2. b
3. b
4. a
5. all of the above with geo engineering as a last resort
1) Very real and very dangerous, especially taking into account the massive impact that humans have had on fisheries, forests, rivers, fresh water storage, etc. It would be bad enough that we are tearing apart the fantastic tapestry of life itself on the planet and were not contributing any global warming. It would be bad enough that we are causing significant climate change and were not tearing apart the tapestry of life. But neither by itself is enough for us. We have to do all those things and still more. And burden the planet with quite soon the sheer mass of over 10 billion of us rather large animals. I can't select (a) because it's not "probably dangerous." It's much more certain than that and is already dangerous, besides. So I pick (z).
2) That's both a technical and a political question. (Well, it's even more than that since the concept of "harm" may or may not include harm to animals, plants, etc, as well as humans. I can't tell because you don't say.) Technically, it's not too late to take useful action. It won't be too late, twenty years from now, either. But in twenty years the "useful action" will require so much more to be done. And in all cases, such action (for political reasons) will be far too slow in coming to avoid significant harm. It will always be behind the useful power curve until the significant harm is done and over with. No idea what letter you want me to select for that. I guess another (z).
3) n/a
4) If a new theory arrived that explained the existing science better, improved the predictive power, and changed the implications, I'd be intrigued about the new theory and the new imagination space it creates for me. Of course, I can't comment on the implications of that new theory, because I've no idea what it is or what it might change about the predictions. But I'd be very intrigued and fascinated and I'd enjoy learning about it. I love being wrong when it means I get to learn something truly useful and new in the process. That's not happy, not sad, etc. So it's (z) again.
5) I can't really speak to this, since AGW is only a part of the problem at hand. Dealing only with AGW won't solve the other "train wrecks" that are in progress right now. Loss of species diversity, fisheries, forests, etc. However, on the AGW front alone, I'd say carbon tax with all receipts going back to the people (no interest at all in cap and trade -- it does nothing except make a few people rich), no fossil fuel subsidies at all, and global (not international, which may mean less than everyone) laws leaving all fossil fuel sources in the ground where they lay. I find geoengineering very dangerous. We already are having massive, ignorant impacts on the planet. This would be just yet another way we'd do something drastic and likely stupid. Some things sound good, like carbon dioxide extraction and sequestration -- but I suspect we'd manage to screw up even on something that benign-sounding and make a mess of it, as well. The scale would have to be huge and it would have to never ever end. So we'd get lots of time doing something on a global scale to eventually do something disastrous. I'd bank on it.
EDIT:
"Rather the same in reverse for you, Jonathan. If, somehow, you became convinced that AGW either had stopped, or was harmless, how would you then react?"
I would do just as I said. Science conclusions today can indeed be wrong if someone tomorrow can imagine a system of quantitative theories that adequately explain past data and also predict better than what exists now. This new theoretical infrastructure would teach me better ways to think about the world. And that would be fascinating. I suppose if it also relieved some concerns about AGW, that would be nice. But then, that wouldn't reduce my concerns about the other global scale insults. I'd just refocus some energy, I suppose. Not all, because I'd still be interested in this new climate science knowledge, as well.
EDIT: However, given enough time at it I think we are headed here --> See section "(e) Global Habitability" at this link:
http://m.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...
1. A.
Anthropogenic global warming is real, and probably dangerous. But I do think that mankind is on average smarter then yeast (which will either consume all available resources, or die in it's own waste) so I am not afraid of the future.
2. C.
If AGW is real and dangerous, then we can avoid most of the harm from AGW if we take action.
4. A
If I am wrong about the reality and/or danger of AGW, then when I found that out I would be happy or relieved.
5. All of the above.
Appropriate action to deal with AGW would include all of the above.
Maxx (who doesn't know why a "greenhouse gas" is a "greenhouse gas,") claims he knows better then over 97% of the scientist active in climate science, IS wrong despite his assertion to the contrary.
