Slashdot Mirror
8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey (trust.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Thomas Reuters Foundation: Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe, a survey on global threats found Wednesday. The survey of more than 8,000 people in eight countries -- the United States, China, India, Britain, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Germany -- found that 84 percent of people now consider climate change a "global catastrophic risk." That puts worry about climate change only slightly behind fears about large-scale environmental damage and the threat of politically motivated violence escalating into war, according to the Global Challenges Foundation, which commissioned the Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report. The survey, released in advance of this week's G7 summit of advanced economies in Italy, also found that 85 percent of people think the United Nations needs reforms to be better equipped to address global threats. About 70 percent of those surveyed said they think it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions -- specifically designed to deal with a wide range of global risks. Nearly 60 percent said they would be prepared to have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen.
Fake News. La-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
While I fully agree with climate change being a catastrophic risk, a global organization with enforcement power will immidiately become the most valuable target for lobbying in the world.
I believe we'd see such an organization effectively ruled by the very interests it's set to regulate within a few years at most.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Science isn't decided by popular vote. If you look at the facts, we are actually in a long term cooling period. Greenland was once green a few hundred years ago, but then the cooling started, and continues to this day.
54 out of 100 Senators and 234 out of 435 Representatives, and Twitler don't.
The numbers don't line up.
As soon as liberals evacuate Florida, New york city, and coastal California due to rising oceans I'll believe they are serious about global warming.
Until then they are full of shit.
Humans will adapt.
Stupid humans who insist on living where the floods are coming ... well, Darwin has a plan for them and their families.
But humans have done stupid things for 20K years and we are still here. A good friend bought a home in Tampa, on the water. I think he's an idiot. The same for people living below sea level in New Orleans. Idiots.
Stock tip - buy companies with experience in dike building. https://www.fastcompany.com/30...
I live at 900 ft above sea level. No earthquakes or hurricanes here. No flooding nearby - though it does happen within 20 miles and we do have occasional tornadoes.
I've lived at sea level, in a hurricane zone, and had 2 ft of water in my home. I moved. Hopefully, my family has passed Darwin's test.
What does "8 in 10 are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe" even mean? If 8 in 10 made changes to their standard of living, it _would_ prevent future climate catastrophe.
The problem is that 10 in 10 are not willing to do squat unless 10 in 10 are being forced. And being forced to do something is not particularly heroic. I really want to beat sense into 8 of 10.
Climate change, with the sea level rising 1m every 1000 years - is CATASTROPHIC. Something must be done! But uncontrolled immigration from islamic countries and the almost weekly terror attacks just means you have to get used to it. Oh well.
Approximately 8 in 10 people are also idiots. Funny how those numbers line up.
It really doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people see climate change as a real threat. As long as the top 1% keep earning billions of dollars off the status quo, and understand they will be protected from the effects, nothing is going to change.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
We already have that shit.
Hell, I'll give you another three letters that denote the most valuable target for lobbying: USA.
Not that the IPCC is not being lobbied to shit and back, with the deniers lobbying about how it's all fake.
It's always changed for a reason. Today that reason is humans burning fossil fuels.
people have always died. So we drop murder and manslaughter from the books?
In the past most doctors didn't believe bacteria didn't cause disease, and many people died from this.
The percentage of believers doesn't prove facts. It proves belief.
Trump trumps a resurgence of oil and coal as a fix to the american job market and economy when the world has moved on - the money is in renewables and he doesn't understand. His gestures toward re-enegising coal and the total indifference of the market to them shows how out of touch he is.
For a vast and clear majority of earth's history, the climate has been much warmer then it is now. In fact, just 50 million years ago, the earth was about 12C warmer then it is today. Some of the data sets used by the climate change crowd only cover 1880 to the present. This is not even a sliver of geologic time.
And that they're kooks who live in mud huts and eat organic berries and tofu and want everyone else to be that way so they can and should be ignored.
"Lead by example"???? Hell, the first world needs to try it for once instead of demanding China, India and Africa need to do something first.
