Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

[xylophone]

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

As a American I am proud to have a President that want's all countries to pay handsomely for a clean environment,protection and fair trade ! 

Whilst employing illegal workers, paying them lower rates and getting his campaign stuff made cheaply overseas, along with Ivanka's goodies...........not to mention encouraging more fossil fuel production and not understanding (too dumb) how this affects climate change.

 

Unless of course you were having a joke at our expense?

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Whilst employing illegal workers, paying them lower rates and getting his campaign stuff made cheaply overseas, along with Ivanka's goodies...........not to mention encouraging more fossil fuel production and not understanding (too dumb) how this affects climate change.

 

Unless of course you were having a joke at our expense?

I stand by my post

[johnmcc6]

8 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I find it quite worrying that nearly half of the people around the world view the US as a major threat, numbers which have skyrocketed in the last two years, from 8 to 50%. Since Mr. Trump has taken power, what was almost a non issue, is one of the greatest concerns. To my mind, it means that Mr. Trump is giving an exceptionally poor performance, not assisted by his deceitful and manipulative means, or his fundamental character which so, so many see as fatally flawed. We all make mistakes, but I pray America doesn't repeat its huge one, in the elections next year, and the world can start to move forward again.

As for the climate, it should be our top priority, denial of which is at least partially to blame for the concern so many have with administrations who choose to ignore it.

That survey was taken at a University of California transgender studies class and the  roll of transgenders impact on in  relation to climate change. Must be getting cooler when so many wear Poosy hats to stay warm?

[Krataiboy]

6 hours ago, goferman said:

It's been properly named climate change for nearly 20 years.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

You'd do better to listen to others than Rush, Alex, Donald et al.

 

Well nobody can argue that the fact that climate changes, always has and always will.  Global warming is a far more debatable proposition. Hence the interchangability of both terms to support arguments both ways.

 

Climate may change but people surely don't!

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

Well nobody can argue that the fact that climate changes, always has and always will.  Global warming is a far more debatable proposition. Hence the interchangability of both terms to support arguments both ways.

 

Climate may change but people surely don't!

Global warming is also not debatable, only those who don't believe in science do so.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Calling it Climate Change is actually a nonsense, as climate is ALWAYS changing. Global Warming was actually a better name as it indicated that something was actually happening that was different from before.

Everyone should remember that humans have only inhabited the planet for a blink of an eye in cosmic terms, and there is no guarantee that Gaia wants to keep us around, given our appalling record of abusing the planet, and destroying everything we touch.

IMO it should be renamed to "human created pollution causing our destruction if we don't stop it", so that people have an idea that it's OUR fault and WE have to do something about it.

And the scientific data cdemonstrates the rate of change is magnitudes faster than at any time in the earth’s geological history.

 

The scientific consensus is that this rapid change is largely due to a range of human activity polluting the atmosphere.

 

The scientific consensus is also also that if left unchecked this unnaturally rapid climate change will have dire consequences for all life on the planet.

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

Well nobody can argue that the fact that climate changes, always has and always will.  Global warming is a far more debatable proposition. Hence the interchangability of both terms to support arguments both ways.

 

Climate may change but people surely don't!

It is the increase of energy within the earth’s atmosphere and oceans due to global warming that is powering climate change.

 

It’s not difficult to understand, you just need a basic understanding of thermodynamics and access to the factual global climate data.

 

If you are too busy for that, take a short cut to knowledge and consult the scientific consensus.

[Trouble]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is the increase of energy within the earth’s atmosphere and oceans due to global warming that is powering climate change.

 

It’s not difficult to understand, you just need a basic understanding of thermodynamics and access to the factual global climate data.

 

If you are too busy for that, take a short cut to knowledge and consult the scientific consensus.

If the people hyping climate change were not in the press a good deal of the time, then most people would not even notice anything happening.  Farmers have known for generations that there are good years and bad years for weather.  We've had the wettest winter in years here in California. Global warming, climate change, who cares.  If indeed something serious occurs 100 years from now, the population can deal with it then.  There always has and always will be changes going on and we probably can't stop it.  Certainly all the crap about carbon taxes, etc. is just another way to collect taxes.  What we do in the local community has no relevance on the global picture.  China, India, and other countries coming of age will negate anything we do.  So I will continue to drive my big SUV and not worry about it.  Nothing is going to stop anything from happening anyway.  

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is the increase of energy within the earth’s atmosphere and oceans due to global warming that is powering climate change.

 

It’s not difficult to understand, you just need a basic understanding of thermodynamics and access to the factual global climate data.

 

If you are too busy for that, take a short cut to knowledge and consult the scientific consensus.

