Do you agree with the majority of the world that we need to increase efforts to address climate change?

Question

A new analysis by WorldPublicOpinion.org of 11 recent international polls conducted around the world shows widespread and growing concern about climate change. Large majorities believe that human activity causes climate change and favor policies designed to reduce emissions.

In most countries, majorities see an urgent need for significant action. For example, a recent poll for the BBC by GlobeScan and the Program for International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that majorities in 15 out of 21 countries felt that it was necessary to take “major steps, starting very soon” to address climate change. In the other six countries polled, opinion was divided over whether “major” or “modest steps” were needed. Only small minorities thought no steps were necessary.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/435.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=435&nid=&id=

Do you agree that we need to increase our efforts, or are you in the small minority that feel no steps are necessary, and why?

You know what really amuses me is that when people say things like "scientists have concluded that global warming is just a natural cycle" they NEVER provide a link to a study that concludes this.

Know what else? Scientists have shown that gumdrops cause eyeball cancer! Don't bother to look it up, just trust me.

Answer 1

Seeing that America is the #1 emitter of polluted gas into the atmosphere and the #1 importer of wood, is there any doubt that America needs to do her part in addressing the damage done to the eco system?

What is so difficult to understand here?

Answer 2

My mother used to say that "if everyone else in the world jumped off a cliff and died, would you do it too"?
Your question is based on what everyone else in the world says or does. Public opinion is a very flexible thing, and this opinion will last until another bigger and better disaster comes along to have an opinion about, particularly, if it can somehow be the Americans or Bush's fault.
I personally don't care what they do or say.
The jury is still out with regard to global warming, Al Gore, notwithstanding, and I am not too concerned that his " scientific proof", will stand up. Scientific proof is another flexible thing, and it also changes with great regularity.
I am concerned with pollution in our cities, and in China. I am concerned with the filth in the Rio Grande, and other rivers in the world. I am concerned with the dumping of waste into the ocean, worldwide.
I think that nature has great power when it comes to healing itself, and I don't believe that we can have much of a long term effect.
But I do think that a lot of people will make a lot of money on this thing. And I do think that a lot of people will get a lot of entertainment out of it. And I do think that a lot of people will take on a lot of guilt about it, and maybe they will pollute their own environment a little less.

Answer 3

This is only proof that if you lie about something long enough people will start to believe you. History has proved many of these same cycles. A high temp point in the 40s and a low one in the 70s, when "scientists" were warning of the coming Ice Age.
Right now we can't even predict the weather past a day or two with any accuracy. And with out those accurate weather predictions the computer models thay have used to predict this coming disaster don't work accurately. A computer model is only as good as the data you put in it and the programming of some human.
If you do the math you will see that soon the temp will begin to turn around., since we are close to the 30 yr cycle.

Answer 4

I think we need to take care of our environment, period. Our governments, local and federal, have been making changes over time. I've not lived in any city in the last decade that didn't have recycling pickup. The government is giving tax credits for energy saving work done to your house. They've paid for public service announcement about the benefits of CFL's and other things. We need to continue and we need to step it up on alternative energy.

I don't see an 'urgent' need. And I'm sure as hell not going to do anything because other countries think we should. People who feel 'urgent' about things like this are on a bandwagon and then they lose interest. I just hope we continue do it with time and in a smart way. No panicking. Canada panicked and signed the Koyoto and they haven't been honoring it. There ya go.

Answer 5

No, I think the international community has just been duped into believing we are in immediate danger by the public media. Lets face it, being 'green' and helping fight 'climate change' has become quite the fad, and a lot of people are making a lot of money off of it. You regularly see advertisements about how certain companies are 'going green' and what not. Do you really think they care about climate charge, or is it that they just want your money and market research has shown them 'green' products are all the rage?

If you do a little research, you will find out all the uncertainties there are revolving around climate change. It's not as much of a certain thing as many would lead you to believe. There is a strong debate that taking 'major steps' will hurt us in other ways far greater than the risk posed by potential climate change.

Answer 6

Why do I suspect that these deniers of AGW are being paid for lip service to the large oil corporations and auto makers. These people are not even qualified climatologists and yet they would argue against professinal scientists who are experts in their field of study. Nothing can compare to the irritation of reading comments by stupid and ignorant people on AGW when they don't even have the remotest idea of what its all about. I must confess that I know nothing about AGW also but I trust the experts opinion, after all its their job and profession. Keep up the good work Dana and don't let these lip service people deter you from your excellent study of AGW and letting the public know of new developments.

Answer 7

I think that wil get difficult for even governments to fabricate policy to reduce the emission of co2 gas.Now take an example of china&india growing economies r totaly dependent on energy based industry

Answer 8

No, in my opinion the jury should still be deliberating global warming while the scientists wrap up their research. When they can predict a week's worth of weather for my region with 99% accuracy, then I'll start believing them. When they tell me global warming is going to make the worst hurricane season and it happens, then I can believe them.

When I find glaring inconsistencies in what they say, and a lack of information explaining phenomena, or explanations that change with the wind, sometimes literally, then I am very skeptical.

Their are identifiable problem areas, like pollution and excessive CO2 emissions that can be addressed; I have no problem with that. I do take issues with a lot of the recommendations proposed by the vast majority of global warming alarmists.

Answer 9

back in about the year 1300,scientists had a consensus that the world was flat.sail to the edge and you fall into ? the world believed it,yet Columbus never fell and found the new world.global warming is another idiotic consensus like the flat world.visit globalwarmingheartland.org the truth will set you free.

Answer 10

Did you know that of the top 10 most polluted places on Earth that not one is in the USA? Tell you what, as soon as the rest of the world meets our standards I will be happy to listen to what they think. Until then I think they should focus on their own country instead of trying to use this non-existent problem as a way of trying to knock us down a peg.