I think I have the perfect guy for that job. He's experienced with delivering, spreading and repeating that kind of information.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I also recommend reading about what levels of CO2 are toxic to humans, because I don't give a fuck what plants need if I'm dead.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you "ready to make changes to your standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe"? OK, here we go.
We believe that the most likely reason for what seems an unnatural climate change is the huge amount of CO2 emissions provoked by humankind ('s industrialisation) during over the last 200 years. As far as you are willing to do all what is in your hand to minimise the impact of this likely-to-be-so-dangerous output of our modern society, I understand that you are ready to stop using:
- Any machine requiring combustion to run. Examples: all your vehicles (electrical or similar ones can run without generating CO2, although they have certainly generated some at different points like when being built, transported, repaired, etc.; they also generate CO2 indirectly via power plants as explained below), including the ones you use sporadically and/or transport gods which you use in any way (planes or ships) and even the ones used for your amusement (motor sports).
- All the industrial processes requiring some combustion and outputting goods/services which you consume at any point (directly, a big proportion of the current power plants; indirectly, all the remaining ones by relying on combustion-based processes at any point to complement their usual activity or as part of required manufacturing, transportation, etc. processes; note that the aforementioned electric vehicles are also generating CO2 indirectly via the way in which the electricity they need is generated). Forget about your clothes, your supermarkets, your computers, etc.
- Any scientific, research facility or study involving the consumption of relevant amounts of energy. You have to get rid of all the universities, research centres, big research facilities, etc.
-etc.
Let's assume that you do all this, that you also convince the whole humankind to join you and that we can reach a stage where the worldwide CO2 generation gets down to about the natural levels (= plants + animals + us generating just a bit more). In that case and by assuming that our theories are right (the climate variation isn't provoked by natural causes) how are you planning to remove all the additional CO2 generated so far? Perhaps this is already enough to provoke an inevitable catastrophe within the next years, who knows for sure?
I am a firm believer in each-single-bit-counts kind of approaches and also think that environment-concerned ideas are rarely a bad thing. A completely different story is building up a world of lies and misinformation where you can save the world just by buying a brand new car! Step by step, always in the right direction, but never falling for magical, crazily stupid or manipulating nonsense. Out of all the problems of our planet, CO2 generation is one of the less important ones simply because we cannot perform relevant changes on this front (or perhaps we could but don't really want). Sadly, most of CO2-concerned policies are promoted by commercial, egoist, short-sighted interests whose main goals are helping themselves rather than the planet.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Since the anthropogenic meme is now proven to be a media and money driven meme, with little truth to it - interesting how effective that media campaign has been. As scientific evidence continues to build that the warming models were and are seriously flawed and inaccurate, the media and educational systems have obscured the facts and are effectively brainwashing the majority.
1. Find a way to reach out to 8 in 10 people
2. Tell them I can fix climate change in exchange for their money and control over their lives
3. $$$$ PROFIT $$$$
Early retirement here I come...
highest rate of death is kids... rockets red glare babys bursting in air... stick in the mud diaper addicts have no advocacy... cease fire stand down... voluntarily disarm our generational genocidal psychopath wmd on credit addict self appointed abuse based religious franchise corepirate nazi rulerships.. that's the spirit... you know the tune.. thanks again...
Lets get real, people. The United States is NOT the world. Do the correct thing and take a pole of Americans about this. We need to stand independently of the world and make our own decisions.
Coincidence?
I'd say its more accurate, from the group of laymen I use for my "What do the masses think" questions, to say that at least 8 out of 10 people don't give a toss what happens to the environment. And they aren't even that stupid.
Very encouraging, but how many of those 8 out of 10 are in governments?
>"it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions[...]have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen."
THAT would be the worst mistake ever, especially for the USA. We have already seen many of the things "the world" would want to do and much of it runs contrary to the Constitution.
And if in 10 years it's gone up by more than 10cm/4in, we can take your stuff and throw you out into some third world country with no money and give your home to two families from that country, right? That's 10x the rate you claim, so you should be golden, right?
