Dichotomous Poll: Global Warming

[Ban my account ffs!]

Option 1:  Global warming is a hoax.  It is simply a financial game and power grab for a few extremist leftwingers who are lying to people for political gain.  There is no scientific evidence that points to manmade global warming, and even if the planet is warming, it is caused completely by natural cycles, in which we play no part.

Option 2:  The evidence for global warming is undeniable.  The climate of the past 1000 years had been very stable with variations of only a few tenths of a degree celsius until a rapid rise beginning in the early 20th century thanks to rising greenhouse gas concentrations put into the atmosphere by human industrial activity.  Without drastic action, the earth could warm as much as 10˚F in the next 90 years, during which time we could see the Arctic icecap completely disappear during summer and begin an irreversible melting of the Greenland and western Antarctic ice caps.  Sea level rises along with less frequent, but more severe rainfall across the globe will lead to both increased droughts and flooding and could create millions of potential "climate refugees".  The skeptics are simply denialist right wing extremists willfully ignorant of the vast consensus of scientists and propped up by the extraction industries.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Option 2, but I would word things a bit differently.

[dead0man]

Somewhere between the two, closer to 1 than 2.

[Platypus]

Neither.

The question should be, "Do you believe in global warming that is caused or significantly accelerated by human activity", to which I would answer yes.

[King]

Neither.

The question should be, "Do you believe in global warming that is caused or significantly accelerated by human activity", to which I would answer yes.

+1

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 2 (normal)

[Mechaman]

Somewhere between the two, closer to 1 than 2.

[John Dibble]

Some people seem to be missing the point of the poll - it's an intentional false dichotomy, so basically "If you had to choose one... yes I know that's not realistic, just shut up and pick one for crying out loud!" Anyone who's read Snowguy's climate thread knows he doesn't believe either of the options are right.

I'm closer to option 1, but that's hardly what I believe.

[7,052,770]

I started to complain about posting a standard Republican talking point vs. a loony strawman spoof of what most Democrats and even Republicans like John McCain say, but it just depressed me too much.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

NOTA.......the earth is naturally warming.....we're not helping it that's for sure....be we didn't cause all the problem.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Closer to option 1, but I'm a meteorology major, so that's to be probably to be expected.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Closer to option 1, but I'm a meteorology major, so that's to be probably to be expected.

Oh, so you'll be the TV weatherman who gives me a forecast I can't rely on?   

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Closer to option 1, but I'm a meteorology major, so that's to be probably to be expected.

Oh, so you'll be the TV weatherman who gives me a forecast I can't rely on?   

No... Air Force or National Weather Service.  Or law school - I really need to figure that out soon.

[Badger]

Closer to option 1, but I'm a meteorology major, so that's to be probably to be expected.

Not really.

American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."


That said,

Option 2, but I would word things a bit differently.

[John Dibble]

Closer to option 1, but I'm a meteorology major, so that's to be probably to be expected.

Not really.

American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

I don't now if referencing a 2003 claim of consensus is really valid considering recent revelations.

[Хahar 🤔]

Option 2 (normal)

[Mint]

Option 1 but I wouldn't really blame 'the far left' (lol).

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Option 1.

[dead0man]

Option 1 but I wouldn't really blame 'the far left' (lol).

Correct.  Only a few of them are in it for and using it as an excuse to push their unrelated agendas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Option two has a closer relationship with reality.

[k-onmmunist]

Option 1 (educated)

[President Mitt]

Option 1 but I wouldn't really blame 'the far left' (lol).

[k-onmmunist]

Well yeah, I wouldn't blame the far left. To be honest, no real skeptic would say that. It's simply Snowguy trying to caricature us as usual.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Both options are meant to be unrealistic.

No real skeptic would completely embrace option one, and no pro-AGW theory climate scientist would completely embrace option 2.

Once you remove the politics from the issue, the difference betweens skeptics and pro-AGW theory climatologists is not that big.

[segwaystyle2012]

I'm much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much closer to 1.