Only 27% of Americans Believe Climate Change is Mainly Man-Made

[Frodo]

But they still support actions to combat climate change anyway:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link

 

[Kingpoleon]

Most climate change occurred during either The Great Disaster(the biblical Flood), before humans, or is caused by other species. Human activity is a mere punch to the gut of a man who was bombed when it comes to climate change.

[Ebsy]

Most climate change occurred during either The Great Disaster(the biblical Flood), before humans, or is caused by other species. Human activity is a mere punch to the gut of a man who was bombed when it comes to climate change.

What's wrong with you?

[Kingpoleon]

Most climate change occurred during either The Great Disaster(the biblical Flood), before humans, or is caused by other species. Human activity is a mere punch to the gut of a man who was bombed when it comes to climate change.

What's wrong with you?

While a slight exaggeration, I'm showing what the average person believes. Most don't believe that climate change has occurred more over the last fifty years than the billions of years before. While incorrect technically, it doesn't sound unreasonably to most non-Creationists.

[Frodo]

Compare the poll results from Monmouth to Pew from last July:

[NeverAgain]

Most climate change occurred during either The Great Disaster(the biblical Flood), before humans, or is caused by other species. Human activity is a mere punch to the gut of a man who was bombed when it comes to climate change.

What's wrong with you?

While a slight exaggeration, I'm showing what the average person believes. Most don't believe that climate change has occurred more over the last fifty years than the billions of years before. While incorrect technically, it doesn't sound unreasonably to most non-Creationists.

Other Species caused climate change...? I think I need to go talk to my dog about her polluting.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Most climate change occurred during either The Great Disaster(the biblical Flood), before humans, or is caused by other species. Human activity is a mere punch to the gut of a man who was bombed when it comes to climate change.

What's wrong with you?

While a slight exaggeration, I'm showing what the average person believes. Most don't believe that climate change has occurred more over the last fifty years than the billions of years before. While incorrect technically, it doesn't sound unreasonably to most non-Creationists.

Other Species caused climate change...? I think I need to go talk to my dog about her polluting.

Our atmosphere is believed to have been formed mostly through photosynthesis, so certainly I'd think other species can have an impact on the climate.

[dead0man]

Indeed, cow farts are huge.

While a slight exaggeration, I'm showing what the average person believes. Most don't believe that climate change has occurred more over the last fifty years than the billions of years before. While incorrect technically, it doesn't sound unreasonably to most non-Creationists.

I'm a little confused.  Are you suggesting most people that believe in climate change think the climate has changed more in the last 50 years than in the billions before that?  I know they like to swallow whatever tragedy somebody throws at them, but that seems a little silly even for the "true believers".

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Along with over half of people thinking its very serious or somewhat serious. I think at this point whether or not the majority of us believe it is man-made, the majority do believe its pretty serious and that the government should do what it can to stop it. Since we know why the earth is warming and how to mitigate this issue (at least somewhat), then we should try to do that instead of arguing about origins.

After all, does it matter why, say, a car is hurtling towards you at 100mph? If you don't get out of the way, it's going to kill you.

[Seneca]

Seeing as we're almost certain to pass the point of no return for runaway climate change in the near future--unless of course civilization collapses in the next decade, bringing carbon emissions back down near 0--I find it hard to get worked up at the average ignoramus on this issue. There's nothing we could do to prevent catastrophic climate change at this point even if everyone understood our fossil fuel civilization was the root cause of climate change, nothing politically palpable anyway. Even your stereotypical left-coast greenies are unwilling to give up their SUV's or go vegan.

And, of course, every emissions cut made in the West can be more than made up for in Asia and Africa. It's out of our hands, so why not be a fool? Ignorance, after all, is bliss.

[DemPGH]

Scientific illiteracy, but it's surprising the number of people who just aren't interested in science or empiricism. I mean there's so much on an American bookshelf that has to do with science written for laymen by scientists that these kinds of attitudes are disappointing. They'd rather believe their own fiction, and I bet this correlates to the high number of people who believe the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, or that Planet X exists, or that doomsday is coming, or whatever.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

But they still support actions to combat climate change anyway:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link

 

So it sounds like your leftist party leaders' talking points are only working on people like you.  Better luck from here on out!

