Gallup: Americans less likely to view climate change as threat

By | August 26, 2011, 5:58am PDT

Summary: Although a slight majority of U.S. residents still believe global warming is a serious personal concern, fewer are willing to admit that humans are at least partially responsible.

Oh goody, a new Gallup poll for the politicians to play with over the weekend! The research organization is reporting that residents are really no more or less aware about climate change during 2010 than they were several years before, in 2007 and 2008.

In the United States, for example, the number of people say they know a great deal about global warming or climate change is off 1 percent to 96 percent. What is off significantly, however, is both the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is a serious treat and the number of people who think that it comes from human causes or both human and natural causes.

You’ll see that a majority of Americans do believe that global warming, outside of the cause, is a serious threat: 55 percent of the people surveyed in 2010 held that opinion, although that was off 9 percent from the previous polling period. We seem to be stalemated now as to whether humans have anything to do with global warming. Approximately 50 percent of the Gallup respondents held that view, off 11 percent from 2007-2008.

The Gallup data is drawn from different sets of data in the Top Five greenhouse gas-emitting countries. There were 1,005 interviews in the United States, 1,000 interviews in Japan, 4,151 interviews in China, 6,000 interviews in India and 4,000 interviews in Russia. The interviews took place late in 2010. The margin of error ranges from + o - 1.7 percentage points to + or - 3.9 percentage points.

None of these five countries are expected to adopt or embrace climate policies or come to any kind of deal about climate action before the Kyoto Protocol expires next year in 2012.

The citizens of Japan are more likely than U.S. citizens to be concerned about global warming: 77 percent view it as a serious personal threat and 88 percent believe it is at least partially due to human factors. These people were surveyed before the March tsunami.

The views of Russians were gathered at two different times in 2010: after the record heat wave there last summer, more of them were likely to see global warming as a serious threat (about the same number as Americans).

Far fewer Chinese survey respondents were aware of climate change or global warming, only about 65 percent. The ones who ARE aware of it see humans as being responsible: about 75 percent attribute global warming at least in part to human factors. BUT only 32 percent of the respondents see it as a personal threat.

The Indian survey respondents had the lowest awareness about climate change: Only 37 percent of the adults surveyed knew anything about it. Among those who were aware of the phenomenon, 83 percent believe it is a serious threat and 74 percent believe that global warming results from human causes/both human and natural causes.

Noted Gallup in its analysis:

“Residents in these countries may not necessarily agree about the severity of the risk or who is to blame, but previous Gallup surveys show they agree that developed and emerging nations should reduce emissions at the same time, rather than wait for one group to cut them first.”

We’ll see how this data plays out over the weekend, as the climate deniers will likely have a field day. Oh, wait, my electricity will be probably be out in New Jersey because of another extreme weather event (aka Hurricane Irene), so I will probably miss it.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Heather Clancy is an award-winning business journalist with a passion for green technology and corporate sustainability issues.

Disclosure

Heather Clancy

Writing publicly about what the high-tech industry is actually doing to help itself and the world get greener or more sustainable is one way I figure I can contribute more meaningfully to said effort. I am also a big OMG-kind-of-fan of smart leadership, which is why the goodly folks who publish this blog let me go on about this topic and why I am always on the hunt for forward-looking business management ideas.

My daily writing is focused on looking for topics for my blogs, GreenTech Pastures and Business Brains. I also write often about emerging technology trends such as mobile computing, unified communications and cloud computing. Occasionally, I will pop up at an industry conference in some sort of speaking capacity. In cases where a speaking engagement involves a sponsor that may be covered in this blog, that fact will be disclosed in coverage as appropriate.

My corporate writing work usually consists of crafting research white papers about some aspect of technology. In the event that my commentary (in written, audio or video form) mentions a company for which I have provided consulting advice, I will disclose that fact. However, there is no connection between these projects and the topics that I am covering in my blog.

