Global Warming: Disaster or Hoax? (Weekend Poll)

By: wheatmeister
February 1, 2014

World on fire or liar, liar pants on fire?

People are divided on the subject of global warming.  Where do you sit?

What do you think of global warming? (choose the one you agree with most)

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Tags: ,

17 Responses to Global Warming: Disaster or Hoax? (Weekend Poll)

  1. Greendraken on February 1, 2014 at 3:52 AM

    Warming, cooling, things run in cycles, big cycles and little cycles. If we are warming up, it may stall off the next Ice Age. It is not the carbon dioxide we need to worry about, but the methane.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  2. wonderdog on February 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM

    I am a graduate statistician. I have noted that there is a better correlation between warming and government spending than with greenhouse gas emissions. The current hype appears to be a way to frighten people into giving up freedom.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 15

  3. Fence Sitter on February 1, 2014 at 9:17 AM

    I’m sort of shocked at the results. I didn’t think many legitimate scientists were of the opinion that global warming is mainly caused by humans.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  4. Jen on February 1, 2014 at 12:10 PM

    I’m shocked by how many of you believe this money making hoax. No doubt we pollute and it’s awful, no doubt some buy it but 60+% if the vote here?!

    They can’t even call it global warming anymore because we are in a global cooling phase and it’s been cyclical forever. Watch for the term climate change cause it’s the new phrase to try to salvage reputations if those who perpetuated the THEORY as fact prior to being disproven.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  5. babaroni on February 1, 2014 at 12:13 PM

    Actually, the vast majority of legitimate scientists believe that global climate change exists, and that it is primarily influenced by human activity. I selected “other,” because the term, “global warming,” is a little too simplistic; despite the fact that average temperatures are trending upwards year by year, the effects which we see on climate are not necessarily all specifically heat-related (leading those with particularly literal understandings to scoff at the idea of “global warming” when they are experiencing a particularly cold winter).

    There is really no way to know for sure if the long-term effects of this global climate change will be extremely high temperatures year-long and throughout the globe. It is possible that we may warm the oceans to the point where large icebergs calved from Antarctica will cause stalling or reversal of deep ocean currents based on thermal dynamics, and ultimately prompt an ice age. What we do know is that climate is changing rapidly and it is related to the levels of carbon-based gases we are dumping into the atmosphere as we remove formerly stable carbon compounds from “carbon sinks” such as oil and methane deposits, and release them into the atmosphere through combustion, intensive agricultural processes and so forth.

    In the mean time, we are seeing increasingly hot summer temperatures, massive flooding in some regions contrasting with unprecedented drought in others, stronger storms, and more exaggerated temperatures throughout the year.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 10

  6. Rick B on February 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM

    I think global warming is both man-made, and non man-made. I think there are multiple effects going on. We’ve had ice ages and much warmer climates long before man came on earth, so there is a cyclical nature to things. I’m sure man has some blame, but not all blame for global warming.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  7. Bro. Jones on February 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM

    Not entirely man-made and not necessarily going to be the end of humanity, but spend some time in a major city in a developing nation (or live next to a coal-fired power plant in the US) and then tell me that we don’t need regulations on emissions.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  8. hawkgrrrl on February 2, 2014 at 11:55 AM

    The problem is that nations ignore the Kyoto Accords with no real consequences.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  9. Douglas on February 2, 2014 at 12:15 PM

    Back in 1997, Mike Judge explained it best via “King of the Hill”

    Dale Gribble: [regarding global warming] I say let the world warm up, see what Boutros Boutros-Ghali-Ghali thinks about that! We’ll grow oranges in Alaska.
    Hank Hill: Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas. It’s already a hundred and ten in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I’m gonna kick your ass!

    I’ve seen the papers published asserting the evidence for global warming, and I’m surprised that this theory as a man-made phenomenon was ever taken seriously. The energy requirements alone to have an effect on atmospheric composition greatly dwarf what mankind produces. Hence why any talk of ‘terraforming’ hostile planets like Mars are so much wishful thinking until we discover practical methods of higher energy output (like nuclear fusion). Most climatic change can be attributed to fluctuations in solar activity. In fact, there is ample historical evidence that significant swings in ambient temperatures happen over the centuries and have had huge effect on human civilization. Example: the Little Ice Age, considered to have endured from 1450 to about 1850, which saw periodic European famines and a long period of worldwide exploration. It’s a shame that meteorological data prior to 1850 is virtually non-existent (scientists rely on both human anecdotal evidence and looking at long-term biological evidence such as tree rings). It’d be handy to dispel much of the current hysteria on the subject.