Still chomping at the climate change alarmist bit, eh? Some things, unlike the climate, never change.

[Krataiboy]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

Global warming is also not debatable, only those who don't believe in science do so.

In that case, I won't waste my time attempting to persuade you otherwise, O Learned One. Go with the flow and see where you end up.

[alex8912]

14 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I find it quite worrying that nearly half of the people around the world view the US as a major threat, numbers which have skyrocketed in the last two years, from 8 to 50%. Since Mr. Trump has taken power, what was almost a non issue, is one of the greatest concerns. To my mind, it means that Mr. Trump is giving an exceptionally poor performance, not assisted by his deceitful and manipulative means, or his fundamental character which so, so many see as fatally flawed. We all make mistakes, but I pray America doesn't repeat its huge one, in the elections next year, and the world can start to move forward again.

As for the climate, it should be our top priority, denial of which is at least partially to blame for the concern so many have with administrations who choose to ignore it.

You are a perfect example of why rumors exist. There is nothing that states nearly 1/2 the people around the world view the US as a major threat in the moronic poll taken by some people in just 26 countries above. Please read it again! 

[blazes]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Global warming is also not debatable, only those who don't believe in science do so.

Ha ha, good ol' Science is trotted out to shut us up!  Of COURSE men and women in white lab coats know more than us schmucks wandering around in jeans and flip-flops.

 

Just btw, there was a time, about 900 years ago, all over Europe, when people believed in priests selling old bones as relics of Christ.....

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

But the US has been in almost perpetual war ever since the end of WW2....and all of these are wars of choice, thousands of miles from home in countries that represent no threat at all to the US. I am really concerned about the US starting illegal and unnecessary wars because war is the greatest evil.

War is not the greatest evil, six million Jewish people in Europe agree with me.

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, farcanell said:

Correct... the USA did not start two massive world wars, but then, neither did almost every other country on the planet.

 

and correct, the US did help clean up, along with a large number of other countries.... they (USA) just turned up much much later than everyone else..... after being attacked.... so turning up to “clean up” was not from some place of good intent, but as a factor of self preservation.

There is one thing I really like about your replies, they are consistent. I will not describe the manner in which they are consistent dur to forum rules.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Placing the blame on rising CO2 levels, and the government investing in renewable energy sources to reduce CO2 emissions in order to create the impression they are at least doing something to reduce the risk of future extreme weather events, allows the destroyed dwellings to be rebuilt along the same lines, whilst creating the delusion that the next flood or hurricane will not be as extreme.

Small quote given the length of the original.

Well said, and you point out the things that could actually be done to mitigate climate change, which is inevitable and ( despite the lies of the politicians ) unable to be stopped/ reversed/ whatever.

Unfortunately, our lords and masters only wish to see more and more people building lots of houses so they can make lots and lots of money via rates etc. This is why they continue to allow building in flood and fire zones. They will probably never bring in good regulations as it would make building houses more expensive and put off the mass building that is taking place. However, I'm sure the great ones ( in their opinions ) don't live anywhere near disaster zones.

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Agree, that's how Trump got elected.  And I'm pretty sure those Elvis and fake-moon-landing believers are Trump supporters. 

Possible that both are Trump supporters, but I don't have a link to prove that. The reason Trump got elected was that the other candidate has more horrible. Think about that for a minute. That and the fact that left in the USA has forgotten about helping working people and is now focused on supporting abortion on demand up till the time of birth, racial division, and the scam that is global climate change (aka global warming).

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And the scientific data cdemonstrates the rate of change is magnitudes faster than at any time in the earth’s geological history.

 

The scientific consensus is that this rapid change is largely due to a range of human activity polluting the atmosphere.

 

The scientific consensus is also also that if left unchecked this unnaturally rapid climate change will have dire consequences for all life on the planet.

I've never disputed that change may be happening faster than in previous eons, though it changed pretty rapidly for the dinosaurs.

My opinion is that there is nothing we can do to change it back or to anything else, for that matter. Just because mankind has been destroying the environment since the industrial revolution does not mean that we have the ability to actually do anything about CC in any way. Either we adapt, or we die. That is the way of every organism that ever inhabited the planet. Just because we think we are different from the dinosaurs does not mean that we have any more right to survive as a species, particularly ( if as they say we have caused it ) because we are just a very very destructive species. We have polluted the entire planet and exterminated countless other species. Our record is nothing to be proud of.

Meanwhile, where I live they have banned plastic bags in supermarkets and go about crowing how they are saving the planet. Disregarding the fact that the planet will still exist without a single human on it, banning plastic carrier bags while almost every other item in the supermarkets is wrapped in plastic goes to show how deluded people are.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, vinniekintana said:

Btw...what happened to the hole in the Ozone layer?

