Do you believe global warming is primarily caused by human activities?

[Vepres]

I was curious about this because it seems to me that there are many doubters of global warming on the Atlas.

I don't know, it seems the more time goes on, the more uncertainty about the issue arises, despite the claims of Democrats and environmentalists to the contrary.

[dead0man]

I'm where I've always been on the issue....too soon to tell.  Science needs more time.

[Mint]

Option 2, sort of. I don't think there is serious 'global warming' taking place at the moment.. Everything I've read points to the trend peaking and subsequently leveling off since about 1998. That doesn't mean I don't think we should continue to rely so heavily on coal plants or shouldn't push for modernization, heat/energy saving, etc... We definitely should be doing that, it would dramatically improve our health and make us less dependent on other countries. I just don't really see temperature increases as  serious threat at the moment.

[Scam of God]

Option two. The real concern is peak oil, the prospect of which absolutely terrifies me.

We need to vastly diversify our power options: where solar is viable, use it; where wind is viable, use it; geothermal, use it; nuclear, use it.

[k-onmmunist]

Option 3. Peak oil is the real threat.

[Mint]

Option two. The real concern is peak oil, the prospect of which absolutely terrifies me.

We need to vastly diversify our power options: where solar is viable, use it; where wind is viable, use it; geothermal, use it; nuclear, use it.

I wouldn't say I'm 'terrified' of it but I recognize it will happen eventually.. Probably not that soon though. Something like Shale oil extraction might be a joke now but who knows what technology will be like in 10-20 years. Otherwise I agree with you for once.

[Scam of God]

Option two. The real concern is peak oil, the prospect of which absolutely terrifies me.

We need to vastly diversify our power options: where solar is viable, use it; where wind is viable, use it; geothermal, use it; nuclear, use it.

I wouldn't say I'm 'terrified' of it but I recognize it will happen eventually.. Probably not that soon though. Something like Shale oil extraction might be a joke now but who knows what technology will be like in 10-20 years. Otherwise I agree with you for once.

If you weren't so hellbent on protecting fusionism, you'd agree with me a lot more.

[k-onmmunist]

Option two. The real concern is peak oil, the prospect of which absolutely terrifies me.

We need to vastly diversify our power options: where solar is viable, use it; where wind is viable, use it; geothermal, use it; nuclear, use it.

I wouldn't say I'm 'terrified' of it but I recognize it will happen eventually.. Probably not that soon though. Something like Shale oil extraction might be a joke now but who knows what technology will be like in 10-20 years. Otherwise I agree with you for once.

If you weren't so hellbent on protecting fusionism, you'd agree with me a lot more.

I have sympathies with both left and right libertarianism.

[dead0man]

Peak Oil...really?  Are we running out of landfill space too?

[Scam of God]

Peak Oil...really?  Are we running out of landfill space too?

Because everybody knows that oil spontaneously generates, silly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. I certainly do not believe that the main cause of human activities is global warming. Think you meant "caused by".

Though in Clun dialect "I doubt" means "I am sure", so who knows.

[dead0man]

Hey look, an Englishman being a semantics dick!  How weird.  Next thing you know we're going to have a sarcastic American in the thread.

[Bono]

Uh, Al is quite right, so much that when I looked at the title of the thread I thought it was a parody.

[Torie]

I don't know, but I can palpably feel the hype to make me think it so, when I suspect the case is more problematic. When or when will I find an essay that lays out what we know, what we don't know, the odds, and whether these little models are so volatile to sensitivity analysis, that they really degrade into GIGO territory? 

I wish voters and the public demanded more than rhetoric and X percent of scientists say this or that, before "losing" their skepticism and demand for a clearer presentation before making major public policy choices. But that is a but a pipe dream. I understand that much.

[A18]

Hey look, an Englishman being a semantics dick!  How weird.  Next thing you know we're going to have a sarcastic American in the thread.

Some semantic errors are too blatant to ignore. This is one of them.

The difference between "caused by" and "the cause of" is not particularly subtle.

[Sbane]

Somewhere between 2 and 3. Recently I have become much more skeptical of the global warming "theory". Some warming has occurred but there is evidence that the earth is cooling again while carbon emissions continue to rise. How is this possible? Perhaps CO2 doesn't play such an important role in the climate after all. Anyways the real fear is that slight heating could trigger some positive feedback mechanism that leads to the earth warming at an even faster pace. But why wouldn't this be counteracted by some sort of negative feedback? There's more questions than answers out there and this is why I am not all gung ho about doing something immediately. Let the scientists have 5-10 years to do more conclusive research (and hopefully non-biased) . In the meantime we can focus on increasing efficiency which will certainly save us money regardless of whether we "save the earth" or not.

And regardless of the pronouncement of some, peak oil is a real problem. Yes we won't run out of oil for another 40-50 years but do you guys realize how expensive it would be at that point? Just imagine what that would do to the poor. We have a ton of coal (all over the world not just America) but crude oil is truly a finite resource that is dwindling fast. I think we will see an increased move to natural gas, which burns cleaner and is more abundant. Overall there will be a shift towards electricity and wind, solar, geothermal as well as nuclear is essential to supplement current energy sources. If the world continues to grow and prosper, the consumption of energy will rise exponentially.

[Sbane]

I don't know, but I can palpably feel the hype to make me think it so, when I suspect the case is more problematic. When or when will I find an essay that lays out what we know, what we don't know, the odds, and whether these little models are so volatile to sensitivity analysis, that they really degrade into GIGO territory? 

You should check out this thread, if you haven't already. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101628.0

[dead0man]

Hey look, an Englishman being a semantics dick!  How weird.  Next thing you know we're going to have a sarcastic American in the thread.

Some semantic errors are too blatant to ignore. This is one of them.

The difference between "caused by" and "the cause of" is not particularly subtle.

Sure, but the intent was made quite clear by the time ya read the poll options.

[ChrisJG777]

Hey!  Where's the "It's for the most part natural but us humans are making things worse" option?!