DISQUS

Todd Havens · 11 months ago

Probably an expected drop in relevance now that I think about it. Being literally underwater in a decade or so just can't compare to being fiscally underwater in the current economy.

I am surprised that more gas guzzlers were bought at year end...methinks we have a long-term memory problem in this country.

Kiran · 11 months ago

The interesting thing now is that President Obama is focusing on pumping money into sectors that will not only boost the economy but that will also help us live greener lives. The majority of the folks are right now worried about their jobs, there is no way global warming will be a top priority in the tough economy.
However, that is why its so critical to have a leader who can address both economy and global warming.
Also statically speaking the data on global warming is limited. If you had the same data over 7-10 years, may be we would get better perspective on the trend.

Chris Morrison · 11 months ago

I think over a longer period you'd see a definite rising trend of interest. If you said "global warming" ten years ago, relatively few people would have known what you were talking about.

It also occurs to me that the long-term trend could still be a steady rise, with a premature spike in interest due to Hurricane Katrina and some other natural disasters.

John · 11 months ago

They should ask the question again in the summer. Also, rather than "global warming", they should use "climate change" since concerned scientists seem to believe its the violent changes (hot and colder swings) in the climate that will cause problems.

S.t · 11 months ago

'man-made' global warming is the biggest crock of crap that the counter-culture has ever tried to get over on the voting consumer.

I guess the Co2 figure of 350-parts-per-million only seems miniscule, but that's equal to about 3-&-a-half steps/of a 6mile run, right?

Gimme a break.

Aaron · 10 months ago

I don't understand this 350ppm is trivial argument. That's like saying a few grams of cyanide is trivial in my 190lb body. Or better yet, a .44 Magnum shoots bullets that weigh about 16 grams. Since I weigh 86kg, the effect of putting that bullet in my head must be trivial, right? What, it's not even 0.00019 of my body weight, as if a high velocity impact could do anything!?

It's not the amount of the CO2 relative to the atmosphere, it's about the affect that CO2 could cause.

Jason Morris · 11 months ago

Chris: Funny thing is that global warming was a plot line in 1995 movie, American President with Michael Douglas. That was likely one of the first mainstream mentions.

I agree with pgkiran. What the survey overlooks is how these things are intertwined.

The need to address and way we will address Global Warming has economic (#1), labor (#2), geopolitical (#3), education (#5) and energy (#6) implications for the US. Reducing the cost of energy, creating manufacturing, engineering and construction jobs, reducing the reliance on foreign oil which funds some groups who hate the West, are all offshoots of a renewable-energy driven economy. People make pocket book choices and so that is why the government is stepping in and making it more affordable to go green and will make it more expensive for businesses to contributed to global warming.

Chris Morrison · 11 months ago

You're right about the implications, and that is how renewable energy is being sold right now in the USA.

Of course, you could make similar arguments about any number of things. A huge spending boost in education or health, for example, would have some obvious benefits and employ lots of people. We could spend the money building out ubiquitous high-speed broadband, which would provide just as many jobs and, arguably, a bigger economic boost more quickly.

I think global warming (or climate change, take your pick) is the vital linchpin to the clean energy argument. Pull it out, and the story might not sell anymore.

Chris · 11 months ago

I believe that if global warming is caused by humans, then it is up to humans to *individually* make their own choices on how to deal with it.

I definitely do not believe that government should be involved, with subsidies, or declaring CO2 a pollutant, or anything in that respect.

I believe "green" companies need to prove themselves like everyone else, and earn their revenues...not seek taxpayer funds.

Each person is responsible for their own conduct...and to petition the government to use force against those who disagree is just wrong...and can't work anyway.

Gadget Sleuth · 11 months ago

Amazing. How much will money and jobs matter if 1/4 of the country is underwater in 20 years. That being said, I agree with "Chris"...people need to decide what kind of planet they want with their own decisions.

Peter Antypas · 11 months ago

You guys should read "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Thomas Friedman. I don't agree 100% with him on all points, but he definitely gets it.