Biography

Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy is an award-winning business journalist with a passion for green technology and corporate sustainability issues. Her articles have appeared in Entrepreneur, Fortune Small Business, The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times. In a past corporate life, Heather was editor of Computer Reseller News, where she was a featured speaker about everything from software as a service to IT security to mobile computing.

Heather started her journalism life as a business writer with United Press International in New York. She holds a B.A. in English literature from McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, and has a thing for Lewis Carroll.

49
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

czkonpa 76 tih
chomeioy2801-24379056454449388300146390468544 25th Nov
zctisf,stxlznhp77, qtcrj.
We are part of the problem, but it doesn't matter. We can't do without most of the things that produce greenhouse gases, and even assuming human civilization was sent back to the stone age tomorrow, everybody would be long dead before those gases left our atmosphere. Green technology will never be enough. We need an active system that can collect those greenhouse gases and jettison them into space, or something similar.
@Aerowind
LOL, so you are of the type that thinks carbon dioxide is so bad and will kill us all. Funny, but the plants love it. Funny, but we produce it with our own bodies. Funny, but the earth actually releases the heat more than the alarmists claim. Its not me saying this but NASA and their actual satellite data. Read for yourself: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/
@OhTheHumanity
Your response about plants and our bodies [photosynthesis and respiration respectively] shows your complete ignorance of this topic. Your are probably one of the 96% of Americans that consider themselves to know a great deal about global climate change/warming. You know next to nothing about the topic and believe only those who tell you what you want to hear.
@OhTheHumanity
Well I do do a quite bit of reading around the subject from scientists who are studying it with an open mind and not being funded by buddies of global warming. So I guess you didn't read the article I take it. Thats NASA saying this and not my dumb idiot self. So now I have another one for you to enjoy from CERN. Some of the top scientists in the world work here so maybe they are just dumb stupid idiots too, but they have a alot more tools to work with than I do, so lets see what they have to say(please read if you can stomach the facts): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
@OhTheHumanity Yup Carbon Dioxide is good, so good in fact that you shouldn't waste it. I recommend you get a plastic bag and put it over your head so as to not get rid of the natural amount you produce in your own body. After all it's natural and therefore must be healthy and good for you right? After all the plants love the hell out of it, maybe you should put a fern under that plastic bag with you.

