<p>BigTwix - lol no I've repeatedly asked to keep politics out of it as I want to do just the opposite of starting a political debate. :) I was using Al's and Ann's as a joke. i hate both of them. </p>
<p>GoldShadow - what gave you the idea I don't believe in it? that I haven't done research? that i'm ignorant? nahh, I wanted to hear what other students think.</p>
<ol>
<li>Nope. At least, we're not the ones causing it.</li>
<li>Cyclical</li>
<li>Not a thing. </li>
<li>UNC-Chapel Hill</li>
<li>Public Policy</li>
</ol>
<p>1) Haven't decided yet.
2) Both sides of the debate are fairly interesting.
3) Become a self-righteous annoying Prius owner. (Joking, kind of.)
4. BC '08
5. Marketing</p>
<p>
[quote]
GoldShadow - what gave you the idea I don't believe in it? that I haven't done research? that i'm ignorant? nahh, I wanted to hear what other students think.
[/quote]
Not you, I just meant people in this thread that have said "no".</p>
<p>Interesting how a lot of the posters in this thread who don't believe in GW are not science majors. Treating GW was a political issue and not a scientific one does it no justice and mitigates its true severity.</p>
<p>Global climate change may be a fact, however we are merely stroking our own ego be declaring that it is entirely caused by man.</p>
<p>Tens of thousands of years ago, almost all of North America was covered by glacier. How the hell did we manage to cause it to melt? The Earth has natural cycles that we can do nothing to stop.</p>
<p>1) Absolutely yes
2) There are almost no reputable scientific organizations that disagree with the fact global warming is happening, that we are causing it, and that we need to take immediate action to stop it. No reputable scientific organizations are claiming that this is just cyclical. Among the people who are qualified to speak about it, there is essentially no debate.
3) Not sure what the best recommendation is, but there are lots of options on the table. We have to do something.
4) Washington University in St. Louis
5) Chemical Engineering</p>
<p>Guys, I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that not a single person that has replied to this topic or will reply to this topic has the expertise necessary to evaluate the scientific evidence on their own and come to a conclusion. I'm not saying we're stupid, I'm saying that climate topics are immensely complex and that none of us have studied the subject enough. Period. </p>
<p>So then who are you going to believe? The scientific organizations who unanimously and unambiguously claim that this is happening and we need to do something about it, or politicians (on either side) that have no training in this complex topic? This is a scientific issue, we should believe the scientists. I think that once you know all of the facts, it is pretty much that simple. </p>
<p>I would highly recommend this youtube video which sums up what I think about this issue:</p>
<p>lollybo, well we've only had 3 science majors, and to be honest I don't know much about SocioMed (I'm guessing it's something about healthcare/med/society)? I don't think it's fair to say the non-sci majors are the non-green ones. So far:</p>
<p>5 Not Green - Journalism, Economics, Public Policy, </p>
<p>9 Green - IR, Earth Sci/Environmental Engineering, Politics/History, SocioMed, Religion/Linguistics, Chem Engineering</p>
<p>then we have the iffy-undecideds (nothing wrong with that) and the schlumps who refused to follow the simple format I asked for and do their own thing. </p>
<p>the reason I asked for College Name was cause i wanted to see if location/culture made a difference (e.g the Bob Jones kids saying Global warming is God hugging us closer and Oberlin kids talking about their Prius's). It didn't have anything to do with "elite college" students thinking one way or whatever.</p>
<p>Perhaps I should rephrase my statement, it seems that no science majors are "non-green."</p>
<p>Add me to the list as a green science major (math, geology minor).</p>
<p>It seems that all the non-green people have chosen majors that focus on politics and policies - journalism, public policy, economics. Coincidence?</p>
<p>Barlum - 2 of the Green people were International Relations and Politics/History majors, and don't dump the Econ students in since Econ requires as much Politics as a Physics major and academically is more math oriented than politically. ok about my own views...</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don't know. </p></li>
<li><p>I've read articles, watched An Inconvenient Truth, seen multiple videos, attended lectures by scientists both advocating and disagreeing with "green" policies...it's such a complex issue and I don't know. The earth is undoubtedly getting warmer, but is it cyclical or anthropogenic? </p></li>
<li><p>pollution = bad. is carbon pollution? is climate change anthropogenic? is this merely cyclical change?</p></li>
<li><p>New York University</p></li>
<li><p>Economics and NeuroScience (I guess I'm the first non-green science major)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Most people majoring in science/engineering are going to fall on the same side because they have at least some trust in the scientific method/establishment. People who study other things may take a little longer to develop this trust. But I think that if one needs proof that they should trust science on scientific issues, they should simply look around at thousands of products and services that are available to them only because of science and engineering. Simply put, science works, and scientific organizations should be trusted when they unanimously agree on things like this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that not a single person that has replied to this topic or will reply to this topic has the expertise necessary to evaluate the scientific evidence on their own and come to a conclusion.
