<p>1) Yes or No
2) Why or why not
3) If yes, do you think we should be taking measures right now to stop it?</p>
<p>...just wondering, based on a conversation I just had, whether most college students feel the same way I do. Even though CC is not really reflective of the average, it's interesting.</p>
<p>No
Cyclical
To stop it? No. To make the environment cleaner? Yes.</p>
<p>1) No.
2) It's very political. Politicians support it because they can use global warming (or climate change as they are calling it now) as an excuse to expand government power over every aspect of your life and the economy.
3) If climate change was happening at a rate that the alarmists claim our current measures are utterly insignificant (Kyoto, cap and trade). Alarmists don't want to save the planet, they want the same thing liberals have always wanted -- have a big government that makes everything fair for everyone.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong through. The government still has a very important role in controlling pollution, but Carbon is not pollution.</p>
<p>1) Yes
2) Overwhelming scientific data. The climate has changed before but never as fast as right now.
3) Carbon cap-and-trade. Stabalize CO2eq emissions at 450 ppm.</p>
<p>1) Kind of - The earth's getting warmer, as it does now and then :)
2) It's cyclical. Not a huge deal like the alarmists are squawking about. It'll cool up later and then we'll miss the warm.
3) Pollution is bad, but I'm not a go-greener myself. </p>
<p>Do you know, the Brits and Aussies pronounce glaciers as glay-see-ers not glay-shers like we do? fun fact.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yes, and frankly I'm a little shocked that anyone on a board full of intelligent, educated people would think otherwise.</p></li>
<li><p>Huge amounts of scientific evidence, and a near-unanimous consensus among experts that this is far beyond normal cyclical change, despite what Anne Coutler would tell you. </p></li>
<li><p>Yes, it's imperative. In fact many scientists are now saying much of the damage has been done and is irreversible. People scoffed when Al Gore said we need to reverse the electricity grid to renewable resources in 10 years, but scientists have said that those are the only kinds of steps that will enact real change.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Al Gore & Ann Coulter can rot in a hole.</p>
<p>So far 2 Al's and 3 Ann's :D Interesting...ok new format guys:</p>
<p>1) Yes or No
2) Why or Why not
3) Measures to stop it
4. College
5. Major</p>
<p>Obama/McCain's policies were practically identical, and Blue and Red politicians are on both sides. Let's keep politics out of it as it makes little difference :)</p>
<p>No
Cyclical
To stop it? No. To make the environment cleaner? Yes
Unless I get into Penn, a school in the SEC or ACC
Broadcast Journalism/Media</p>
<p>and I take offense to you calling me an Ann Coulter, she's a worthless anti-semite. :P</p>
<p>^Yeah, (in relation molly4190's comments) that is a good point, they were pretty similar on the whole climate issue.</p>
<p>Anyway, just to expand:</p>
<ol>
<li>Gtown</li>
<li>Int'l Relations</li>
</ol>
<p>... at least come September</p>
<ol>
<li>yes (not completely that it's anthropogenic though)</li>
<li>there is no debate that climate is changing, and very rapidly. It's very hard to attribute causality to any human process however - the correlations are there, causality ... a lot harder to prove. </li>
<li><p>We should be trying to develop cleaner and more sustainable technologies, yes. Stop it? Can we? I doubt it. Could and should we try and limit any part of the change that might potentially be anthropogenic, especially if it leads to a more sustainable future? absolutely.</p></li>
<li><p>Irrelevant</p></li>
<li><p>Earth Sciences, Environmental Engineering (double)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>1) Anthropogenic climate change? - No
2) Carbon is not pollution. Climate change is cyclical.
3) There is no point in attempting to regulate the cycle of global warming and global cooling, although we can take measures against flagrant abuses of our environment (oil spills, etc.)
4. Haverford College
5. Economics (intended)</p>
<p>Climate change- yes
The climate is ever changing, from global heating to an ice age, and the temp continues to rise/fall, the debate centers on whether climate change is natural or man made. No doubt that fossil fuels effect the envoirnment, but how much is up for debate. I believe that liberals play on the politics of fear and exaggerate problems in order to push through "reform" policy, so the whole global warming thing has been overblown. The world is not going to end because people drive cars, use electricity and burn fossil fuels. Scientific data is now indicating a period of global cooling, so what is causing the changes isn't completely agreed upon. I believe it's a combination of fossil fuels, natural climate change and overpopulation (limited amount of resources-land, oxygen, their use causes change).
Nothing, countries are volunarily addressing the situation (Kyoto treaty, pollution caps, energy efficient light bulbs/cars), and the trend towards alt energy's will increase, especially in the west where our oil addiction is funding terrorists.