Cool. Looks like the number of rational folks out there is up to 2 out of 10 now.
its not only the numbers that sound invented, but the part about being fine about sacrificing standards of living sounds blatantly fake
Whether or not you believe humans are responsible for climate change, the evidence is clear that climate change is occurring. A great many of the follow on consequences of climate change are highly predictable and many of them are bad. As such, logically it is almost irrelevant whether or not humans are the driver of the change even though the evidence seems bullet proof that we are responsible. Either way it clear that it is happening and it is equally clear is something we need to plan for and quite likely attempt to mitigate. You don't have to believe humans are responsible for it to be logical for us to take substantial action on the problem. It's really no different in principle than a volcano erupting - we still have to take action to address the consequences.
Of course the sticky bit of the problem is that dealing with the issue requires human action which will come at a cost. The only (sort of) sane reason to not act to deal with climate change is because someone has economic self interest interest in ignoring the problem. It's understandable if not justifiable. There are of course a few illogical reasons why people oppose taking action the most notable of which seems to be tribalism. Thing is that whether people believe in it or not they will end up dealing with the problem sooner or later. The cost of dealing with it sooner is lower but human nature being what it is it's not clear if that will happen before there are some severe consequences.
The percentage of believers doesn't prove facts. It proves belief.
Missing the point. The point is that when enough people get behind an idea it becomes possible to take meaningful action. This is a political survey regarding the effectiveness of scientific communication. The science is what it is and this survey does not deal with the science. The debate is largely a political and economic one and this seemingly is ammunition in that debate.
Don't know if global warming will be our demise. Do know 2 things. Some people lie and some people will believe anything. Humans would be funny, if there weren't so many of them.
Use your brain please! 84% is 8/10 when rounding to the nearest multiple of 10, but you could also say it's nearly 9/10. If you use a bit of logic all those statements are true. Stop making pointless pedantic comments when you disagree with something, and especially don't do it when you're comments are just wrong!
Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe
Well of course they would. Faced with a clear path to avert catastrophe, people will take it. If you tell people "do this thing, or your life will be ruined", they'll probably do that thing. The problem is that the path to averting climate catastrophe is too abstract from peoples' daily lives. Right now it's more like "do this thing, and depending on whether or not other people do similar things, your life might not be ruined."
Avoiding catastrophic climate change will take a huge collective action. But since each of our individual actions have a small effect on their own, it's hard for our brains to balance the pain/cost of those actions with a benefit. Few people are willing to lower their standard of living without a clear link between their particular sacrifice and avoiding catastrophe.
I'm not sure I'm providing any insight into how to solve this problem, but rather that it's not too surprising to see the results as worded.
It was relatively milder, but you go there now and see hw much headroom is left between "green" and "milder".
This is fantastic news! If 8 in 10 people believe that "Climate Change" is such a dire problem, then there's no need for a bunch of new government rules & regulations. All of those concerned people need to focus on changing their own lifestyles rather than trying to micro-manage the rest of us.
"But is it true?" comes to mind as the next question.
as less interesting than Trump news.
Indeed we should stop burning that stuff because plastics and other chemicals are better made with them than just combusting them. What we need is power and a stable climate. Because without a stable climate our infrastructure will be out of place and we would need to spend time and money and effort in moving rather than progressing to a cleaner future.
I’ll believe global warming is a crisis, when the people who scream it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves.
...is bearing fruit.
There shall be no common sense here!
Most political AGW "fixes" involve taxing CO2, not methane. Methane produced mostly by farmers, who lobby heavily, and are in Iowa the first presidential caucus. If you are interested in winning elections and don't care about solving AGW you need to not admit methane is a bigger problem, which is what liberals do.
Taxing CO2 is taxing the middle class, which to liberals is perfectly acceptable. As the DNC has shown, screw the middle class and lose the "blue wall". Instead of admitting they hate the working class they come up with "Its the Russians" when they lose.