[Frodo]

But they still support actions to combat climate change anyway:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link

 

So it sounds like your leftist party leaders' talking points are only working on people like you.  Better luck from here on out!

I actually don't subscribe to the hysteria surrounding this issue, but thanks for pretending like you know me better than I know myself.  Over the years I have been here, I have gotten plenty of flak from my friends on the left for not seeing the world the way they do (ask them if you don't believe me), so it's amusing to hear some right-wing newbie like yourself accuse me of being exactly that.

You're still wet behind the ears, though, so I suppose I shouldn't expect you to be aware of my history here.    

[Free Bird]

Yeah, because it's mostly nature. People are certainly not helping, but saying it's all industrial humans ignores history and nature.

[SATW]

Yeah, because it's mostly nature. People are certainly not helping, but saying it's all industrial humans ignores history and nature.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

But they still support actions to combat climate change anyway:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link

 

So it sounds like your leftist party leaders' talking points are only working on people like you.  Better luck from here on out!

I actually don't subscribe to the hysteria surrounding this issue, but thanks for pretending like you know me better than I know myself.  Over the years I have been here, I have gotten plenty of flak from my friends on the left for not seeing the world the way they do (ask them if you don't believe me), so it's amusing to hear some right-wing newbie like yourself accuse me of being exactly that.

You're still wet behind the ears, though, so I suppose I shouldn't expect you to be aware of my history here.    

I apologize then Frodo.  While I do agree that there are many climate problems, we'll never know if we're to blame.  Even if we are does anyone out there really want to face that they are to blame and change their lifestyle?  People are hypocrites when push comes to shove.  They want everyone else to change so they don't have to.  As for the environment all we can do is watch our consumption and pollution.  To say if you don't vote Democrat, then we'll have bad weather is a word I'm not going to reduce myself to saying.  Unfortunately Frodo many people in your party are trying to spread such nonsense such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  If I misunderstood you then again I do apologize.  It sounds like you're looking more into the issue than most people.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Along with over half of people thinking its very serious or somewhat serious. I think at this point whether or not the majority of us believe it is man-made, the majority do believe its pretty serious and that the government should do what it can to stop it. Since we know why the earth is warming and how to mitigate this issue (at least somewhat), then we should try to do that instead of arguing about origins.

After all, does it matter why, say, a car is hurtling towards you at 100mph? If you don't get out of the way, it's going to kill you.

This analogy doesn't make much sense to me.  "We don't all agree that humans are responsible, but we should all agree that we should try to stop it."  OK, but if the deniers don't think humans are responsible, then that means that they don't think humans putting CO2 in the atmosphere makes much difference.  So then why would they agree that reducing CO2 emissions will change anything?  If you don't think humans are the cause of climate change, then you won't think the proposed fixes will really do anything.

[Virginiá]

If you don't think humans are the cause of climate change, then you won't think the proposed fixes will really do anything.

Not necessarily. The reason I posted that poll result was to show that people who may disagree on the source still want the government to do something about it. We are spending so much time disagreeing on the source. We've heard it all in the past decade: "Man couldn't possibly have that effect on God's Earth", or "Earth always has periods of climate change, it's the Earth not us!", and so on.

The theocratic view on this may be hard to work with, but for those who believe its happening regardless, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on solutions. We know why the planet is heating up, and we have pretty good ideas on what our future is like with rampant select greenhouse gas emissions and we also have ideas for this. Reducing our own emissions is a big part, but based on the progress so far, it may be necessary one day (depending on how things play out on this issue in the coming decades) to literally filter these gases out, which would be a multi-trillion dollar long-term effort. If someone doesn't believe in us causing this, then this solution may be the most logical to them.

Just because some may think we didn't start this does not mean we don't need to (or can't) fix it. This is why I mentioned the car stuff. It's happening - It may or may not be our fault, but if we don't stop/slow it way down, we are going to experience massive trouble in the future.

