Most Americans don't believe humans responsible for climate change, study finds

lookatmypix----here is why

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

------"Why do these people believe there is some kind of conspiracy behind this?"---------

Because it is more socially acceptable to say that we can not give up burning fossil fuels, economically exploiting poor people, and polluting the world because there is a conspiracy to make them stop than it is to say they can not stop burning fossil fuels, economically exploiting poor people and polluting the world because they are greedy.

------"It is more logical to think that the oil industry would not want green alternatives because they would lose their business."-----------

It would seem more logical to me for the oil industry to begin making biofuels that do anything that oil does----and can be made over and over indefinitely. And do not pollute the environment. Then they'd continue to have their business doing the same thing they've always done, sell fuel.
But, appearantly, logic has nothing to do with anything.

---------" This world is full of genius, it is absurd to make us want believe nobody has yet to come up with a viable alternative."-------------

Yup---and we have never even had to wait around for a viable alternative. The first internal combustion engines were designed to run on biofuels---gasoline had not been invented yet. There was no need for gasoline when there were no engines to use it in.
The first Model T car that Henry Ford introduced in 1908 was designed to run on ethanol.
The first engine that Rudolf Diesel built in 1893 ran on peanut oil.
Both Ford and Diesel always believed that biofuels were far superior to petroleum as fuels.

--------"Wake up!
Some alternatives work and could kill forever our dependency on oil and fight global warming."---------

Yup.

Why are all these people thinking that co2 is not causing global warming when it has been proven by hundreds of scientists?

Why do these people believe there is some kind of conspiracy behind this?
What would be a valid, logical reason to try to push the world into alternative energies than the one to save it?

It is more logical to think that the oil industry would not want green alternatives because they would lose their business.
This is why we do not have solar electric powered cars yet.

This world is full of genius, it is absurd to make us want believe nobody has yet to come up with a viable alternative.

Wake up!
Some alternatives work and could kill forever our dependency on oil and fight global warming.

Acidity of Pacific much higher than expected, scientists find
by Scott Learn, The Oregonian

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/05/carbon_emissions_carbonr...

--------"One more comment, I have never seen PH levels above 6.9-7.5 when bicarbonate levels exceed the 250 ppm level. "---------

And you never will see them. The normal pH in your blood is 7.35 to 7.45. The more CO2 your body retains, the more acid your blood becomes. If your blood pH goes below 7.0 for 6 minutes or longer, you will be dead. If you are breathing in an atmosphere with 2% CO2 in it---then you are already breathing in 760 torr X .02 = i5.2 torr, over 1/3 of the CO2 your body needs to remove by respiration will be retained---so you will have to breathe faster and faster to maintain your serum partial pressure at 35-45 torr---which means more and more muscular work just to keep your pH in the 7.35-7.45 range. The more your muscles work, the more oxygen they use up and the more CO2 they produce. You will suffocate.

You'll be dead before you see an atmospheric level of 2% CO2.

------"" Wetdog", as of today no one has responded with the requested information "---------

I just did---the provided link is the equation for calculating ambient/water carbonic acid concentration.

The equation assumes that ambient is a steady given, so if you run the equation for any given atmospheric concentration, you wil get the water concentration of carbonic acid---to find the carbonic acid level at a differing concentration, run the equation again at the new concentration level.

------" It requires massive amounts of CO2 to lower the PH of waters containing over 250 ppm of Bicarbonate or Calcium Carbonate levels above 3,000PPM"---------

Of coarse it does. pH is a logorithmic expression of the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+). That is what an acid is. 7.0 is nuetral---- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1...

Since the measurement is logorithmic--each move on the scale equals a tenfold increase in ion concention. Moving from a pH of 6 to a pH of 5 means that you have 10 times the H+ concentration in the pH 5 liquid---it is ten times more acid than pH 6.

----------" It requires massive amounts of CO2 to lower the PH of waters containing over 250 ppm of Bicarbonate or Calcium Carbonate levels above 3,000PPM ."----------

Yes. It does require massive amounts of CO2. Which we are creating digging coal and oil out of the earth and burning by billions of tons every single day. CO2 is naturally occuring part of the atmosphere that all life relies on for respiration---however, it is kept in a narrow band of occurence because plants take it in and produce O2-----but digging up carbon that has been buried in the earth for millions upon millions of years upsets the balance. It puts new CO2 into the atmosphere for which there are no balancing plants to remove it. Atmospheric CO2 rises. The oceans become more acid.