1. Anthropogenic global warming is:
a. real, and probably dangerous
2. If AGW is real and dangerous, then:
c. we can avoid most of the harm from AGW if we take action
3. If AGW is not real or not dangerous, then:
b. many of the actions being proposed should still be done, though they are less urgent and/or some of them should not be done
4. If I am wrong about the reality and/or danger of AGW, then when I found that out I would be:
a. happy or relieved
5. Appropriate action to deal with AGW would include: (select all that apply)
a. broad government regulatory intervention, such as cap-and-trade, a carbon tax, or eliminating fossil fuel subsidies
b. specific government regulatory intervention, such as banning particular technologies
c. assistive government intervention, such as funding "green" energy projects (tbc)
d. individual private action, such as driving less
e. corporate action, such as sourcing raw materials for a factory locally
f. collective private action, such as organizing boycotts of polluting industries
g. scientific action, such as researching alternate fuels
h. international political action, such as treaties setting carbon emissions targets for all signatories
i. geoengineering
j. something else entirely, that I will describe (only select this if your proposal isn't a variant of a-i)
1.c. very marginal or insignificant... and 9/11 was an inside job
2.a. it's too late to take any useful action, we're doomed ... and the moon landing was fake.
3. c. a few of the actions being proposed should still be done, but most shouldn't and there is no need to rush or panic... and the CIA assassinated JFK
4. b. fairly neutral... and Obama is a lizard person
5.j. something else entirely, that I will describe (only select this if your proposal isn't a variant of a-i)
There is no need to do anything... and the government is hiding aliens in area 51
1. Anthropogenic global warming is:
NOT REAL !
2. If AGW is real and dangerous, then:
Not applicable because it’s not real
3. If AGW is not real or not dangerous, then:
We should cut all the funding, it’s wasted money.
4. If I am wrong about the reality and/or danger of AGW, then when I found that out I would be:
The empirical data shows that I’m NOT wrong.
5. Appropriate action to deal with AGW would include: (select all that apply)
Cutting the public funding which is an enormous waste of taxpayer money and holding the scammers responsible for this crime, waste of precious resources and child abuse by propagandizing little kids for the greedy AGW agenda for power and money.
-----------------------
FSM - The old 97% lie again hun? Three bogus studies so far to try and prop-up that big lie. Oh, and the way they achieve that big number in some of the bogus studies is to include anyone that simply thinks it has warmed --- gee, I'm in the 97%.
-----------------------
1. a
2. c
3. d
4. --
5. a, h
1. a
2. b
3.a
4. a
5. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h. geoengineering is not appropriate at all.
a, b, a, a, all of the above*
Edit 1:
* except geoengineering...frack that!
C warming is marginal and will not be noticed, but CO2 is here for thousands and thousands of years, only nature can put it back in the ground, which is good, I personally would like to see 800ppm for a green and productive planet.
For each statement, please pick the answer that most closely fits your view/understanding.
1. Anthropogenic global warming is:
a. real, and probably dangerous
b. real, but probably harmless
c. very marginal or insignificant
d. not real
2. If AGW is real and dangerous, then:
a. it's too late to take any useful action, we're doomed
b. we will suffer significant harm from it, though if we take appropriate action we can reduce that harm somewhat
c. we can avoid most of the harm from AGW if we take action
d. we can avoid all of the harm from AGW if we take action
3. If AGW is not real or not dangerous, then:
a. all of the actions being proposed to fight AGW should still be done anyways, for other reasons
b. many of the actions being proposed should still be done, though they are less urgent and/or some of them should not be done
c. a few of the actions being proposed should still be done, but most shouldn't
d. none of the actions being proposed should be done
4. If I am wrong about the reality and/or danger of AGW, then when I found that out I would be:
a. happy or relieved
b. fairly neutral
c. upset or concerned
5. Appropriate action to deal with AGW would include: (select all that apply)
a. broad government regulatory intervention, such as cap-and-trade, a carbon tax, or eliminating fossil fuel subsidies
b. specific government regulatory intervention, such as banning particular technologies
c. assistive government intervention, such as funding "green" energy projects (tbc)
a,b,a,a, all