Now that the reason they tax the wrong things is covered, lets see what happens with that tax money... It goes to Solyndra, which ended up producing nothing of value and was split up and sold off in pieces. However they did donate heavily to Obama's election. Along with Fisker Auto (not even an American company, but owned by Al Gore), and A123 again who heavily donated to the DNC and was sold off to China.
So looking at how the DNC deals with AGW, they tax people who they think aren't likely to hurt them in elections, and give that tax money to people who help them get elected and don't seem to care if it helps with AGW at all.
Put me down as the guy who looked at the solutions put into place to solve AGW and noticed it doesn't actually help but is a money scheme for the DNC instead.
with power to enforce its decisions.
Hm,how about no?
NWO assholes.
Too bad the 8 people are everyday joes, and the other 2 are people in power that could make regulations to make it better.
At atmospheric concentration of several percent CO2, our lungs can't perform gas exchange to move CO2 from our blood to the air, and we die. That is about 100 times as much as is in the air right now (~400 ppm), and many times the point at which we have other things to worry about.
So don't put "CO2 levels that are toxic to humans" high on your priority list of things to worry about.
Because 2 of those 10 are Trump and Pence.
We always hear about the elite in government circles. But I have to wonder, is there a "filter" of individuals who have taken over this site regarding some subjects to make sure they get represented in a certain way - especially with selection of original articles? Global warming is one of those subjects.
That is not to say that I do not still find good information on a site like Slashdot. But having been on this site for over 15 years, there used to be a much greater variety of opinions expressed. This is especially so with regard to things that are not "politically correct". So Slashdot, if you are filtering in this fashion, cut it out. Eventually, everyone pays in some fashion when they promote something false.
As far as global warming goes, if bought into, I believe it is going to be more and more expensive and destructive. And personally, I do not like buying expensive, poison kool aide for myself and family.
8/10 people are MORONS! The globalist have hoodwinked you into believing that YOU must change your lifestyle, or the planet will suffer. Ever notice how these so called "leaders of the world", hollywood morons and leftist uber rich are the ones telling everyone they need to change THEIR livestyle, but, they continue to live in mega mansions, jet set all over the world, have 3-4 houses, 5-6 automobiles? Have you ever stopped to ask WHY they are allowed to "continue on" but everyone else should suffer? Man has very little impact on the climate of this globe. Look up the sunspot cycle and you'll have your answer, if, you are willing to be open minded and believe it!
As a species, the natural world no longer able to magically take care of our mess. We need to learn how to live like an adult, and not depend on 'mother' earth to provide free cleaning service. Doesn't matter what energy source you use now or in the future. We need to clean up after ourselves. Radio toxic waste, carbon dioxide, rare earth metal to produce solar panel, battery, etc. For far too long, we do not include clean up cost in our elevation of living standard. Moving to a shinny new energy source does not and should not relieve ourselves such responsibility, we are just generating another pile of garbage that the next generation 'discover' that is also un-sustainable.
From MIT's Technology Review:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
So why aren't we talking about spending a few hundred million into engineering R&D to come up with this potentially real and very inexpensive kind of a solution as quickly as possible? Why are we instead talking about huge bureaucracies and trillions of dollars in carbon taxes for forever? That's because we're allowing politicians etal come up with the solution, instead of engineers and scientists.
They demand the end of commercial air travel. After all, it's not necessary to humanity, (we lived without it until less than a hundred years ago), and it puts out a lot of CO2, and it's not possible to electrify in the foreseeable future.
Until then, it's "make someone else change or pay so that I can keep my perks."
OK 8 In 10 People ....yes but what do the cats think?
So, what you are saying is: Nearly 9 in 10 people are complete liars.
These guys think very highly of themselves. This from their media summary:
"For the first time in human history, we have reached a level of scientific knowledge that allows us to develop an enlightened relationship to risks of catastrophic magnitude. Not only can we foresee many of the challenges ahead, but we are in a position to identify what needs to be done in order to mitigate or even eliminate some of those risks. Our enlightened status, however, also requires that we consider our own role in creating those risks, and
collectively commit to reducing them."