All that article says is that the atmosphere bleeds off more heat than originally thought, not that the impact of our carbon emissions is a non issue. So we might not be trapping as much heat as we originally thought, we're still pumping carbon monoxide into the atmosphere amongst other toxic pollutants that we regularly dump into the soil and water. I suppose though that oil spills and fertilizer run off into places like the Salton Sea should be discounted because oil is natural right? It comes from the planet and therefore cannot be a pollutant. Same with fertilizers. A lot of it is based on nitrogen compounds and urea. Our bodies are chock full of nitrogen and urea therefore it must be ok? The whole,"We produce it, it's natural." argument does not hold water in the face of the measurable and harmful environmental changes wrought by humanity. Carbon dioxide may not be as huge a factor as once thought but, it is still a factor. Even a rise of a tenth of a degree is enough to set the interconnected workings of the global climate off kilter. It isn't like each factor of the environment stands alone. So the atmosphere holds less heat, couple that with the expansion of urban sprawl, the loss of forests and vegetation as a natural heat sink and you get problems. The loss of the ice caps similarly produces problems since there is less sunlight reflected and more solar energy absorbed, also raising the heat. Like any thermal dissipator the atmosphere does have a limit into how much heat it can bleed off into space at once. If we keep on hamstringing the planets heat management mechanisms the atmosphere, carbon laden or not, is going to have a hard time keeping up. Yes there is a climate cycle which has been happening for thousands of years but, for the first time in thousands of years we have radically altered the face of our planet.
@Str0b0
Its funny seeing people get their ******* in a wad and ask others to exterminate themselves. Wow, not sure what kind of hostile family you grew up in with your hate. Or was it a cult, probably a cult. How about you stick to the topic. Global warming is about carbon dioxide so lets not get all mixed up with all your other rants. I understand many of them and as I tell everyone I am more worried about particulates in the air than the earth blowing up in a fireball from global warming. Its a farse and fear factor that is being used and you are too dim to understand that. I am not about polluting things, I just like to be clear with what we are talking about here. I can tell you didn't like my links and its quite evident. Its your opinion so your welcome to it, but if you fail to ignore science you are probably a narcassist. You are probably also of the notion that the earth is stable and has and always will be. I can tell you where I am sitting today has seen many glaciers over the earth history, not just one but many upon many. Its almost 90 degrees out today so wow, if I put my head to work I can tell you that the earth is not as stable as you wish it was. And please don't confuse global warming with fertilizers and oil pollution, thats another story for another day and I agree its not good. Have a nice day cult man!
@Str0bo
Here is another one that you can read thats on topic and can help you weed through what my point is. I bet you won't read it though because you may explode: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
Poor deluded people.
First the Arrhenius 1896 paper that concluded that More CO2 means more warming is proven wrong every night as Mother Bature cools half the planet in spite of Man adding more CO2. Then the computer model assumes that only the CO2 & water vapor added by man undergoes warming, whie the vaste majority does not. Finally they completely ignore that gravity adds warming energy for example by the moon causing tidal energy AND we are expected to believe this garbage science for an entirely natural cyclic phenomenon that has been happening forever?
@JDoddsGW
Before you submit that thesis to the scientific journals, be sure to run spellchecker.
@Reality-based Yes, the holy scriptures of the science journals. THE END IS NEAR!!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
... global warming camp, is that they spend almost all of their resources, trying to make credible, the political agenda that current variations in global temperature are manmade - rather trying to figure out the major drivers of variations in climate. The implication of the term Climate Change, is that our climate is undergoing change, which is unusual. This is absolute rubbish, as our climate changes just like the weather - it just does so over larger periods of time. So much historical data show that variations in CO2 do not drive global temperature changes - but rather the reverse is true - that you have to watch in bewilderment as these guys feverishly play sleight of hand with available data, trying to justify the political cause of their benefactors.

Anthropogenic global warming research is not credible, because it is bent on justifying a political cause, and has a history of manipulating data to justify this political cause. The public is right in being skeptical about it.
@P. Douglas

"Anthropogenic global warming research is not credible, because it is bent on justifying a political cause,"

No, not it doesn't

"and has a history of manipulating data to justify this political cause"

Again, no, no it does not. Global Warming Deniers follow the well-worn traditions of Creationists and engage in quote mining: taking a statement out of context, shortening a quote, and making it sound like the scientists are saying one thing instead of what they actually meant.
@facebook@... Well even the models (used by global warming claimers) for how much CO2 leaks out into space from our atmosphere are wrong it actually leaks out at a higher rate so their predictions are not accurate
@mrlinux

Lindzen keeps throwing out models that refute the scientific concensus. However, they are repeatedly debunked. Same is true with this CO2 into space study of his.
0 Votes
+ -
Says you
Robert Hahn 26th Aug
Proof by repeated assertion is generally ineffective. Guilt by association is even worse. I'm sorry that your political crusade is failing to persuade, but that's the way it goes. What's certain is that name-calling and appeals to questionable authority will not improve your situation.
@facebook@... There are more than just his studies, and his was not the one I was pointing out.
@P. Douglas
Are you saying climate change deniers don't have a political agenda?
0 Votes
+ -
As a skeptic, what I'm saying is ...
P. Douglas Updated - 26th Aug
@carlson1@...,

... don't tell me that my way of life is destroying the earth, and that I must hand over my personal liberties to you guys, so that you can save from myself. Show me first compelling evidence, that modern society is destroying the planet, then we can discuss what to do about it, in a highly democratized fashion, with robust checks and balances between concerned organizations. The problem is that I've seen data where CO2 levels have been many times the current level - millions of years ago - having no observable effects on climate temperature. Also I've seen data which shows that below our current level, whatever greenhouse effect CO2 may have, tapers off. Also it is a tall order to say, that one of the least abundant of greenhouse gasses, has an enormously disproportionate effect on climate - without any evidence. Then there is the problem of surface temperatures taken outside of urban areas, showing no increase over the years. Alarmists were predicting that our past winter would be mild. It turned out that we had the harshest winter in decades.