It was all the rage in the '80's

Past its sell-by date?

No. It's on the way to closing now that CFCs have been banned.

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, Trouble said:

If the people hyping climate change were not in the press a good deal of the time, then most people would not even notice anything happening.  Farmers have known for generations that there are good years and bad years for weather.  We've had the wettest winter in years here in California. Global warming, climate change, who cares.  If indeed something serious occurs 100 years from now, the population can deal with it then.  There always has and always will be changes going on and we probably can't stop it.  Certainly all the crap about carbon taxes, etc. is just another way to collect taxes.  What we do in the local community has no relevance on the global picture.  China, India, and other countries coming of age will negate anything we do.  So I will continue to drive my big SUV and not worry about it.  Nothing is going to stop anything from happening anyway.  

Governing means looking in the future and being prepared. Not 'if something happens 100 years from now, something we know is going to happen, let them deal with it then'.

[wilcopops]

15 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

But the US has been in almost perpetual war ever since the end of WW2....and all of these are wars of choice, thousands of miles from home in countries that represent no threat at all to the US. I am really concerned about the US starting illegal and unnecessary wars because war is the greatest evil.

..and the environmental damage this has caused is monumental

[wilcopops]

1 hour ago, vinniekintana said:

Btw...what happened to the hole in the Ozone layer?

It was all the rage in the '80's

Past its sell-by date?

This was a success story....the USA quickly banned CFCs especially in refrigerators and as aerosol propellants. The rest of the world followed and the holes have closed or reduced to normal.

Clearly showing how even tiny amounts of man-made substances can dramatically affect the climate.

[wilcopops]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Climate Change should certainly be a major concern. Many civilizations in the past have been destroyed by climate change, although not always directly. Often, the civilization is weakened, due to a change in climate which it is unable to adapt to, and is then attacked by its traditional enemies.

 

A fairly recent example is the demise of the Khmer civilization during the 15th century. As the climate changed from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, the snows in the Himalayas, which feed the Mekong during summer, did not melt as usual. For a number of years, the monsoons were very weak, or even non-existent, and the reservoirs around the Angkor Wat region became dry, resulting in a serious food shortage. The local people began to desert the area in search of greener pastures and the Thais took that opportunity to invade, which resulted in the remaining people also deserting the area. The many temples became a lost city in the jungle, discovered centuries later by the French.

 

For many years it was a puzzle why an entire population had deserted such a large area of solid structures, temples, reservoirs and canals. Usually after an invasion, the invaders take control, or the survivors of the original population return after the invaders depart. Why did this entire civilization become lost in the jungle?

 

The study of tree rings and sediments in the area provide a convincing explanation. As a result of a major disruption to the climate, resulting in several years of dryness, there followed a few years of heavy monsoons and massive flooding. There was little incentive for the surviving population to return, so the cities became overgrown and lost in the jungle.

 

The key to surviving climate change is adaption. In modern societies we have the energy resources and the technology to enable us to adapt, and we have the historical data which tell us which regions are most at risk of floods and droughts, but economic growth takes priority.

 

Building codes which require houses in flood plains to be built above the level of previous floods, and/or to withstand the force of previous hurricanes in the area, are too expensive. By ignoring the real risks of a repetition of previous, known, extreme weather events in the area, a thriving economic community can be developed, sometimes without any major catastrophe for 30 or 40 years, then one year, wham bam, 20 Billion dollars worth of damage results from a flood and hurricane, usually described in the media as unprecedented, or a once-in-a-hundred year event which is likely caused by rising CO2 levels, or certainly exacerbated by rising CO2 levels.

 

Placing the blame on rising CO2 levels, and the government investing in renewable energy sources to reduce CO2 emissions in order to create the impression they are at least doing something to reduce the risk of future extreme weather events, allows the destroyed dwellings to be rebuilt along the same lines, whilst creating the delusion that the next flood or hurricane will not be as extreme.
 

And the mini ice age was caused by human activity.

[RickBradford]

It's interesting to compare this poll with the latest U.N. poll on what people would like to see governments deal with.

 

In that poll, climate change is absolutely bottom of the list - more than three times as many people care about education, and well over twice as many want better healthcare, job opportunities, and honest government than want “action taken on climate change”.

 

 

It may be that people see climate change as a top threat, but nobody wants to do much about it.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's interesting to compare this poll with the latest U.N. poll on what people would like to see governments deal with.

 

In that poll, climate change is absolutely bottom of the list - more than three times as many people care about education, and well over twice as many want better healthcare, job opportunities, and honest government than want “action taken on climate change”.