This is how the survey was done:
"ComRes interviewed 8,101 adults aged between 18 and 64 across: Australia (1,000), Brazil (1,018), China (1,031), Germany (1,001), India (1,013), South Africa (1,038), the UK (1,000) and the USA (1,000). The research was conducted between 27 April and 10 May 2017. The data were weighted to be nationally representative of the population in each of the country by age, gender and region."
In other words, it's meaningless nonsense.
First, I really don't know what to think about climate change vs. solar influence vs. normal centuries long ebbs and flows of our 4 billion year old planet. However, my gut tell me this. If you say it long enough and beat the drum loud enough, then whatever your message it must true, right?
8 becomes nearly 9, and so on and on....
so there are 8 out of 10 who are idiots that can't see or think for themselves and have to believe anything that they get told.
Ha, no wonder religions still get so many fans without any proof of anything. But for all other matters they absolutly need proof.....like i said: idiots.
The main reason nuclear has been so costly isn't because the technology itself isn't feasible.
The extremely high costs have historically had a lot to do with politics, fear of nuclear energy, and contractors taking advantage of the fact that it's "scary stuff".
Almost every time a new plant is schedule to be constructed, it turns into a big battle with groups fighting against it and requires expensive site surveys, safety studies and more. (Well, perhaps not in Communist countries where the people don't really get any say-so anyway -- but safety seems to take a back seat to just getting something up and running anyway, in those situations - a la Chernobyl.)
Here in the U.S. - there has often been a lot of poor long-term projecting of energy needs, also contributing to high cost of nuclear plants. For example, the power plant not far from where I used to live in St. Louis, MO, Callaway County Nuclear plant, had a whole lot of issues in the past including no need to operate it at above 50% or so of its generation capacity because power demands just didn't grow as quickly as they anticipated when it was constructed. (I also recall some issues where construction materials for the cooling pipes didn't wind up meeting the promised standards, leading to an inability to run the plant at full power until that was redone.) It received the top safety rating for risk of damage due to an earthquake though, and is apparently running quite profitably today. That didn't stop a lawsuit in 2014 though, trying to prevent it from getting its operating license renewed, over new rules allowing above-ground storage of spent fuel after years of failed efforts to build a permanent national storage site in Nevada.
The people who keep arguing we should use other "renewables" refuse to recognize the fact that wind and solar power aren't "always on" power sources. You generate nothing after dark with solar, and the wind doesn't blow constantly at a good rate of speed. The work-around for that always revolves around ideas of implementing large storage batteries, which greatly increases the cost of those projects and reduces reliability. (Batteries are based on chemical reactions and they wear out. Refurbishing them amounts to gutting them out and rebuilding their insides, making that process almost equivalent to just manufacturing new batteries.)
If you're naïve enough to believe that the world is ready for a global organization that can enforce it's wishes on sovereign nations, maybe you should consider some of the idiocy that's come from the UN previously.
https://www.unwatch.org/from-t...
https://www.globalpolicy.org/c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
...Algore, Leo, Obama, and all the other celebrity AGW champions jetting around the world Signalling their Virtue are ready to curtail their lifestyles.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
In the UK the cost has little to do with protesters or politics. In fact the UK government has been extremely generous to nuclear operators - it build all the original plants, then gave them to commercial operators basically for free, with a guarantee that it would pick up most of the cost of decommissioning, plus the usual subsidies like free insurance.
The problem are all to do with the technology itself. For example, the long term profitability of new nuclear is in doubt as renewable energy is replacing it. That's why the people building this new plant demanded a guarantee of extremely high prices and guaranteed sales for the lifetime of the plant. In Europe the decommissioning requirements are stricter too, because land is more valuable here, requiring the site to be made habitable again rather than just burying the reactor there until it becomes safe enough to move.
As for renewables, fortunately Europe is quite large and has plenty of distributed wind power. While batteries do wear out, they don't wear out as fast as people think and as we move to electric vehicles there will be vast numbers of them that can be re-used before being recycled. There are also other forms of energy storage. More investment is needed of course, which is why people want the subsidies for nuclear redirected.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The question to consider as you look at the sea of humanity in this country (best done at a Walmart) is "Is it more likely that 8 out of 10 people are geniuses or morons?".