[Mr. Morden]

If you don't think humans are the cause of climate change, then you won't think the proposed fixes will really do anything.

Not necessarily. The reason I posted that poll result was to show that people who may disagree on the source still want the government to do something about it. We are spending so much time disagreeing on the source. We've heard it all in the past decade: "Man couldn't possibly have that effect on God's Earth", or "Earth always has periods of climate change, it's the Earth not us!", and so on.

The theocratic view on this may be hard to work with, but for those who believe its happening regardless, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on solutions. We know why the planet is heating up, and we have pretty good ideas on what our future is like with rampant select greenhouse gas emissions and we also have ideas for this. Reducing our own emissions is a big part, but based on the progress so far, it may be necessary one day (depending on how things play out on this issue in the coming decades) to literally filter these gases out, which would be a multi-trillion dollar long-term effort. If someone doesn't believe in us causing this, then this solution may be the most logical to them.

Just because some may think we didn't start this does not mean we don't need to (or can't) fix it. This is why I mentioned the car stuff. It's happening - It may or may not be our fault, but if we don't stop/slow it way down, we are going to experience massive trouble in the future.

The car analogy doesn't hold.  It's like I say "This car is being powered by gasoline, so let's remove its gas tank, and it'll stop hurtling towards us."  If someone else doesn't believe that it's powered by gasoline, then they're not going to think that proposed solution will do anything.

The main solution to climate change on the policy agenda is reducing man-made carbon emissions.  For people who don't believe that man-made carbon emissions are warming the planet, why would they think this would make any difference?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Along with over half of people thinking its very serious or somewhat serious. I think at this point whether or not the majority of us believe it is man-made, the majority do believe its pretty serious and that the government should do what it can to stop it. Since we know why the earth is warming and how to mitigate this issue (at least somewhat), then we should try to do that instead of arguing about origins.

After all, does it matter why, say, a car is hurtling towards you at 100mph? If you don't get out of the way, it's going to kill you.

This analogy doesn't make much sense to me.  "We don't all agree that humans are responsible, but we should all agree that we should try to stop it."  OK, but if the deniers don't think humans are responsible, then that means that they don't think humans putting CO2 in the atmosphere makes much difference.  So then why would they agree that reducing CO2 emissions will change anything?  If you don't think humans are the cause of climate change, then you won't think the proposed fixes will really do anything.

The word "mainly" is in play in the question. There is also an uncertainty factor. So given those two items, it makes it possible to square the circle as to public policy. Humans are more likely than not, not mainly responsible, but are probably a factor, and we are not sure really as to who is doing what to whom when, so to the extent economically practicable, caution would suggest that something be attempted. That to me that is a reasonable and logical position for one to take if they believe the above.

[Virginiá]

If someone else doesn't believe that it's powered by gasoline, then they're not going to think that proposed solution will do anything.

The main solution to climate change on the policy agenda is reducing man-made carbon emissions.  For people who don't believe that man-made carbon emissions are warming the planet, why would they think this would make any difference?

I think you are still missing what I am saying, though. We have 2 solutions. We can reduce our own emissions, as many believe is the cause, or for those who believe the planet is warming but it's not us, we can quite literally suck the gases responsible for this out of the atmosphere until it is back at a manageable level. Both could work and both are expensive (though the latter option would be way more expensive and the technology I don't think exists yet to do it on that scale).

Solution #1 is only valid for those who believe we are doing it, while solution #2 is valid for both sides of the argument. If most of us can agree that steadily-increasing amounts of CO2/methane/etc are warming the planet up, then the objective should be to lower that amount and there are more than one option for that, as I stated.

[afleitch]

They need to see Climate Change's birth certificate.

[Seneca]

If someone else doesn't believe that it's powered by gasoline, then they're not going to think that proposed solution will do anything.

The main solution to climate change on the policy agenda is reducing man-made carbon emissions.  For people who don't believe that man-made carbon emissions are warming the planet, why would they think this would make any difference?