Calcium carbonate composes bone and shells. When carbonic acid forms in the ocean---this replaces sodium with calcium. Since sodium bicarbonate salt is readily dissolvable in water whereas calcium carbonate is not----calcium carbonate is lost. Bone and shells dissolve.

------"One more item: I do agree that the coral reefs in the World are undergoing an unbelievable devastation. I have witnessed the damage while snorkeling in Cancun. "--------

The acid that is dissolving the coral is coming for CO2 dissolving into the ocean and increasing the acid levels. There is no place else for it to come from.
The CO2 is coming from digging up coal and oil at collasal and ever increasing rates, and burning it releasing it into the atmoshpere. Trillions of tons per year.

-------" However, the , money is based on blaming CO2. Think about it!"-----------
------" Just to let you know; I have completed 1,000's of complete water analyses on oilfield produced waters. "-----------

You make your living by digging fossil fuels out of the ground and selling them to people to burn.
Your vested interest is in continueing to dig up carbon out of the ground and burning it.

I have no such bias. My position is simple.

If we continue to use fossil fuels, we will become the fossils.

The last time that the oceans acidified at the rate they are today, was a period of increased world wide volcanic activity(possibly set off by a meteor strike) at the boundry of Permian and Triassic periods 250 million years ago. 96% of all life on earth perished in the P-Tr mass extinction.

If we continue to use fossil fuels, we will become the fossils.

The oceans are not turning acid in the sense that lemon juice is acid.

The very basic ocean experiences changes in pH daily and seasonally. It runs from 8.2 to 7.9. Neutral is 7.00

"This world map of ocean acidity shows that ocean pH varies from about 7.90 to 8.20 but along the coast one may find much larger variations from 7.3 inside deep estuaries to 8.6 in productive coastal plankton blooms and 9.5 in tide pools. The map shows that pH is lowest in the most productive regions where upwellings occur. It is thought that the average acidity of the oceans decreased from 8.25 to 8.14 since the advent of fossil fuel (Jacobson M Z, 2005)."
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm

Notice the "It is thought". In actuality, they have no good reference since historic measurements were all done by tossing a bucket over the ship....and still the difference is only - 0.11.

Can you say "tempest in a tea pot?"

-------"I've seen the claim recently that the PH of the Oceans is becoming more acidic due to "climate change". Can some one post the data to support this claim. "------------

http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html

As CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere, dissolved CO2 in the water rises releasing H+ ions. Increasing acidity reacts with calcium carbonate to produce bicarbonates, this is the problem. Much of the life in the sea depends on shells or bones. In an increasing acid environment, shell and bone are lost.

How long could you stay alive and function without bones?

Climate Change legislation is another money and power grab. If the sea level rises this will create jobs building boats. Simple isn't it?

I've seen the claim recently that the PH of the Oceans is becoming more acidic due to "climate change". Can some one post the data to support this claim. Does anyone realize the amount of calcium carbonate in the form of sea shells is available to neutralize the CO2 that may dissolve in the Oceans. Why is not more CO2 from the atmosphere simply being neutralized by carbonates in the sea? Do not waste my time with rude and ignorant remarks. Simply state the facts and a source so that I can educate myself. When CO2 is neutralized, bicarbonate levels increase, is this happening?

If we continue to use fossil fuels, we will become the fossils.

the scientific illiteracy in this country and on this thread is quite apparent.

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Pop quiz: What's the difference between a beaver building a dam and man building an automobile?

People who are thinking that global warming amounts to 'liberals' being duped by 'state run liberal media' are showing themselves as being persuaded by corporate lobbyists and other free-market capitalism propagandists. It doesn't really add to the argument to talk this way (either side) anyway.

It's easy to completely dismiss somebody's claims if you just tell yourself they're an idiot. The fact is that this information comes from science. It isn't something made up as some conspiracy to increase taxes, as if that's a good way to get re-elected. It also doesn't make sense that global warming is a scam in order to give the government another opportunity for further regulations. How does regulating against some non-existent thing help anybody at all? I understand the desire for power, but a usless power is, well, useless, is it not?