You guys present no compelling evidence, and show no ability to predict simple variations in climate, and we should turn the world upside down for you? Please!
@p.Douglas
Why would you ignore 90% of scientists who support that climate change is caused by human activity? CO2 levels are highest in 300,000 years and the trend accelerated in the last 50 years. In geological time that is a fraction of a second. CO2 levels must be brought down, we owe it to our descendants. In the last 200 years we burned most of the fossil fuels on our planet, which took 100 million years to form.

If you think that is smart and sustainable, you are a fool...
0 Votes
+ -
CO2
mememine69 26th Aug
Climate Change isn't sustainability or environmentalism or pollution or little kids planting trees. It is a comet hit of an emergency called climate crisis. You can?t have a ?little? climate crisis. NOTHING could possibly be worse than a climate crisis and there are countless thousands of scientists saying this is all true in countless thousands of different ways. Every consensus scientist and scientific organizations each have a different prediction ranging from the effects being negligible to unstoppable warming. Climate Change was a license to exaggerate and was a lab coat consultant?s w&t-dream because studying the effects of something that hasn?t happened yet isn?t a crime. It?s called studying a worst case scenario and thankfully a tragic exaggeration. Look around you. Oh I see the changes all right. London Ontario hasn?t had a smog day in over 5 years, only alerts that are just predictions, not measurements of pollution. We defeated the smoggy 70?s and now we enjoy all the protections, standards and laws that Rachel Carson?s revolution brought us. She would be ashamed too of our fear for Nature instead of our LOVE for Nature.
Twenty Five Years of climate crisis warnings says that the consensus climate change scientists exploited and legally exaggerated the effects of CO2. And if this crisis were true, we would have seen these countless thousands of consensus scientists marching in the streets and acting like it?s the emergency they say it is.
As someone once remarked to me on a similar issue, so many people do not appear to have had a basic high school science education.
Remember, half of all Americans have below average intelligence.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, but...
itpro_z 26th Aug
...the other half has above average intelligence!
@itpro_z Which half do you think fell for the argument that has zero proof? It must be the upper half...right? Or perhaps it is the ones who believe they know better than all the others...that would be liberals and others who refuse to take any personal responsibility for anything and expect everyone else to pay for their "belief" system.
0 Votes
+ -
Pro
Man Made Climate Change
ivank2139 26th Aug
What if we decided what we wanted the climate to be like and then worked toward making it so?

Admit it, climate change is real, it has always been changing. What we really want is to make it more amenable to human civilization. If we could reduce the variations in rainfall and temperatures so as to maximize the benefits to humans that would be a step in the right direction. And we want a cleaner environment overall.

