Please choose the option that best reflects your current view on climate change...
Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Collapse
X
-
Climate Change Poll - not chess related
44Climate is warming and humans have no impact.6.82%3Climate is warming and humans have a small impact.13.64%6Climate is warming and humans have a large impact.50.00%22Climate is basically stable.20.45%9Climate is cooling.2.27%1Do not know if anything is changing, no opinion.6.82%3Tags: None
-
Re : Climate Change Poll - not chess related
I don't think we really need to start a new poll on this... There is no doubt that humans have a large impact on climate change. Yes nature has a big impact too, but without humans Earth will be O.K.Last edited by Felix Dumont; Monday, 19th October, 2009, 10:00 PM.
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Originally posted by Paul Beckwith View PostPlease choose the option that best reflects your current view on climate change...
"Climate is cooling and humans are having a large impact" ?Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Originally posted by Paul Beckwith View PostPlease choose the option that best reflects your current view on climate change...
Other interesting subject of poll: Do you think god really exist?
By the way, since the majority here already proved over the years they don't even know how to make a success with Chess in Canada, how can we ask them to talk about climate? The real good answer to the poll will probably be the opposite of the result you will get.
Carl
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
I think it is a bit presumptuous for people who are not experts on the subject to make conclusions. We should defer to the people who have spent their lives studying the climate.
To make an analogy with chess, wouldn't this poll be the equivalent of polling a bunch of amateur players on whether the King's Gambit is sound? I wouldn't really care about the results of this poll - it is enough for me to know that Fischer thought it was unsound.
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Originally posted by Carl Bilodeau View PostI think you should not open a discussion on this since it is not chess related at all. If someone does not agree with the majority he could reject the Chess Community.
By the way, are you thinking of leaving the chess community because you don't agree with the thinking of the majority on climate change? PLEASE, DO IT!
Originally posted by Carl Bilodeau View PostBy the way, since the majority here already proved over the years they don't even know how to make a success with Chess in Canada, how can we ask them to talk about climate? The real good answer to the poll will probably be the opposite of the result you will get.Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Originally posted by Patrick Kirby View PostI think it is a bit presumptuous for people who are not experts on the subject to make conclusions. We should defer to the people who have spent their lives studying the climate.
To make an analogy with chess, wouldn't this poll be the equivalent of polling a bunch of amateur players on whether the King's Gambit is sound? I wouldn't really care about the results of this poll - it is enough for me to know that Fischer thought it was unsound.
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Patrick, I have not seen the King's Gambit mentioned on TV or radio or in the newspaper recently, like climate change has, so I do not think that your analogy is that applicable...
The most important point is that people who have spent their lives studying the climate are not communicating with the public sufficiently. For example:
1) University professors are not looking at the big picture, they study some very specialized part (i.e. pollens on Ellesmere Island) and publish their results in peer reviewed scientific journals that are only read by others in that niche.
2) Environment Canada/Natural Resources/National Research Council scientists are not allowed to publicly release their material unless it is acceptable to their bosses, department heads, and PMO office.
3) NGO scientists can talk to the public but are quite often discounted as "environmental lefties" or "religious zealots" with another agenda, and they don't get the funding to do their own research.
4) Meanwhile, the people that take the view of minimal or no climate change occurring have positions that favour the status quo so get ample funding from large corporations and the oil industry to have disproportionately large voices so the public gets a very incorrect impression of what is happening.
5) Journalists are always trying to get a balanced story with both sides, but for science issues that can distort the scientifically accepted viewpoint. For example, if every story on evolution (for example the recent story of Ardipithecus) had a "balance" and included the viewpoint of a creationist that would mislead the public.
6) Politicians setting policies base their views on the short-term direction the public polls/winds are blowing when setting policy so the policies do not address the true issues.
So any suggestions as to how more information could be communicated to the public so proper policy can be examined?
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Paul, I don't really disagree with any of your points, and I think maybe I misunderstood the purpose of your poll.
Personally, I think the only rational viewpoint is to accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists that man-made climate change is really happening. And I don't accept the necessity of providing a "balanced" point of view of issues if the other side of the argument clearly lacks any support among knowledgeable people. So for example, if a journalist wrote an article on the King's Gambit, there would be no real need to provide a counterpoint to the opinion of Kasparov or Fischer let's say.
The Ottawa Citizen has a columnist named David Warren who often publishes columns claiming that climate change is not happening. I think it is irresponsible of the Citizen to publish these columns because Mr. Warren is not a scientist and is not qualified to make judgments on this particular issue - he may have his opinion, but his opinion means nothing and has no place in the public debate on this subject.
As for the setting of public policy, that is a separate issue. The only politician I know who took a real long-term view on environmental issues was Stephane Dion, and we all remember how that story ended.
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
I agree with you that David Warren has no balance at all in his columns, only ideological nonsense. I have complained to the Citizen on more than one occasion about his articles. A much more interesting columnist in the Ottawa paper is Dan Gardner, who wrote the informative book "Risk: The science and politics of fear".
I think that Stephane Dion got hammered because he was not a good leader, and did not defend himself or his views from personal attacks by the Conservatives. I do not think that it was his environmental views, persay, that brought him down.
Comment
-
Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Hi Paul
I voted for global climate being stable, based more on a hunch than certainty - and who feels honestly certain about it that is not deluding themselves? My guess (like Gary Ruben, and my own father) is that we are right between Ice Ages, at a point where global temperatures are at their highest, which would be normal for between Ice Ages. I would consider this as part of stability (as opposed to global climate permanently reaching a warmer level). Ocean temperatures being at such a high for a century coincides with this.
I haven't heard that sea levels in any particular place have risen yet, however, which is supposed to be part and parcel of global warming. If you listen much to Lowell Green of Ottawa AM radio, whom you refered to in another thread (and who mentions that sea levels seem to be static), he notes yes, ice in the Arctic has been at its most alarming levels in recent years BUT it has actually begun to improve recently as well, as though the worst might be over.Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Comment
-
Re : Re: Climate Change Poll - not chess related
Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View PostHi Paul
My guess (like Gary Ruben, and my own father) is that we are right between Ice Ages, at a point where global temperatures are at their highest, which would be normal for between Ice Ages.
Comment
-
Re : Climate Change Poll - not chess related
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=EMBQTR8O
Here's the results of a study (at 19:45 min.) in the video. Feel free to watch the whole movie if you never watched it, it is very interesting.
Comment
Comment