Despite exhaustive efforts, scientists have not been able to link global warming to increased output of the sun or a change in Earth's reflectivity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations says that the chances of humans being the cause of global warming is greater than 90%. Given that this information comes from scientists rather than the media, the argument that we are being duped by the media or the government is debunked. If we are being duped by anybody, it's the scientists, which seems highly unlikely due to the scientific method.

So global warming deniers, you can go ahead and believe that global warming is not true (skepticism is healthy), but don't dismiss people who accept global warming as being dummies. We are only accepting the scientific data, and in my case anyway, I get my info from science journals and such... I've never been one to blindly trust any media outlet. Some are more reputable than others, but I like to do my own research before I really accept something.

This is not dogma. There is no dogma in science. If some future study comes out to show that the vast majority of scientists are wrong about global warming, I would accept that evidence and change my mind. Either way, I'm going to have to accept what the experts say since I am not a climatologist, and science is not a liberal or government agenda.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth

Gee, what happened to the theory that Global Warming is caused by an increase in the temperature of the Sun??

www.bleedingborders.com

conservatives are loyal to the extreme; their party has the percision of a machine, they are all in agreement and are eager to be led.
bush jr. kept avoiding the global warming topic by saying; don't have all the answers. the right will keep their heads in the sand until told otherwise.

Well then this leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that most Americans are idiots.

I do nothing but laugh and pity when people deny that humans are damaging Earth! Only immaturity & naivete surface when people can look out their windows, look at the world, and honestly think that we aren't hurting this once-great planet!
No offense,... but when you deny our destruction, cherish only your $$$$, get hung up on temperatures, express selfish tendencies, cry "Al Gore's Conspiracy", keep pumping out kids, speciously use proof like Earth's moot natural changes ..... All we see is greed and naivete. No offense.
So just admit it. We effed up. We still are. So,... stop surfing for proof that temperatures haven't risen or the Sun is the culprit or litter is actually good or what we do doesn't hurt Earth.
Because we're gonna need your help. Earth needs your help. We owe her that.

most Americans can't locate their own country on a global map either... or touch their toes.

All in....? The sun is doing it.

If you don't like global warming theory---then forget it.

We STILL need to get rid of coal and oil.

Oil and importing 70% of our usage, and figting expensive wars to secure reserves in th middle east is killing our economy. Spending billions of $$$ per year to import oil is one of the most major factors that has caused the current economic crisis. And every drop that we import just makes things worse. If we don't stop importing oil---you can expect this economic crisis to turn into a depression that will last decades. The US will become poorer than Haiti.

Coal comes from strip mines. We are using coal 300% faster than we did 40 years ago. Strip mnes destroy the earth and its ability to support life for hundreds or thousands of years. Strip mines destroy watersheds and pollute water both above and below ground. Burning coal destroys the air and produces mountains of slag and ash that nothing can grow on. The EPA already rates 40% of our surface waterways as dangerously over polluted. How long will we last with no land to grow food on, and no water to drink?

We need to get rid of petroleum and coal use now, regardless of the CO2 level in the atmosphere. It isn't just about global warming---there are a LOT of other reasons as well.

Petroleum spills account for a HUGE amount of land and water pollution each year.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

One side note to blaming lumberjacks.

The US has 3 times more trees now than they did in 1920.

Poor people have caused more destruction to the Amazon than businesses ever will.

Which is not to say we should punish poor folks, just another example of Poverty being a terrible thing. Need to work on making the world a much more liveable place (socioeconomically).

"Gee officer, I don't know. I TOLD him that they were hoisting up a huge load of steel girders with that crane and he needed to get out of the way because it looked like the cables were about ready to break.

Then he told me I was an idiot and that gravity was just a theory and that there is no scientific proof that there even IS such a thing as gravity-------and that is when the cables broke and the girders fell on him......"

Naysayers always seem to quote Solar Variation and say things like "its the sun stupid!", but do they actually do research into Solar Variation to support their claim? Of course they don't, because these are the people who hardly read and watch Faux News and football all day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Global_warming

These have got to be the dumbest people in America or they are just living in denial. We cut down the forests and pave more of the earth each day what does anyone think the affect on the planet would be? What a bunch of numbskulls.