The Global Challenges Foundation commissions a Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report and it includes a poll which supports their obvious bias.
Go figure.
Are you people REALLY that stupid?
I will have to call b.s. on this survey from a newly founded global warming alarmist organisation. You want a real survey, here it is : http://data.myworld2015.org/ Climate change is DEAD LAST.
If the left actually believed GW is an imminent threat they wouldn't have campaigned on transgender rights and black lives matter's cop-killing horse shit.
"Every scientist agrees"
"name one"
"I can't because I am more of a BIll Nye fan that someone who enjoys real science"
According to this page: https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms, the maximum allowed workplace exposure limit is 5000ppm, and the hard-limit appears to be 40000ppm. People start reporting drowsiness or bad air at 1000 to 2000ppm.
A risk is something that has an element of potentiality. In the case of climate change, the catastrophe is already assured. The only question is whether it will be severe, very severe or "collapse of civilization"-level. Calling a "risk" is, once again, making it sound a lot more harmless than it is.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I don't even admit to being from this planet!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
We had a chance to make a real difference with climate change some 20 to 30 years ago. We chose to argue about it instead of developing the science and executing a plan. No use arguing about it anymore, climate deniers can say whatever they want and I simply don't care. They'll eat their words within their own lifetime, which will be at least something they can eat during the cycles of famine.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Exactly what I was going to say, but I will add that this is what allows us to conclude that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals.
My problem isn't with the people who are willing to make changes to their standard of living. My problem is with the people who are more than happy to make changes to MY standard of living, based on their religious beliefs about the coming Great Apocalypse.
James Burke (creator of the "The Day The Universe Changed") covered a lot of the issues with methane back in a 1990 TV program called "After the Warming:"
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11...
which the farming and petroleum industry worked vigorously to discredit because both create or leak large amounts of methane into the environment as side-effects/externalities/pollution of their profit making businesses.
Looking up info on that program now provides more links to FUD spun by industry groups than accurate information. There are errors in this now 27 year old program, but the basic points are sound.
Organizations never want to pay for the externalities, negative side-effects and pollution their activities create. That will have to change or we'll need to get off this planet before we are buried in externalities.
That is not anti-business. That's a call for responsible enterprises that properly resolve the externalities they create.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
Driving is a catastrophic risk. Eating and not eating are catastrophic risks. Breathing air the composition of which is untested is a catastrophic risk.
There are those that will insist nuclear can't be economical even though the existing fleet in the US and France and other countries has provided economical energy for many years. Unfortunately, there are some that have decided no matter what the facts are, the only solution they will accept is wind and solar and the next wonderful unproven source like tidal. They will argue with false facts and NEVER EVER talk about the challenges those energy sources face. They act like its all been figured out because the headlines sound so wonderful. Most of the biggest Solar Wind proponents can't even adequately describe the challenges.
That's pretty much where I'm at. At this point I don't think anything is going to change so the focus really becomes how to adapt to it. I'm in my early 50's so not much will be different between now and when I die. I wonder how much overlap there would be between people who consider it a catastrophe and people who don't believe it can be averted to any meaningful degree? Conclusion? I'm gonna go buy an SUV!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I suppose if you ask mindless millennials and the elderly you can claim this. But working with intelligent professionals I don't know of a single one the would not laugh at you for this. Nor, would even one of us agree with this false premise.
You've learnt your lesson. Post anonymous.
There shall be no tolerance and no payment into a carbon tax.
Yes, methane emissions are worse per ton than CO2.
But as ShanghaiBill says, there's just a lot less methane being released -- at least until the tundra melts.
Because I can only do so much
Clearly.
I could open a window, but I'm gonna turn on the AC instead!
You have to look at who was surveyed.
About an equal number of people from each country took the survey. To extend the results to the whole world, one should weight the results by population of each country.
Of course this weighting implies the survey takers in each country represent the population characteristics.
