Straw poll of GW, AGW?

Question

I have posted a straw poll in Religion and spirituality as to the nature of existence of Global Warming.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071016125218AA1V8dP&cp=1

Among Athiests, 'man made' GW was 12 to 2 'natural cycle

Among the religious 'man made' GW was 9 to 7 'natural cycle'

For those of you have followed the link and are good at addition, there were 'spoilt papers'.

Now you know, !00%, undeniable, proven, fact...

Just to make it a question, what do you think?

Answer 1

Unfortunately a lot of people answered 'natural cycle exacerbated by humans'.

That's technically not true, as we're in the cooling portion of the natural cycle. Plus they didn't specify which was having a larger effect. Unfortunate.

Not surprising that atheists adhere to the scientific consensus while more religious people tend to think it's just a natural cycle. For one thing, religion and science often do not mix. Generally speaking, the more faith a person has, the less credence they put into science. On top of that, more religious people tend to be conservatives, and many conservatives tend to consider global warming a political issue rather than a scientific one.

Overall interesting poll, but the results do not surprise me.

I once did a similar poll, but with regards to political affiliation, education level, and sources of global warming information. Take a gander.

Poll:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As6MMc8lLk5ZrMSOAhywS77ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070620093306AAiroBM

Discussion of results:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070620125805AA24gua

Basically skeptics were conservatives, had poor sources of info (often "common sense"), and weren't as well educated. Acknowledgers were moderates or liberals, had better sources of info, and more relevant education (i.e. science degrees).

*edit* Ben - of course the Sun is a factor. It's just a minor one in comparison to human causes over the past 30 years, and not due to orbital (natural) cycles.

Answer 2

there is sufficient data for worldwide warming, in without postpone growing to be worldwide temperature anomalies, worldwide glacial retreat, melting ice at the two poles, and sea-point upward thrust at increasing quotes, etc… FYI, the worldwide temperature has larger by skill of roughly 0.8°C because of the fact the early c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b900, and 0.6° of that fluctuate got here in the final 30-40 years. although, we are actually not in basic terms speaking approximately 0.8°C right here. with the aid of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the ambience, the final worldwide temperature is predicted to upward thrust by skill of yet another a million.a million to 6.4°C by skill of 2c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b00. the likely advance would be between a million.7 and four.4°C. The data that jet contrails impact climate come from alterations in the diurnal temperature version that got here approximately after 9/c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849bc4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b while there have been no incredibly few jets flying over North usa. i'm additionally skeptical that something could be deduced from a study of three random days. I don’t be attentive to the information of the c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b995 record, yet our expertise of climate will advance each and every 3 hundred and sixty 5 days that we examine it. i think of that it truly is critical that folk be attentive to that the action picture star skeptics are bankrolled by skill of oil and coal industries. It facilitates human beings to be attentive to no be counted if climatologists or lobbyists are greater credible. climate fashions nonetheless coach some errors. they do no longer look to be suited and not in any respect would be; the suited climate type is an unrealistic expectation, and arranged for the suited type is only a delaying tactic. climate modelers do attempt to account for clouds and the albedo result. right here[a million], beginning on website c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849bc4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b and back by skill of continent on website c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b3 is a precis of our modern-day expertise on the impacts of climate replace.

Answer 3

You got plenty of unclassifiable responses. With such a high rejection rate, I'm not sure your data is scientifically valid.

You might have something though, why would people who believe in a book that was compiled 1700 years ago put much stock in a theory that's become fashionable in the last 10 years.


Dana,

I guess you should include the IPCC in the number of people who think that GW is a combination of AGW and natural factors. They have included increases in solar radiation in their contributing factors. Perhaps their not as hard core as you.

I suppose you think that that is unfortunate.

Answer 4

DO NOT MIX SCIENCE AND RELIGION!
Didn't the shameful treatment of Galileo teach us ANYTHING?

Answer 5

IT PROVES to me that you can blind people with science/religion and statistics?

Answer 6

its a natural cycle of course.

Answer 7

What was proven?