[/quote]
i agree, but my point wasn't to find out from other students whether global warming is/isn't real, but simply to see what other students believe; i was born and raised in NY, go to a liberal college in NYC and wanted to hear other people's views. seems like every other person i meet is a liberal nut who only eats figs and berries and it's such an artsy school, we don't have many science majors. </p>
<p>i do trust the scientific method, i'm studying neurobiology, but there are scientists on both sides of the issue. This is a Princeton Physics professor's views on Global warming <a href="http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/24772.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/24772.pdf</a> I got this from another thread, here's a quote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change.
I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. I predict that future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before the passage of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution.Deeply sincere people thought they were saving humanity from the evils of alcohol, just as many people now sincerely think they are saving humanity from the evils of CO2."
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>Yes, climate change. Warming? Not sure.</li>
<li>There are definitely changes going on, there's evidence of that, and things don't usually change this fast. Maybe it is a natural cycle and we're just exacerbating it. Who knows.</li>
<li>We should definitely be correcting some of our more uninformed habits... We're changing as a culture and species possibly too fast for our own good.</li>
<li>Entering Mudd.</li>
<li>Engineering.</li>
</ol>
<p>Mind you, on a broader scale, it's not necessarily the Earth we have to worry about... It's sprung back from worse things. Give it a few million years and it will recover just fine, most likely. Keeping it a nice place for us to live? Bit trickier.</p>
<p>I guess I'll add to the poll:
1) Definitely yes.
2) Examined all the evidence, it's absolutely clear that humans are contributing significantly to warming.
3) We definitely have to take measures to stop it.
4) UConn
5) Biology</p>
<p>Hey Molly, I didn't mean to imply that none of us here were qualified to discuss the issue at all. I meant that when we ourselves try to interpret the scientific evidence, we're outside of our areas of expertise. We should let the scientists do this, trust that their conclusions are the best guess that we as the human race can make about the situation, and then involve everyone else (politicians, public, etc.) to discuss what to do about it. </p>
<p>There are individual scientists out there that disagree, but these scientists are in the minority. Every reputable scientific organization in the world that has commented on global warming has unambiguously stated that it is a problem that we are most likely causing; this represents the best science that we could ever hope to muster on the issue. You can't realistically get any closer to a unanimous conclusion than what we are at right now. </p>
<p>There are also real scientists that still disagree that HIV causes AIDS, including one that won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, (AIDS</a> denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but when we make public policy decisions, we don't make them based one what these scientists say. The global warming situation should not be different.</p>
<p>^ thanks for your input, and well-stated. so far:</p>
<p>5 Not Green - Journalism, Economics, Public Policy, </p>
<p>12 Green - IR, Earth Sci/Environmental Engineering, Politics/History, SocioMed, Religion/Linguistics, Chem Engineering, Math, Engineering, Biology, </p>
<p>2 undecided - 1 Marketing, 1 Econ/NeuroSci</p>
<p>molly4190, I didn't mean to "dump" on economics majors. I didn't even say you are wrong. I just noticed that the posters who think that global warming is not anthropogenic tend to have majors that think about politics or public policy. I know that an econ major is mostly theory and very math-heavy, but you will still occasionally think about "why did the government react like this to that economic trend." A physics major (your choice of example) does not typically think about history and politics at all.</p>
<p>Add me. Math/Econ, green</p>
<p>Molly: do you believe an organization (Heartland Insitute) funded by Exxon Mobil will tell you anything but that Global Warming not caused by humans? </p>
<p>I don't see how an organization funded by private, profit-seeking organizations have more credibility than the UN. I simply can't believe why just because a few scientists disagree with Global Warming then it proves that Global Warming is not true. Think about the costs and benefits. If the pro-global warming people are right and we don't do anything about climate change than we're <strong><em>ed. But if the anti-global wamring people are right then fine, the world maybe spent a couple trillion dollars (cost of Iraq/Afghanistan) on R&D and reduced CO2 emissions. Americans are doomed if they continue to eat the *</em></strong>*** generated by lobbyists fed by profit, seeking organizations. </p>
<p>By the way, I study finance and economics I'm the type of guy who advocates for free trade and the WTO not the hippy, liberal environmentalists. Yet the science is real and consequence severe.</p>
<p>It's wrong to say "green" versus "non-green". It's more of a matter of accounting. Do we want to spend a few trillion avoiding "possibly" something that will flood major coastal cities, make arable lands arid, cripple the world economy, and worse? You should say yes if you buy any kind of insurance. </p>
<p>I don't want to harsh, but if you spend money buying health insurance or car insurance and yet you don't think curbing carbon emissions is worth the cost... then either you can't do grade 2 math(ie. stupid), or are simply unethical. </p>
<p>You don't believe global warming is happening because 1% of the scientists disagree, but let me tell you the chance of you crashing your car this year is a lot less than 1% and a lot cheaper than the full consequences of global warming.</p>