2 A
3 B
The direct effect of climate change is C, but the indirect effect is B. China, India and Pakistan all rely on glacial melt water to sustain their agriculture. The glaciers are disappearing and the consequence will be a scramble for water resources by nuclear armed and desperate leaders. Add religious fanaticism to the mix and its bad news. The problem might lead to 500 million refugees trying to get into Europe and North America. Keep your guns America, you'll need them.
1 C
2 A
3 C
C
B - Field relevant to climate are quite a bit more extensive than the 97% crap, but it is fair to say that AGW is occurring and will cause problems. It will also cause benefits. Which outweighs which?
Note if you would have asked, specifically climate scientists, I would have said A here. But given how many fields are relevant to climate science, that is a very large pool.
D - F - I would put this as a range centering around neutral.
The political actions I would recommend would assume that the answer to your last question is D and could even border on C. The 2% of GWP multi-trillion dollar "solutions", I would only accept if I believed A or B was the answer to your last question.
Edit:
Dook,
You may want to note that Pegminer answered the second question with a B, likely for the reasons I have mentioned.
You may also note that while you and I disagree on the third answer being C or D, you note the distinct problem with trying to associate death directly to AGW. You indeed need to reword C in order to claim C.
1. AGW is:
c. a scientific question with political implications.
2. Scientists, at least in fields relevant to climate:
a. virtually all (~95%+) accept that AGW is real and likely to be at least somewhat problematic.
3. With the most probable human response to the issue, in the short to medium term (the next 50-100 years) AGW is most likely to:
c. cause some major economic problems and some deaths.
1. C
2. A
3. B
First, I will consider AGW to mean ... Anthropogenic Global Warming (caused by humans as opposed to cyclical climate change).
Here are my thoughts:
Man's ramped up infringement on the environment began w/ the industrial revolution. Subsequent contamination lead to the EPA as we felt the impact on a first person basis.
The Industrial Revolution til now is a grain of sand in the hourglass of time yet man has already witnessed alarming results (ie. frog mutations ... frogs are considered an early detection barometer).
Climatologists are largely in unison about how man's pollution is influential.
I look at the photographic evidence of rapidly receding glaciers and consider how natural climate change should occur across centuries ... not decades.
I think it's anthropogenic but the opposition about that is strong.
Here's my position ... the response is to raise the standards that minimize pollution ... something man should always be striving for as Earth is the only planet he has.
CB and cant answer the last one as I would be as bad as the end timers if I did and I refuse to go there, I thought Blue had a real well thought out answer
His synopsis at the end I agree with
I think it's anthropogenic but the opposition about that is strong.
Here's my position ... the response is to raise the standards that minimize pollution ... something man should always be striving for as Earth is the only planet he has.
The problem I think we have that is more important is the Fluorocarbons.
B. Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
D: There is a list of over 31,000 scientists who reject AGW any I have yet to see a larger list of those who accept AGW.
E. A nonentity can have no influence in real science.
1. - c. a scientific question with political implications.
2. - c. may or may not (~50%) accept AGW.
3. - e. be basically neutral or have no significant effects.
Science funding and jobs are alloted based on acceptance of science dogma. If you disagree with things like AGW, you will not get jobs, and funding for research. It is a science is a bias system.
CAC: like the other posters Baccheus and Climate Realist who accept science and do not hate it.
D/dx, also a non-hater of science, answers CAB ,which is consistent with CAC. "A lot of chaos and destruction," is vague and sensationalistic wording, but is not inconsistent with "some major economic problems."
I personally would word the third point as something like "major reductions to global GDP," and not discuss deaths. Death can be caused by something that is exacerbated by climate change, but it is that something (severe drought, major hurricane, etc.), usually combined with other factors (weak health, bad luck) which leads to the death, not climate change per se. One could improve the point by referring to death RATES (invoking a increased probability of a reduction in life span rather than numbers of deaths), but I would leave death out altogether. It makes this point sound too much like a "lite" version of the absurd "kill us all" (a), and in any case the effect on deaths will almost certainly by outweighed by the negative impacts on the broader economy. Future reductions in the quality of life, in other words, are more likely and significant than reductions in length of lives.
Please pick a letter for each number, even if you also have other things you want to say. If you don't feel that your exact answer is present, please pick the closest letter, then explain how it's wrong or insufficient.
1. AGW is:
a. purely a scientific question.
b. purely a political question.
c. a scientific question with political implications.
2. Scientists, at least in fields relevant to climate:
a. virtually all (~95%+) accept that AGW is real and likely to be at least somewhat problematic.
b. mostly (~70%+) accept that AGW is real, and might be problematic.
c. may or may not (~50%) accept AGW.
d. mostly reject AGW.
3. With the most probable human response to the issue, in the short to medium term (the next 50-100 years) AGW is most likely to:
a. kill us all or destroy civilization.
b. cause a lot of chaos and destruction.
c. cause some major economic problems and some deaths.
d. cause some minor economic problems, and possibly a few deaths.
e. be basically neutral or have no significant effects.
f. be beneficial to humanity as a whole.
Feel free to answer the last question conditionally (eg "if this happens, then b; if that happens, then c")
Also, any other (brief) thoughts?
C
C most scientists agree on the theory but disagree on the result
F a greener more productive world, with increased habitat for wildlife and humans.
CBC