One last thing: "Individuals" have next to zero money (and thus power) in our top-town, conglomerate-managed, corrupt-to-the-bone republic. The small minority who has vision, coupled with a few billion in VC investment, can't really make a dent against hundred-year-old, multi-trillion dollar entrenched interests.

It will take nothing sort of a revolution to defeat Big Oil and Big Coal. There will be blood. Theirs.

S.t · 11 months ago

so all the true-believers on this thread are so scared that we're going to be 'underwater' soon, they think our salvation is to build offshore wind farms?

Are you guys thinking straight?

Aaron · 10 months ago

I realize that I'm taking the bait, but this is Venturebeat, not OMG, and people here are interested in intelligent arguments. Let's follow the logic - current energy sources produce CO2 (undisputed),
CO2 has a propensity to absorb infrared radiation, (this is the key bit) thus warming the planet, a warmer planet results in melting ice (undisputed), and melting surface ice will increase sea levels. So, if we switch to non-carbon energy sources like offshore wind farms, then that is one step to prevent sea level rise.

Or, was your point that as sea levels rise, then the windfarms become useless as they themselves submerge - a reasonable point; I suppose the effort is to put in the windfarms (and other approaches) to prevent the sea levels rising.

But...this post isn't really for you, as I suspect you've moved on to other boards, but those who would read your comments.

Robert Pritchett · 11 months ago

First, see http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Global_W...

Then see http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Global_C...

We did the research.

I tend to agree that "Global Warming(tm)" is pure BS and Al Gore is a con artist of the highest order as High Priest of the Cult of Global Warming, pushing it as a Psy-Ops operation.

So do all those who signed the Global Warming Petition project.

Simple test; Add ice to a glass of water. Mark the level. Let the ice melt. Did the water level rise in the glass? No? Then why do you believe the nonsense perped by those who want to take away our lives and Liberty?

Aaron · 10 months ago

The concern is SURFACE ice melting. Ie, ice that is sitting on land. You're right that floating ice melting doesn't increase sea level. No one is arguing that point, so beating up that point is just attacking a straw-man.

I think those concerned about preventing a global catastrophe are probably equally concerned about liberty, or Liberty.

Jan · 11 months ago

If it only it were that simple Robert...

Climate Chaos · 11 months ago

A couple good sources on background would include:
The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam - http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/3857...

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Page
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...

nuance_intelligence · 10 months ago

To the author, Chris, thanks for the story. I wanted to argue the points in the piece, even though i realized you were reporting on a survey, not posting an opinion.

First of all, the icecube analogy is WRONG. the correct comparison is if you left a huge stack of ice cubes in a sieve or something above the glass (ie, land-based glaciers). when the ice melts, its flows into the water, raising the level. 101 science. all ice is not floating in water.

But more importantly, the point is not Global Warming, but Climate Change. Hunter Lovins (of natural capitalism fame) is fond of calling it Global Weirding. Many of the climate scientists i know (my kids go to school with theirs, so we talk casually) admit (after a beer or two) that they don't know what's going happen (they're scientists, not weathermen :), but that what they can accurate observe is seriously concerning. the progress of climate change is blowing our their models from 5 - 10 years ago. in other words, things are getting worse faster than they predicted.

here's a good explanation of the most recent (like, this month) report from NOAA: http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/16/us-geolog...

finally, i agree that a nationally coordinated effort to build clean energy infrastructure is well aligned with the current economic crisis -- solve two birds with one stone.

Vin · 10 months ago

Maybe the survey should have asked about global cooling.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09....

According to the NASA-GISS temperature database, run by Al Gore's chief climate alarmist, 1934 is still the hottest year on record in the U.S. and data for 2008 confirms we've been in a cooling cycle since 1998. With most of the country experiencing the coolest winter in 30 years, am amazed that 30% of those surveyed were dumb enough to think global warming was a problem.

Too bad, I was rooting for the planet to get warmer and drown all the dirtbags in Manhattan that are responsible for the current financial meltdown.