot, volcanos).

    I'll get flak for not elaborating but I just can't get sucked in to another fruitless debate. People who don't believe in global warming at the present time will come to over the next 20 years. I won't say I told you so. I'll just be doing my part to curb it. Join in when the light goes on.[/QUOTE]

    Amen. Unfortunately the average American is an idiot.

    [IMG]http://www.freewebz.com/kickasshorrorreviews/Archie_Bunker.jpg[/IMG]

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ICWT10]No long term studies.

    Ok, so the average temperature and climate has risen since we began documenting it. And the ozone layer is "deteriorating." Since we have no clue what the trends on these types of things were 100, 200, 300, 400+ years ago and etc, we have no way of knowing if this is just natural progression or not. :cool:

    Look at the ice age. Maybe if we had high levels of emmissions, and too many cars on the road, and air conditioners going non-stop, and aerosol spray cans, and etc back then we could have prevented the ice age thus saving all the dinosaurs because we would have raised the earth's core temperature. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    They still don't have one iota of evidence that CO2 does anything to the atmosphere. It is all theory. Mars' atmosphere is 100% CO2 and the planet is frozen. What happened to the greenhouse effect there? The so called experts aren't even near a ballpark on agreeing how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

    I believe we should reduce emissions for the breathability factor however. I think it is bad to breathe in polluted air. I just think man made global warming is a farce.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Blair Thomas]I can't even bring myself to argue this anymore. It's like the 25% of Americans that can still find some way to support George W. Bush. No matter how much evidence, scientific and global consensus on this subject there are a set number of people that will throw the same tired, half-relevent arguments against it (ice-age, 1 degree's not a lot, volcanos).

    I'll get flak for not elaborating but I just can't get sucked in to another fruitless debate. People who don't believe in global warming at the present time will come to over the next 20 years. I won't say I told you so. I'll just be doing my part to curb it. Join in when the light goes on.[/QUOTE]

    First of all, I thought science was supposed to be fact. Now it is consensus? That may be your first issue. Secondly, show me some scientific facts and evidence and maybe I'll change my mind. The big problem is THERE IS NONE!

    There is global warming but there is much more scientific evidence that it is natural, i.e. that every planet is experiencing warming and it is cyclical, than there is that my car or cow farts are causing it.
    Last edited by JetinHuntersville; 05-08-2007 at 03:14 PM.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shuler82]well, based on how you phrased your question, i don't think you'll get many 'yes' votes.. which i'm taking a wild guess and saying you're trying to prove some point.

    [B]the facts are simple - man is directly affecting our atmosphere and environment, and is contributing to climate change[/B]

    but- who's to say this isnt just part of earth's climate cycle?

    50 years from now? probably a little too soon for the doom and gloom scenarios. does that mean mankind doesnt face some serious threats in the future if climate predictions prove to be true? eventually we will need to adapt


    how this is a partisan issue i'll never get. the earth is warming. man is partly to blame. can we do things to slow down the process? all indications seem to be yes- limit our dependence on oil seems like a good start.. oh wait- OIL. ah. yes. there's my answer.[/QUOTE]

    Where do you get that this is a fact? Al Gore? Please.

    Ok so why don't you set the example and live the next year without oil based products.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Fact: Mr. Henry drives a Jaguar."

    "Does the fact that I'm trying to do it for you do it for you, dude?"

    "She called you a failure?? What's she ever done with her life that's so great, man? Nothing!"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us