So lets figure out how to manipulate the climate so as to benefit human civilization.
0 Votes
+ -
The ideal climate... all the time
Robert Hahn 26th Aug
Think globally, but act locally. Move to San Diego.
0 Votes
+ -
Of course...
Silex 26th Aug
When many people don't know if they'll lose their houses and even if they'll have something on the table to feed the family, they tend to care about immediate threats. But that doesn't mean that climate change, along with a stratospheric debt, are legacies we'll be proud to leave to our kids. And that doesn't make it less of an imminent danger either, you can talk to the eskimos about that. Maybe if you live downtown L.A., except for more violent storms and droughts you may not feel that changes are already under way. But those who live in the north already have a good preview of what those in more southern regions will have to deal with pretty soon.
Climate Change isn't sustainability or environmentalism or pollution or little kids planting trees. It is a 25 year old comet hit of an emergency called climate crisis from Human CO2. You can?t have a ?little? climate crisis. NOTHING could possibly be worse than a climate crisis and there are countless thousands of scientists apparently saying this is all true in countless thousands of different ways. Every consensus scientist and scientific organization each have a different prediction of their very own, ranging from the effects being negligible to unstoppable warming. Climate Change was a license to exaggerate and was a lab coat consultant?s w&t-dream because studying the effects of something that hasn?t happened yet isn?t a crime. It?s called studying a worst case scenario and thankfully a tragic exaggeration. Look around you. Oh I see the changes all right. London Ontario hasn?t had a smog day in over 5 years, only alerts that are just predictions, not measurements of pollution. We defeated the smoggy 70?s and now we enjoy all the protections, standards and laws that Rachel Carson?s revolution brought us. She would be ashamed too of our fear for Nature instead of our LOVE for Nature.
Twenty Five Years of climate crisis warnings says that the consensus climate change scientists exploited and legally exaggerated the effects of Human CO2. And if this crisis were true, we would have seen these countless thousands of consensus scientists marching in the streets and acting like it?s the emergency they say it is.
"You?ll see that a majority of Americans do believe that global warming, outside of the cause, is a serious threat: 55 percent of the people surveyed in 2010 held that opinion"

This only proves that enough lies can be told to fool 55% of the country. Sheesh, wake up people....its a scam of the highest level!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Even the theory of "greenhouse gases" is just that, a theory. There is ZERO proof of the concept and substantial number measurable elements that indicate that there is little to no effect that the greenhouse gases actually increase the temperature.

Even the scientists who support the theory have been self-censoring their work as it tends to disprove the theory rather than prove it.

When I read statements that global warming deniers are like other religious nuts I am amused. If those who actually believe the Al Gore view would stop believing it as gospel they might try looking for facts that can support the theory rather than attack non-believers.

In essence, global warming has become a religion and many of the "believers" refuse to even consider the theory might be wrong.

I am open to any possibility and when evidence is provided either way I will consider it. Falsified studies, cheery picked data points and outright lies do not help the cause of global warming alarmists. Like many concepts that seem to be so righteous I am always amused that the believers have to resort to lies, threats and even attacks on those who do not see the "evidence" or lack of evidence as compelling.

Their strongest defense is to tell nay-sayers to use a spellchecker. Don't try to show any real evidence that would help me see your position as valid. Keep saying that CO2 is the problem when even Al Gore's data shows CO2 is the result of global warming and not the cause.

As I said, I am open to the possibility but please show some evidence.
0 Votes
+ -
Even the theory of "greenhouse gases" is just that, a theory. There is ZERO proof of the concept and substantial number measurable elements that indicate that there is little to no effect that the greenhouse gases actually increase the temperature.

Even the scientists who support the theory have been self-censoring their work as it tends to disprove the theory rather than prove it.

When I read statements that global warming deniers are like other religious nuts I am amused. If those who actually believe the Al Gore view would stop believing it as gospel they might try looking for facts that can support the theory rather than attack non-believers.

In essence, global warming has become a religion and many of the "believers" refuse to even consider the theory might be wrong.

I am open to any possibility and when evidence is provided either way I will consider it. Falsified studies, cheery picked data points and outright lies do not help the cause of global warming alarmists. Like many concepts that seem to be so righteous I am always amused that the believers have to resort to lies, threats and even attacks on those who do not see the "evidence" or lack of evidence as compelling.

Their strongest defense is to tell nay-sayers to use a spellchecker. Don't try to show any real evidence that would help me see your position as valid. Keep saying that CO2 is the problem when even Al Gore's data shows CO2 is the result of global warming and not the cause.