 

 

It may be that people see climate change as a top threat, but nobody wants to do much about it.

Sometimes impopular measures are necessary for the general good. It is not all about approval ratings.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've never disputed that change may be happening faster than in previous eons, though it changed pretty rapidly for the dinosaurs.

My opinion is that there is nothing we can do to change it back or to anything else, for that matter. Just because mankind has been destroying the environment since the industrial revolution does not mean that we have the ability to actually do anything about CC in any way. Either we adapt, or we die. That is the way of every organism that ever inhabited the planet. Just because we think we are different from the dinosaurs does not mean that we have any more right to survive as a species, particularly ( if as they say we have caused it ) because we are just a very very destructive species. We have polluted the entire planet and exterminated countless other species. Our record is nothing to be proud of.

Meanwhile, where I live they have banned plastic bags in supermarkets and go about crowing how they are saving the planet. Disregarding the fact that the planet will still exist without a single human on it, banning plastic carrier bags while almost every other item in the supermarkets is wrapped in plastic goes to show how deluded people are.

Your opinion that nothing can be done about climate change is also in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus.

 

On a wide range of environment topics you consistently post arguments against tackling environmental damage; views on climate change that contradict the scientific consensus being an example.

 

So let me ask you:

 

Taking action to reduce pollution, protect the environment, protect wild life and wild life habitats.

 

These are the core of environmentalism.

 

What is your argument against taking these actions?

[IAMHERE]

Climate change is caused by the movement of the magnetic north pole, not by people.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Sometimes impopular measures are necessary for the general good. It is not all about approval ratings.

There's one major flaw in that argument - just who gets to decide what is "the general good"? The answer is almost always: The very last people you would want to be making decisions like that.

 

In practice, your statement turns out to be precisely the clarion call of totalitarians through the ages. "We, the self-appointed elites know what's best for you. Just shut up and don't interfere, you worthless peasants." or "Do as you're told and you won't be harmed."

 

It's bad news for anyone who believes in democracy.

 

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

There's one major flaw in that argument - just who gets to decide what is "the general good"? The answer is almost always: The very last people you would want to be making decisions like that.

 

In practice, your statement turns out to be precisely the clarion call of totalitarians through the ages. "We, the self-appointed elites know what's best for you. Just shut up and don't interfere, you worthless peasants." or "Do as you're told and you won't be harmed."

 

It's bad news for anyone who believes in democracy.

 

Huh? Decisions for the general good are made by the last people you want them to make?

No, my statement turns out exactly as it should be and has been for a long time: the elected politicians do their job and ignore the approval ratings.

So no, it is exactly as democracy should work.

 

Your whole reasoningg is based on that we, the people, know what is best for us now and in the future. Sorry, we, the people, think based on self interest, not based on general good.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

There's one major flaw in that argument - just who gets to decide what is "the general good"? The answer is almost always: The very last people you would want to be making decisions like that.

 

In practice, your statement turns out to be precisely the clarion call of totalitarians through the ages. "We, the self-appointed elites know what's best for you. Just shut up and don't interfere, you worthless peasants." or "Do as you're told and you won't be harmed."

 

It's bad news for anyone who believes in democracy.

 

Perhaps you should examine who’s promoting the arguments against environmentalism and check that against who’s promoting the idea you should not trust your government.

[TopDeadSenter]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Taking action to reduce pollution, protect the environment, protect wild life and wild life habitats.

 

These are the core of environmentalism.

 

What is your argument against taking these actions?

It never stops there. Give the loons an inch and they want a mile. Just look this week at Ms Cortez calling for every building in the United States to be demolished and rebuilt with "green" designs and technology. So, what happens to all the billions of tons of glass, concrete, slate, asbestos, dry wall, fixtures and fittings? Can Mr Cortez even begin to imagine the fossil fuels required to re-mine, refine and produce every single building in America? And then where will these "green" materials come from? Yes that's right, from mines, transported across continents and oceans, dug by huge diesel burning excavators all requiring a colossal amount of fossil fuel burning. It is pure lunacy. This is why we must stand strong and reject the ideologists and their hare-brained ideas.

 

 I read on this thread that only 97% of scientists even agree that the climate is changing. This makes it an unproven theory. You would find 100% of scientists agreeing that the earth is round - bacause that is factually proven. No figures for how many scientists concur that mankind and the burning of fossil fuels causes this change - as opposed to natural cycles that have existed since creation. And no source on who sponsored the scientists. Hungarian billionaires? The whole thing is a load of bull.

 

 Until we can legislate effectively against volcanos and their CO2 emmisions, I say keep gunning the V8's and leaving the millenials behind in their Priuses in a big cloud of smoke and burnt rubber.