Here is a link to the actual survey tables and the demographics of each country.
http://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Global-Challenges-Foundation-Global-Risks-Survey-Data-Tables-1.pdf
Take a look at China for example. 75% of the respondents have a bachelors degree or better.
Age distributions also skewed in US more than half under the age of 45.
The survey isn't fake news the conclusions drawn by Reuters is.
Manmade "global warming" threatens no one and no thing because it does not exist. When / where government(s) practice the "global warming" Religion, those governments catastrophically threaten the economic survival of their citizens because no economic entity can survive the crony socialism . . .
Because all lessons learned seem to be lost within a couple of generations, were were overdue to have an example of this particular lesson re-taught and I suppose "global warming" was one of the less-dangerous ways to encounter it. What lesson? PROPAGANDA, particularly fuelled by governments and backed-up by laws, WORKS remarkably well.
People occasionally ask how the otherwise well-educated and technological, sensible Germans supported Hitler in the 1930s and 40s. Global Warming is your answer: If governments relentlessly push a story, no matter how scientifically and technically flawed, most people will eventually believe it. In the 1930s the Germans began to believe what their government, the schools, and even the pop culture were pushing: that the SCIENCE of phrenology was true by consensus and therefore that head shapes were related to character and intelligence, and also that there was something SCIENTIFICALLY proven about Jewish blood being bad. SCIENCE said that the genetically inferior needed to be eliminated. Most Germans fell for it.
When scientists living on government research funds are all pushing a government line that benefits the government and they are censoring and shouting-down anybody who disagrees with the agenda, you are not seeing science at play, you are seeing propaganda at work, particularly when the claims go into the realm of the ridiculous, like where temperature data from satellites gets put onto the same graph as temperature data from tree rings and ice cores (an error even a freshman physics student should see as problematic and unacceptable)
Human CO2 output is equivalent to one or more Yellowstone-sized supervolcano eruptions per year. Source is Gerlach, '08 if memory serves. He has written various papers and articles comparing human activity with historical volcanism.
Now, I'm sure I don't know about the resolution of various proxies and datasets, and unless you have some published research on the matter your opinion is worthless too. However, unless you can point me out any past period in Earth's history where multiple supervolcanos were going off on an annual basis, I'm afraid the idea that this CO2 spike is happening at an unprecedented rate has to go unchallenged.
Frankly I don't know where you get off lying about this subject.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
It's been ten years and you're still harping on about Al Gore? Ten years and that's all you know about climate science? Ten years of that being the only thing you have to say about the subject? Did your brain ossify at an early age or something?
Christ almighty man, get some different lies at least.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Meat industry emits more carbon than all vehicles combined so if these 8 out of 10 care so much they would quit meat and dairy. But that would be an inconvenience. Most would rather just blame other people than actually fix it.
Breaking news!
8 in 10 People Don't Know the Meaning of Catastrophic Risk!
Simply proof of the power of propaganda.
But hey, even if you do...okay, go forth, change your lifestyle. Go ahead. Have at it. Good luck and may Odin be with you on your journey.
Ferret
"The main reason nuclear has been so costly isn't because the technology itself isn't feasible."
A lot of _that_ has to do with the conventional uranium cycle being pretty rotten at producing electricity and pretty good at producing nasty byproduct stuff which happens to be handy to build nuclear weapons with - which means paranoid levels of security are required - and that's before you get into the issue of mixing radioactives and water under high pressure. (steam explosions and leaks happen. It's a fact of life. The best fix is not to mix them)
Thorium cycle is a lot harder to weaponise and a lot easier to generate electricity with. Molten Salt systems were already proven in the cold war but discarded in the rush to make more bombs. Thankfully the chinese and others are now reopening investigations into the technology which should have been at the core of the civil nuclear program from the 1970s onwards.
Fusion might happen but it;s unlikely to be in my grandchildrens' lifetime. We need to get on with decarbonising _now_. Nuclear waste is a vastly overblown issue and with MSRs the volume is reduced by a factorof 100+ anyway.