As I said, I am open to the possibility but please show some evidence.

I am surprised that this post has been banned once already. Are you global warming alarmists so afraid of the truth that you must censor opposing views.
Regardless of political views, whether caused by man, only influenced by man, or purely a cyclic phenomenon, it would appear that we are in a cycle of climate change. Now what do we do to survive? I am not claiming doomsday effects from climate change alone, but also the rabid consumerism of the West that is gobbling up a wildly disproportionate share of Earth's resources, growing populations, the fact that I am tied to so many other countries for clothing, labor, and other things that are a part of my lifestyle. We have some real work to do and too many are simply consumed by their political posture.
The worst form of pollution is poverty! Ultimately global warming is a political question and only secondarily a scientific question! Only wealthy nations can afford to deal with pollution.

Global warming caused by man is not proven science. One wonders how many theories of global cooling would have been put forth if the federal government had offered grants to prove it?

Passing Cap & Trade will increase the cost of energy to all Americans, discourage the creation of new jobs and cause more jobs to be exported. No such legislation should be considered while 10% of Americans are unemployed!

China is producing less than 1% of their energy needs from clean sources and is fully utilizing its own coal and natural gas.

Instead of competing with China, India and Japan for dwindling OPEC oil supplies let?s keep the energy related jobs and money in America. America has 1/4th the coal on planet Earth and 200 years worth of natural gas. Cars and trucks can easily be converted to burn it and the conversion will produce American jobs.

Declaring energy independence would eliminate the need to spend billions on foreign wars in the Middle East and stop the annual 640 billion trade deficit with OPEC countries.

The legislature is elected to do the will of the people and they should reign in the federal regulatory agencies and defund said agencies public relations budgets. Citizens who disagree with the policies of these agencies should not have to fund or compete against self serving drivel!
@Repeal
Cap and Trade will make renewable energy more attractive and eventually alternate / renewable energy will be cheaper than current fossil fuels. That is the logical way to go, not to burn more fossil fuel and destroy our planet...
I lived in Alaska since 1985 and have seen the rapid recession of our glaciers first hand. It's a sobering experience to walk up to a glacier like Exit Glacier near Seward and on the way pass a spot you were at just 10 years prior that was buried under 30 feet of ice and is now ice free. Regardless if man-made or natural, the earth appears to be in a rapid warming cycle. At the very least, study needs to be done to determine the consequences that this warming will do. Of course, it's easier to sit around and indulge in endless political shenanigans and do nothing
At the very least, study needs to be done to determine the consequences that this warming will do. There's a certain lack of humility before Nature in all of this, as if we humans are smart enough to be meddling with the climate system of an inhabited planet.

What reason is there to believe that the results of such a study could be trusted? We're already at the point where tenured professors and government scientists are willing to posit attacks from space aliens in their zeal to promote the AGW hypothesis. When we're already at "We're all gonna die!" what use is there for another study?

And then there's the little matter of whether we would really know what we were doing if we tried to "fix" it. Do we? Are you confident that humans understand the global climate system well enough to start deliberately altering the balance of the various gases in the atmosphere? What if there are already natural forces at work (sometimes referred to as "plants") to ameliorate any effects of human-caused CO2 emissions? What will be the effects of our interfering with that, or over-correcting it?

My point is, we don't know enough about any of this stuff to even be certain that the AGW hypothesis is correct, let alone to start making policy choices concerning what to do about it. We're as likely to kill all life on Earth from trying to do good as we are from continuing to use fossil fuels for the next 50 or so years.
0 Votes
+ -
Ok Robert...
prof123 29th Aug
I will ignore 90% of scientists, the Academy of Science, Nobel prize winners, and others. I will place my faith in Robert Hahn, amateur scientist, because he read it on the internet...
0 Votes
+ -
Question
spdragoo@... 26th Aug
If their climate models are so precise that they can "conclusively" show that global warming will melt the polar ice caps & cause massive flooding of worldwide coastlines... but they can't predict the daily high/low temperature without being off by a few degrees either way, can't even say conclusively that it will/will not rain over the next 24-hour period -- not to mention be more than "mostly" on with the storm's actaul path -- not to mention *still* being unable to predict exactly when or where tornadoes & other violent storms will occur.

