What level of global warming concern do you fall within?

Interesting article/poll and in some ways I like the groupings better than the four we typically discuss and pan here-Alarmists, Proponents, Skeptics and Deniers-but in other ways not so much. I more fall into the Concerned category but tip a little toward the Cautious-describing myself as not viewing it as a personal threat feeling no sense of urgency to deal with it wouldn’t be accurate at all, but at the same time I am not quite as Concerned as the concerned category would imply-so to me the six redefined categories are muddier than the four we generally use here. Handy for interpreting a poll but not as much for labeling ourselves.

Now me, I’m very much in favor of vigorous action to develop alternative energy and infrastructure, but that is as much for geopolitical and economic reasons as it is for potential man made climate change. I see alternative energy as a positive coincidental juncture with multiple benefits, including a win/win regardless of how significant our impact turns out to be on climate.

My position is that as a layman, it is neither my responsibility or right based on some fuzzy feel-good interpretation of the first amendment to interpret scientific research and data and pronounce some sort of opinion or conclusion about what is happening with our climate. That’s just arrogance and stupidity, neither of which is spelled out in terms of special protections in the Bill of Rights.

In political terms global warming/climate change and mankind’s influence on it has to be distilled down to a matter of risk management, and the problem at this point appears to be of significant enough risk that we need to take reasonable precautions as the research continues and the data refined.

That’s really where the skeptics come in-the deniers, doubtfuls and dismissives lost the debate long ago and have become objects of laughter, scorn and ridicule; now we need the scientific and political skepticism to work with the concerned proponents of AGW to develop reasonable methods of dealing with the potential risk without deconstructing whole societies and cultures or tipping the economic balance into world wide collapse and poverty. The benefits of making the right decisions are huge…the risks of maintaining the status quo as I see the deniers, dismissives and blahblahblahs wanting to do are foolhardy beyond measure and pure idiocy regardless of their prevailing arguments. Which basically range from Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite to the weather today in Poughkeepsie.

1

I would say that I am cautious. I have noticed that as a result of the recent economic problems some people are making decisions that are more environmentally friendly as a way to save money. I think a lot of businesses are responding to this and coming up with green products as a way to stay relevant. I have noticed some really screwy weather the past couple of years so I have to say that something is going on. Even if we as humans don’t completely understand it.

Somewhere between Concerned and Alarmed. The problem is that if we wait for all of the scientific theories and models to be proved it will probably be too late to prevent irrevocable damage.

I think it is better to err on the side of caution and do what we can to reduce our impact. If it turns out that the majority of scientists who believe that GW is happening were wrong, the worst thing that will have happened is that we will have lessened our dependence on foreign oil and found ways to more fully take advantage of renewable resources.

If the deniers are wrong, and GW is proven to be real it may be too late to do anything except know that we were warned but were too pigheaded to try to stop the damage.

51

I had researched this in my school and job back in 1988 through 1993 when much of the basic science was being developed. I am in the ‘Concerned’ leaning toward ‘Alarmed’ camp. I am convinced that man-made global warming is occurring, and have real concerns about the future if it is not dealt with. But I also think (or maybe it is more of hope) that it won’t be as severe as scientists predict the most likely climate and ecosystem responses will be. Scientist tend to build in safety factors on something as important as this, but with all the uncertainty, any built in safety factor might not be enough. The hope I have is not based anything in particular but the resilience I have seen in natural ecosystems to adjust and bounce back from disruptions, so I don’t think it is wise to accept my premise as a fact. I definitely want to plan for the worse, and think a national response that plans for the worst is prudent.

83

I was, until today, in the Alarmed Category,

now, I am convinced we will continue to ignore GW until it is too late and then some will ask: Why didn’t Somebody Tell Me?

We will someday PROHIBIT the sale of cars with Carbon Emissions, including those powered by gas, what they call, “Natural Gas” to make the distinction with “Unnatural Oil”? You can tell its an scam.

Were it not for the bright and hot sun, I would think about carrying a sign that said “TThe End is Coming! The End is Coming!”

Here is what the weather reports should be showing: a running tabulation of how many degree days we are ahead or behind of some agreed to “normal” year. My experience is that we have had 2 cold winters in a row. I’m having a hard time buying in to the mainstream media attempts to get us worked up about this. We need to stop importing so much oil, but there are plenty of valid reasons for that, global warming is not one of those reasons.

Per the definitions provided, I have a foot planted firmly in the alarmed and the concerned categories but am leaning sharply toward alarmed. I’ve taken action to reduce my carbon footprint, I’m engaged in a dialogue on several fronts, I’ve researched and written articles to promote the issue, I’ve voiced my opinions to my elected officials. The adjective used to describe the direction of the national response in alarmed is “aggressive.” The term used under concerned is “vigorous.” The former means ‘assertive, bold & energetic.’ Our national response, given the situation at hand, should be assertive, bold,energeticc and vigorous, and whatever else it needs to be to succeed. I trust that under Obama it can be all of that.

115

The dismissive. it is just not true and an increase in global warming would be beneficial.

i am in NONE of the above … I am an Earth scientist ….geology / geophysics and this latest warming cycle began 15,0 years ago and is still continuing …. the end may be close but we will not know until we see the physical evidence …. there is nothing we can do to stop or slow or accelerate the process … I am sure there will a fair amount of coastal flooding as sea level continues to rise …. then it will begin to drop ….. this has been going on for billions of years …. we can see it in the geologic record …..

It depends on how the question is stated. If you state it as just global warming or climate change then I am cautious. If you will then turn my answer into believing in man made climate change then I am dismissive. Reading your link, I would have to go with dismissive since this is stacked in favor of man made and I know that it is a natural cycle with maybe a small amount being caused by man.

What I find interesting is that only the Countries that have already started to clean up their pollution are the ones that are pushing for green house gas emissions requirements and countries like India and China get a free pass even though China and India are the number 1 and 2 polluters of the environment and #1 and #3 in green house gas emissions.

99