CWRU
Poli Sci/History major, Econ/Public Policy minor</p>
<p>Liberals playing on politics of fear? Really? Do you know how many major Republicans believe anthropogenic global warming is occurring?</p>
<p>"McCain also termed global warming "a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge" and added that "the problem isn't a Hollywood invention.""</p>
<p>McCain:</a> Address Energy Security, Warming - washingtonpost.com</p>
<p>"[Mitt] Romney: I think the risks of climate change are real. And that you're seeing real climate change. And I think human activity is contributing to it."</p>
<p>"[Rudy] Giuliani: There is global warming. Human beings are contributing to it."</p>
<p>Furthermore, every major government excluding the United States' has signed the Kyoto Protocol, effectively declaring a belief in anthropogenic global warming. The Kyoto Protocol was written in 1992, 14 years before the release of An Inconvenient Truth.</p>
<p>Yes, of course.</p>
<p>Of course climate change is cyclical, but scientists who have devoted their life to studying geological, atmospheric, and related sciences are finding overwhelming evidence that this climate change is different from what we have experienced in the past. I believe them more than I believe political pundits who wander back and forth on this issue, especially since Ann Coulter's comments on the issue tend to be extremely uninformed (she comments on the Earth's core temperature being 3 degrees higher as being the same thing as the difference between a 57 degree day and a 60 degree day, when in reality the two situations are not analogous at all).</p>
<p>People on both sides of the aisle "believe" in climate change (I don't understand how you can not believe in climate change -- it's not something ambiguous like God or hell or Buddha, or something, like a matter of faith, or even something debatable like the death penalty. It's a testable scientific phenomenon).</p>
<p>In any case, whether or not climate change is anthropogenic or not, I don't see why it's bad to regulate emissions of harmful chemicals or to increase efforts to find alternative sources of energy. Fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, and even if our Earth isn't getting warmer, our cities are getting smoggier. More children than ever develop asthma, and respiratory problems are a leading cause of the death in the U.S.</p>
<p>I'm a graduate student at Columbia University and I'm earning my Ph.D in sociomedical sciences, with a concentration in psychology.</p>
<ol>
<li>Yes</li>
<li>There is overwhelming scientific data, and there is a consensus among scientists that climate change is happening, and that the most plausable explanation is human activities. The reason most people don't believe that climate change is happening/is caused by humans is mainly that the science behind it is extremely complicated and unpredictable, and they don't understand it.</li>
<li>Government needs to put more limits on emissions and offer more incentives for clean, renewable energy.</li>
</ol>
<p>Wow, 6 Al's and 4 Ann's, plus 1 bozo who insisted on dragging politics into it when I explicitly stated there are Reps/Dems on both sides and politics has little to do with it :D</p>
<p>I'm suprised guys. I was expecting the rabid go-green dogs to come out and start panting. I go to a very liberal college in NYC, that's probably why :)</p>
<p>saying politics has little to do with it is just a way of running from a potential democrat vs. republican argument, but really politics is huge.</p>
<p>Every method so far to deal with it by both parties is completely liberal, which, liberalism is very much political. The whole "global warming" is very political. Let me expand:</p>
<p>1) Yes
2) Evidence, weather the past few years has changed a lot, etc.
3) So far we are seeing liberal theory in its <strong><em>iest form. If anyone in politics wasnt a money grubbing whore, we'de probably see real propositions for climate change, but since they all are, we won't. Honestly, "reducing emissions" is just going to mean steady C02 increase but at much slower rates, which is still increase nonetheless. I don't want some half-ass liberal application of a solution, I want the whole thing. Of course if it was the whole thing, we wouldnt have the horse </em></strong> caps, we would be seing the government saying they want new, clean forms of energy (I'm talking so clean that produce just a small fraction of CO2 as before, or none at all) and actually doing * about it. Instead they just want to cash in on it.
4. McGill
5. Linguistics and Religion</p>
<p>So yeah, it's a very political issue. Just because the parties both agree with it in the US doesnt mean anything. All solutions proposed under Obama really won't amount to anything. As much as I am a hater of liberal economic theory, I'm willing to compromise my views for a good liberal solution to this problem. However, both sides are really just being d**** and not doing anything of meaningful significance.</p>
<p>oh and btw, i would listen to the the other posters. don't go by Al's and Ann's. You trying to start a political debate? I mean really, I'm not liberal at all really even though I agree that global warming is actually happening. Neither am I anti-semitic.</p>
<p>This is not a matter of "believe in it" or not.</p>
<p>It is real and humans are contributing to it; that is scientific fact. I can point you towards information if you'd like. Every single major climatological, meteorological, geological, astronomic, and oceanographic organization in the world has come to the same conclusion.</p>
<p>People who don't "believe" in it are the ones who don't know any of the science behind it and have not researched it.</p>