I think that it's caused by both humans and it is natural too. I think humans are either speeding the process up or just adding to it. I mean some of the things that are happening now happened earlier in the life cycle of Earth so it could mean the end for humans or we could be going through a natural climatic change for the better.

Regardless, as to whether this is a natural phenomenon or not, we are polluting the earth. You can not deny this when you see such cities as Beijing. Our emissions should be cut down to protect our earth from being hurt more. This kind of debate really angers me because it seems as if the side that say it's natural are arguing for a continuing of large amounts of pollutions in our HOME.

Regardless, as to whether this is a natural phenomenon or not, we are polluting the earth. You can not deny this when you see such cities as Beijing. Our emissions should be cut down to protect our earth from being hurt more. This kind of debate really angers me because it seems as if the side that say it's natural are arguing for a continuing of large amounts of pollutions in our HOME.

It is the media and politics that try to create doubt. I can't believe people are so ignorant. Even if global warming were not happening, hasn't enough information been provided in the past few years that the average person would at least have the conscience to at least live responsibly, and not strive for material luxuries that are created with planned obsolescence? thestoryofstuff.com has an amazing video on global consumerism; i suggest you all watch it.

Many Americans have a deep anti-intellectual bias that comes from intellectual insecurity. Religion encourages people to be dumb. Faith is an excuse for not thinking.

I LoL'd at the title. . . Because it's most likely true. Stupid America. Let's grow up and realize our environmental problems are real, yeah?

WOW NO WONDER THE WHOLE WORLD HATES AMERICANS THEY FUCKEN IDIOTS

ITS NOT A THEORY NO MORE THIS IS A FACT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING N WE AS HUMANS NOT AS AMERICANS,ASIANS,BLACKS ETC. WE'RE ALL HUMANS MUST ACT 2 STOP THIS B4 IT STOPS US

why are people sooooo retarded in this issue?!
there is NO reason to think this is a natural change
if you look at past records via natural carbon emissions in ice cores youll see that co2 has risen exponentially above and beyond ANY PREVIOUS RECORDING which has been for the past tens of thousands of years ago
on top of that, you CANT blame this on bush as youd like to or youd have to blame this on every single president as no one has done anything about it
sure hes an easy target but stop being the problem
We are NOT the greatest country, we USED to be the greatest country
a great country is determined by its people, well the quality of that has gone down tremendously

Is Al Gore telling people about his Pollution Credit business? Does the public know that pollution credits will be TRADED on Wall Street? I thought the dems demonized Wall Street? Guess not. Again, Main Street gets screwed by politicians while Wall Street and Liberals get rich.

I blame Fox.

I think its in between because i think we did some to most of the damage,but i think it wasnt all our fault.

I propose that 140 million Nigerians driving crappy vehicles, cooking over wood or charcoal, and accepting trucks that spit out fumes at an unbelieveable rate and flaring and burning of massive quantities of natural gas are equivalent to American emmissions. Next in line is India, another Country without environmental controls and crappy vehicles , charcoal, fires, and 200's of millions of non-environmentally aware citizens!!!

That's what some scientists say but how can you disagree with someone who says differently?

In Re: "Why did the Earth cool [1940-1970] while our use of fossil fuels and other polluting activities did not go down?"

Answer: Aerosols. Fine particulates actually shade the earth and reduce insolation. Combustion processes became more efficient in the latter half of the 20th century, and air quality regulations came into force to reduce particulates. So the air got cleaner, and the energy balance changed.

The bottom line here folks is that the "facts" are so numerous, and in many cases contradictory, that it is possible to assemble data to make the case either way. One of the things that bothers me most about the "hockey stick" curve (of carbon in the atmosphere) is that ithe long-term atmospheric model is based on arctic ice cores. Those core are deposited over millenia... The data resolution on those scales cannot be compared to the less-than-a-century of data used for recent analysis. It's apples and oranges.

One has to cut through the rhetoric - on both sides - and use common sense. The Earth is a large open system, with energy and mass coming in all the time from the sun and from space at prodigious rates. Human agricultural and industrial activity is one (increasing) variable. Others include human metabolism, metabolism of all other organic life, the oceans and atmosphere interacting, volcanic activity, etc.

The one thing we can control in all of this is the commerical practices, or standards of economic activity. I believe that the arguments that "countering climate change is too coslty" are misguided and myopic. Changes that make manufacturing, energy production, and energy transmission more efficient result in more profitable business. The main complaint seems to be that the capitalists want to keep the profits for themselves, rather than investing them in transforming the capital base.

It's unfortunate that the people who are so good at executing stable business models are to a large degree responsible for these investments. The standards for financial success have been so skewed to short-term profitability that it seems the people who could take the risks are not capable of recognizing the benfits.

the problem with all this is that CO2 has always followed a rise in solar activity. Not the other way around, so it can't lead it. That's the end of the discussion.

there is a chance because a number of people are admitting responsibility and talking solutions. most people won't get involved just becase their lazy and they play the blame game to avoid responsibility.

Thats because most Americans think Ronald Reagen was a good president despite the evidence to the contrary. Its politically convenient for Americans to be ingorant of plenty of issues. After all democrats beat republicans by double digits on every issue besides national secutiry where most polls show a dead heat which is good since national security should never be a partisan issue.

There was a time when American exceptionalism meant bridging more than just an education gap but also meant dreaming big and looking towards new and impossible frontiers.

I recieved a religous education in America as a child. I went to a private Baptist and Catholic school. Never there did I feel that I wasn't recieving a good education however that being said I think that all too often religous idealogy has blead into the debate in public schools where it doesn't belong and the result is damaging. Science needs an open space to function and if you blatantly ignore teaching evolution or pretend that Anthropogenic Climate Forcings are not a teachable science well then you ignore the teaching of modern science and the scientific method. The idea of reasoned obersvation put to test and debate in order to achieve a scientific consencus. Thats why its important. Its a basis for understanding much of the world and key to higher learning.

Not surprising, people are stupid.

I think we can all agree that the we pollute the Earth on a daily basis and that we do have an effect, however minimal, on our planets climate.

I agree with what theultimateend said, even if we aren't the cause of this we should still try and do something about it.

But, ain't that the age old struggle? Trying your hardest to do something about the very thing you can do nothing about.

If this is a natural cycle then what are we to do about? Should we do something about it at all if that is true?
Messing with nature and it's cycles can have some bad effects, so are we willing to accept the possible consequences?

We can try, try, and try again, but in the end the Earth will go about it's natural way.

Again, along the lines of what theultimateend said.
You can clean up after a hurricane, but there is nothing stopping another one from coming, no matter what you do.

You can't tell mother nature what to do, should you try, you will just hurt yourself, others, or the planet itself.

Exactly what they want you to think...

How convenient, the population of the world's largest polluter denies the effect of carbon emissions.

But they believe in the second coming of Christ.

I think the real problem is that Humans think that just because it might not be caused by us that we should ignore it.

Thank god we didn't do that with Snake Venom attacks. "Well Snakes make it so we can't do anything about it."

Or stopping natural fires.

Or saving folks from a natural disaster.

Or almost everything else that isn't man made but destructive that we actively try to protect people from.

I have to say that I think one thing that should change is what we call this. I know, it seems trivial but it's not. It's global climate change. Yes, it was cooling. Now, it's warming. Man made? I'm sure we contribute because we are part of the Earth now. Can man fix it? Possible, but it's also possible that whatever action we take to "fix" it could turn out just as disastrous. We just need to start taking more responsibility for our waste, our energy consumption and our industrial processes. I think that we can all agree on.

Most Americans are stupid and can't shoot straight. So die idiots.

to clean up the environment would take; money, time and sacrifice. there are those whose greed and laziness prompt them to say; i didnt do it, it's not my fault, you can't prove i'm to blame.
who is responsible? i am, i take responsibility. i do what i can; i plant trees,stopped driving, recycle, promote solar tech and gave away my t.v.. there might be enough responsible people to clean up the mess.

We don't care about the future. We can't admit our faults. We continue to hurt Earth. We only love money & ourselves. We value conveniences. We ignore the signs.

DO WE DESERVE TO BE SAVED?!!?!!?

Yeah, I think I'll stick with the scientists who at least have a reason for their arguement. We need to do our individual parts but the governments of the world need to all step up before it will matter. Think about how many plastic bottles you would have to recycle to counteract only one of our nuclear weapons tested in the desert.