If the prediction models & algorithms are so complex that they can't give more than a "high probability guess" over a 24- to 72-hour period, how can we expect them to be more precise about global warming? The same factors (air temperature, wind currents, ocean & river temperatures & levels, cloud coverage, El Nino/La Nina effects, etc. -- not to mention the *biggest* item that affects weather & temperature on Earth, Mister Sun) that would contribute to and be affected by "global warming" affect the daily weather, after all -- in fact, modeling long-term effects like global warming would be *much* harder (a lot more variables to process).

Which could explain why people are somewhat skeptical of "global warming" still...
@spdragoo@...
High probability is good enough for me. CO2 levels are highest in 300,000 years and it happened over the last 50 years...
Really funny to see people puting their faith into statistical climate models without even knowing what "representative sample" is as a definition...
The fact that the only statistician (as a "mathematical statistics", hard science) in this debate argues against manmade global warning - says a lot.
0 Votes
+ -
The Planet Lover Test:
mememine69 26th Aug
Catastrophic climate crisis, acidified oceans, unstoppable warming, flooding, drought, famine???????.
I will respect you as a climate change crisis believer if you admit that the above as stated by your Gods of science is the END OF THE WORLD as we know it. Gore has said it and the UN has said it and the entire scientific community ?apparently? has said it.
Now are YOU willing to say THIS IS THE END?! If you are not willing to call climate crisis the end of life as we know it, it?s all just hot air.
This seems strange since the number of extreme climate disasters increase.

An ice free arctic- now likely before 2020 will add to our increasingly unstable weather.

Americans sadly are going to have to learn the hard way. They have been seduced by misinformation by very powerful special interests- and do not understand the science. That science will come back and hit them in the face with something they never imagined.
Americans will find that this complacent attitude will eventually (sooner then later) come back and hit them in the face with a force they never imagined.
What is the optimal global temperature average?

During what time period was the earth at the optimal temperature?

If the earth gets warmer, than the vast frozen wastes of Siberia and northern Canada would open of for greater farming, increasing the world's food supply.

Much of the northern United States used to be covered by glaciers; they didn't disappear in the last 20 years, but rather they receded long ago. The earth has been warming since then.
Except those with a predisposition toward being gullible, Americans have traditionally and increasingly as of late, been more cautious about being mislead by hype in the form of science. Europeans are more comfortable believing what they are told by authorities.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh Blinding Light
Robert Hahn Updated - 27th Aug
It does seem that the political left spawns a new reason why "We're all gonna die" every twenty years or so, and the cure always seems to be to don sackcloth and ashes and adopt an Amish lifestyle. It's all a little too reminiscent of Calvinist religion, as if those who claim to have 'moved beyond' religion still need it in their lives and so construct one -- complete with sins, penances, and now even indulgences ("carbon credits") -- with which to berate their fellow citizens into living The Virtuous Life (without electricity, automobiles, etc.).

From Paul Erlich's population bomb to the Peak Oil nuts who told us in the 1970's that we'd run out of oil by 1990, to today's "Give Up Your Automobile and Electricity or We're All Gonna Die" Climate Change fanatics, it's just one bunch of Doom-and-Gloom End of the World prophecies after another. And the whole time they do it, they claim to be operating under the color of "science." Even though they sound just like the fire-and-brimstone horseback preachers of the 19th century.
Americans in general are apparently much smarter than the hippocrite Al Gore and his minions.
0 Votes
+ -
czkonpa 76 tih
chomeioy2801-24379056454449388300146390468544 25th Nov
zctisf,stxlznhp77, qtcrj.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix