Poll finds worldwide agreement climate change is a threat

Wed, 2007-03-14 11:00Bill Miller
Bill Miller's picture

Poll finds worldwide agreement climate change is a threat

Conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Public Affairs and World Public Opinion, the survey includes China, India, the U.S., Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia and the Palistinian territories.

Twelve countries were asked whether steps should be taken to combat climate change and a majority in all but one favored action. The largest majorities favoring action were 92 per cent in Australia, 83 per cent in China and Israel and 80 per cent in the U.S., the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases.

In Australia, Argentina, Israel, the U.S. and Armenia, the majority wanted steps taken now even if it involves significant cost. Respondents were evenly divided in China and Russia, while in Philippines, Thailand, Poland, Ukraine and India, people believe global warming is gradual so low-cost measures are sufficient.

Comments

A poll does not make global warming real. Nor does consensus. At one time, everyone believed the world was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the universe, with everything rotating around the Earth. Science changed that.
… we're talking perception. If you want to talk science (which I kinda doubt), why not check in with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their statistical weighting on the likelihood of climate change is over 90 per cent.

the concept of probability? How about the concept of threat? The consensus is not about “making science real”, it’s an assessment of the level of threat. I’m not sure if your brain can make such subtle distinctions, but there you go.

You’re right about one thing: science has changed things for the better. And now it’s the vast majority of scientists who are telling us that the level of threat is high. So if you respect “science” at all, you would be taking the consensus very seriously.

other way around


“So if you respect “science” at all, you would be taking the consensus very seriously.”

Science is not a democracy.

Should anyone be surprised that there is public anxiety over global warming given the relentless and hysterical coverage the main stream media accord this subject? But it is telling that people aren’t ready to commit economic suicide to do something about it. When you ask people to sacrifice, they will take a closer look at the reasons for this request and that is when the AGW advocates will be in trouble. People will quickly realize there is no scientific consensus for the notion that humans cause climate change. When you ask people to sacrifice, you must be able to convince them that their efforts will bring some positive results. The AGW evangelists can’t even prove that there is a real threat (computer models don’t prove anything). So good luck with the carbon taxes.

Actually I noticed this week the CBC national news running green stories of communities who have gone green in a number of ways starting years ago. Such examples were not limited to but included, waste treatment plants collecting methane and then burning it to run their heating, or using solar pannels to heat to provide over 90% of the heating for pool, house projects built to be heated entirely by solar or that Calgary is now running about 70% of its electrical needs via wind power and this is in Alberta the bastion of fossil fuel country. Not only have these greening measures reduced the carbon outputs of many buildings by over 50% in many cases the governments of these communities are proudly proclaiming how much money they are saving due to increased effiency. All of this econmic disaster BS is getting silly allready, if small communities of less than 20,000 can find going green economicially profitable and large cities like Calgary which have over a million can find ways to get ahead of many major cities in Canada in terms of their CO2 reductions why cant so many other places.

There are lots of good reasons for going green, Carl. Stopping climate change just isn’t one of them. Using compact fluorescents saves you money, which is why I use them. Cutting back auto emissions reduces air pollution, which is why I favour it and buy ethanol-blend gas. Seeking alternative sources of energy preserves our finite supply of fossil fuels for purposes for which there is no substitute. Using high temperature incineration with heat recovery to burn garbage sure beats throwing it on the ground where leachates can find their way into water courses.

ak078090368 http://milfxxxpass.com/#0 - milf cruiser milf seeker [URL=http://milfxxxpass.com/#2] milf seeker[/URL] [http://milfxxxpass.com/#3 milf next door] [link]http://milfxxxpass.com/#4[/link]

[x]
A U.S. District Court judge ruled on June 27 that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service both wrongly approved expansion of the West Elk coal mine in Somerset, Colo., because they failed to take into account the economic impacts greenhouse gas emissions from the mining would have.
 
The federal agencies said it was impossible to quantify such impacts, but the court pointed out a tool is...
read more