I think you are still missing what I am saying, though. We have 2 solutions. We can reduce our own emissions, as many believe is the cause, or for those who believe the planet is warming but it's not us, we can quite literally suck the gases responsible for this out of the atmosphere until it is back at a manageable level. Both could work and both are expensive (though the latter option would be way more expensive and the technology I don't think exists yet to do it on that scale).

Solution #1 is only valid for those who believe we are doing it, while solution #2 is valid for both sides of the argument. If most of us can agree that steadily-increasing amounts of CO2/methane/etc are warming the planet up, then the objective should be to lower that amount and there are more than one option for that, as I stated.

Carbon capture technology, what you're presumably referring to with "Solution 2," does not exist on a scale that could matter. There are real engineering challenges to the idea which prevent it from being a real fix. Nonetheless the IPCC, always bending to politics, included carbon sequestration in most of its Y2100 projections. As it stands, sequestration is a fantasy, a deus ex machina that people who don't want to take responsibility for their emissions are praying will save them before our biosphere experiences a civilization-crushing state shift.

Keep dreaming.

[Virginiá]

Carbon capture technology, what you're presumably referring to with "Solution 2," does not exist on a scale that could matter. There are real engineering challenges to the idea which prevent it from being a real fix. Nonetheless the IPCC, always bending to politics, included carbon sequestration in most of its Y2100 projections. As it stands, sequestration is a fantasy, a deus ex machina that people who don't want to take responsibility for their emissions are praying will save them before our biosphere experiences a civilization-crushing state shift.

Keep dreaming.

Right, well I personally prefer us just severely cutting down emissions, but I wanted to mention that because decades into the future it might be possible. I didn't mean to imply that it could be done tomorrow, but I also am not aware of what kind of possibilities we could theoretically buy in the short-term. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the obstructionists give (or are replaced) and we start to make progress.

Also, I don't really buy into timelines for most technology. People have been consistently wrong in trying to predict the state of technology into the future and the way things have been accelerating, I see no reason why such predictions wouldn't be even worse now. If you throw the eventual arrival of AGI into the mix, then it becomes even more difficult. However, as I said, I personally believe it would be better to just focus on our own emissions for now instead of relying on undeveloped technology to save us.

[Seneca]

Carbon capture technology, what you're presumably referring to with "Solution 2," does not exist on a scale that could matter. There are real engineering challenges to the idea which prevent it from being a real fix. Nonetheless the IPCC, always bending to politics, included carbon sequestration in most of its Y2100 projections. As it stands, sequestration is a fantasy, a deus ex machina that people who don't want to take responsibility for their emissions are praying will save them before our biosphere experiences a civilization-crushing state shift.

Keep dreaming.

Right, well I personally prefer us just severely cutting down emissions, but I wanted to mention that because decades into the future it might be possible. I didn't mean to imply that it could be done tomorrow, but I also am not aware of what kind of possibilities we could theoretically buy in the short-term. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the obstructionists give (or are replaced) and we start to make progress.

Also, I don't really buy into timelines for most technology. People have been consistently wrong in trying to predict the state of technology into the future and the way things have been accelerating, I see no reason why such predictions wouldn't be even worse now. If you throw the eventual arrival of AGI into the mix, then it becomes even more difficult. However, as I said, I personally believe it would be better to just focus on our own emissions for now instead of relying on undeveloped technology to save us.

I hope you're right in regards to denialism being past its zenith. I am not at all optimistic about the potential for technology to save us. If anything, it feels as though technological innovation is slowing down. I struggle to think of recent innovations not directly linked to the microprocessor revolution; even that seems to be petering out. Remember nuclear fusion, meant to power the year 2000? That's still 50 years away. Meanwhile, the world continues clear-cutting its forests and burning hydrocarbons at ever increasing rates. How much time do we really have to wait for some technological antidote to develop? We're nearly 1C above the preindustrial global climate average already. We're just a few short years away from an Arctic ocean entirely ice-free in the summer. Frankly, I doubt a concerted global effort to reduce CO2 emissions could succeed in reversing climate change at this point. There are simply too many of us.