    The whole discussion would be laughable as the rantings of the “loony left” if political efforts to assuage their hysteria weren’t resulting in bad engineering and science. To wit: the outlawing of refrigerant R-12 in most applications. Never mind that its replacement, R-134, is significantly less effective, hence more energy is required to achieve the same results. I wonder if the impact of greater energy expenditures caused by this refrigerant switch (can you say, carbon footprint?) was even considered. I’m glad I saved up a few carbuoys of the stuff for my vintage autos.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  10. Bill on February 2, 2014 at 12:33 PM

    It’s funny how you’ve made a poll, like if you had asked “People are divided on whether the earth is round or flat. Where do you sit?” Their answers would tell you nothing about reality, only about how deluded they wish to remain. The ones chattering about their freedom (to pollute as much as they want, I guess?) would be better advised to worry about the ultimate survival of a habitable environment:

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  11. Douglas on February 2, 2014 at 1:47 PM

    #8 – yes, compliance seems to be one-sided. Though not directly relevant to the Global Warming discussion, I notice there’s very little breast-beating coming from American leftists about the significant pollution issues in China. We buy their products and they get dirty air and water in the bargain.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  12. h_nu on February 2, 2014 at 6:53 PM

    A lot of global warming alarmists have gotten people to believe the following myths…
    Myth 1.) Most CO2 is emitted from humans and their contraptions.
    Truth 1.) 97% of CO2 that is emitted every year comes from natural means, NOT anthropogenic.

    Myth 2.) anti-global-warming (the skeptics) deny the science that CO2 absorbs heat
    Truth 2.) Most skeptics recognize that CO2 absorbs energy, but don’t accept the 15 degree polynomial that the alarmists use to describe the earths albedo (reflectivity), because there is no science, rather a description of past events. Skeptics doubt the alarmists ability to foretell the future based on 15 order polynomials which describe past events.

    Myth 3.) Fear of something “bad” happening justifies “any” government control and action.
    Truth 3). Modern-day global warming alarmists are behaving “EXACTLY” like those in the Boston Witch Trials. We will look back on them in 20 years as backward judgmental idiots, just as they currently blame religion for the witch trials.

    From my viewpoint… the alarmists were the those crying “WITCH.” It wasn’t the religious, it was those who usurp religion for their political gains…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  13. Jim Cobabe on February 3, 2014 at 6:16 AM

    I think the basis for contention about anthropogenic causes is rather contrived. As with any living organism, humans are a natural part of their environment. Of course our natural existence has an impact. The question is – what might be appropriate efforts to keep this particular species from drowning in our own ugly waste products?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  14. Jeff Spector on February 3, 2014 at 7:47 AM

    It seems to me that regardless of the cause, why not do something that should reduce the amount of hydrocarbons in the room. No doubt none of you would sit in a closed up garage with a car running without understanding the consequences. It seems entirely logical to me that burning millions of tons of hydrocarbons has an effect on the closed environment we call Earth.

    Why not do something. What is the real harm in that? Money making, profiteering?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  15. babaroni on February 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM

    h_nu #12 –

    Modern-day global warming alarmists are behaving “EXACTLY” like those in the Boston Witch Trials.

    Wait, really? I hadn’t heard about any carbon polluters or climate-change deniers being hung (or burned at the stake, for that matter). Can you link up some source cites on that?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  16. hawkgrrrl on February 3, 2014 at 1:12 PM

    Just as a point of clarification, they hung or “pressed” witches with stones in Salem / Danvers (just outside of Boston). No burnings at the stake there, just in Europe.

    Jeff: I tend to agree with you that doing something is better than doing nothing, although some of the things corporations have done have actually caused more problems, making it worse (displacing native populations or impacting ecosystems by introducing or eliminating species in a geography), even though their intentions were good.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  17. Douglas on February 4, 2014 at 4:07 AM

    However, if concerns over potential harmful effects of releasing R-12 and similar refrigerants to the atmosphere had simply resulted in reasonable regulation to account for usage and recovery, it’d have been reasonable. There wouldn’t even be a need to worry about the proverbial shade tree mechanic causing global warming as all the wrench-twisters in California cutting loose with a kit and a few 16 oz. cans would probably cause the release of less refrigerant than the typical leakage from the state’s supermarkets and beverage distributorships.

    Consider the effect of, for example, volcanic eruptions? Remember the cold winter and following cool spring and summer that followed the eruption of Mount Pintatubo in the Philippines in 1991? (that also resolved the proposed closure of Clark AFB as it was buried under several feet of ash). Or also some “global cooling” in the wake of Mt. Niriyagongo (on the Uganda-Congo border) in 2002? But those were nothing compared to Mt. Tambora in the then-Dutch East Indies in 1815…caused the next year, 1816, to be know as the “Year without a Summer”. There was snowfall in New England in June of that year, and crops failures caused many New Englanders to leave their farms in search of a livelihood else…including a family from Sharon, VT…you may have heard of Joseph and Luck Mack Smith, or even of two of their sons, Joseph Jr and Hyrum.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting


%d bloggers like this: