MSNBC Poll: Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?

[damnedifIknow]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-see-climate-change-threat-your-life-or-well-being

With 83 percent voting no?

[dipsydoodle]

1. Personally - No.

[damnedifIknow]

3. You might change your mind this summer

Climate change will mean more heat deaths. As temperatures rise so will the suffering.

[dipsydoodle]

5. If you mean that the UK will have a nice summer this year

then good. We don't have them that often.

The US should've changed it mind 150 years ago.

Which nations are most responsible for climate change?

Historical emissions

Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

Spilt milk comes to mind.

From a personal point of view I must confess it will be sad when a 3 degree increase causes hare grass to germinate earlier which will effectively wipe out bluebells.

[intheflow]

14. I guess you don't live near Portsmith.

They nearly got washed away this year. That was certainly a consequence of global climate change.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Do you mean Portsmouth ?

Portsmouth is a port which is at sea level believe it or not. No I'm inland - 270 feet above sea level /about 15 miles NNW of London. Garden didn't even get over wet.

Those Atlantic storms were the down side of cold air from the arctic meeting warm air from the Sahara. The upside was for countries usaually affected was that the 2012 hurricane season was quieter than normal due to the direction the warm air from the Sahara had moved away from normal.

[Lex]

32. Enjoy the sky-rocketing food prices.

[NM_Birder]

58. It's too late for Global Warming to get me,......

Acid Rain already killed me back in the 70's when it wiped out all the vegetation, then the rainforest depletion got me,.... "Big Oil" put me in my grave in the 90's, just before nuclear energy cooked me.

Recently oil soaked gulf shrimp lay waste to me, ....... now if I would only listen to they guy jet-setting from mansion to mansion in a private plane...... lecturing me on my waste of energy I "could save the plant"....... by paying extra taxes.

All these causes have merit, and should be addressed, but the constant "if you don't do/pay what I say, by the end of this year, WE'RE ALL DOOMED" ! .... has watered down the messages into cartoonism.

I should probably move to Chicago, they have some of the most strict firearm control laws, ........... it's one of the places that statistically, I have a better chance of being shot.

[sendero]

63. Pretty much nailed it...

..... I believe in climate change. But I also believe that:

1) No one really knows what the consequences will be. Will they be pleasant? Probably not but still no one knows.

2) Constant refrain about the other issues and the continual exaggeration of their probable effects have cost the warning folks a lot of credibility

3) As for carbon-caused climate change, that ship has sailed. Even drastic measures taken now would do little IMHO so it is no surprise that most folks are simply not interested.

There is definitely a change in the public's attitude about pollution, energy use, our food and other things that has been brought about by slow mass acceptance because the cause/effect is easy to understand. That is never going to be true for climate change.

[NM_Birder]

71. Totally agree,

it's the same syndrome as the "news"...The truth is no longer interesting enough, so 24hrs a day the "news" people make shit up, exaggerate, give personal opinion, hypothetically imagine what "could be", offer paid professional biased commentary ....... and then are SHOCKED when people lose interest. So the "news" just keeps doubling down with more and more outrageous fantasy reporting. You watch, Kathy Griffin along with the Kardashian's will be news reporters before its all over.

The government: Lawyers writing laws (what could go wrong there), ..all of em become millionaires while only making a few hundred thousand dollars a year. The American people are the "Rock'em Sock'em" robots, ...... each one controlled by a party getting filthy rich and powerful, while we the people cheer at knocking each others heads off for a perceived "win".

[sendero]

72. LOL

... seems we're on the same page Yes, don't even get me started on the "news" which, if you really break it down, is the lynchpin of the failure of this country. Nothing that is important is covered at all, or if it is the spin is enough to make an acrobat dizzy.

And the sadder fact is that most Americans don't get this, or if they do they don't care.

At this point I try to enjoy the small victories (the ACA, a victory, albeit small) and have prepared myself for what I think is coming. Beyond that I'm getting to where I don't give a shit any more. Until people wake if, IF they wake up, it's hopeless.

Most Americans are way too busy trying to feed themselves and pay the electric bill to worry about future abstractions like climate change. Probably by design.

[NM_Birder]

75. I think most Americans get it, they just don't know what to do with it.

I will always believe that 80% of the population are fair, decent, honest people that we all relate to.

the problem is that the 10% of jelly brain kooks on both sides of the isle are masters of whipping the masses into a tornado of ignorance, and in most cases the masses are whipped into a frenzy without knowing what is really happening, let alone the consequences.

this is the age of " I know I'm wrong, ....but I am told I am less wrong than you, ..... which makes you stupid, ....and in need of political mockery" .... closing with ....."insert either political party here" are stupid, ignorant, weak, warmongering, lazy, racist, uninformed knuckle-draggeing hippies and are to blame for everything, "insert either political party here" are always cleaning up the mess.

Rock'em Rock'em Robots .......................................... there is always a victor, but nobody ever wins.

[Shivering Jemmy]

34. Do you like the gulf stream?

You should.

[Nictuku]

2. Personally - Yes

I live in an area which is currently in drought conditions. We also have concerns about wildfires. Combine those two issues with climate change, and I fell personally in danger. The costs of water will skyrocket as things get worse, that effects my well-being.

[villager]

4. The cost of food will skyrocket -- even for denialists

They will probably try to blame something else, though

[cigsandcoffee]

39. Do you know what else makes food prices skyrocket? High oil prices.

I think we're all pretty much screwed no matter what.

[villager]

40. Well, between that, and actual crop failure, yes.

Meat ain't gonna get cheaper on a drying planet, compadre.

[Vashta Nerada]

6. Uh, yeah.

That's a no - brainer.

[MO_Moderate]

7. Nope

[City Lights]

8. Thanks...voted yes. nt

[daleanime]

9. Let's see....

1-storms and weather systems will continue to become more intense.
2-food will continue to become more expensive.
3-global unrest will continue to become worse.



But of course none of this will affect me.

[damnedifIknow]

12. It's nuts

Do people really think they are exempt from climate change? I'm stumped and need a drink.

[daleanime]

24. Pour one for me....

[veness]

10. Voted. 8002 votes so far. Still 83% voting NO! n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

11. mother nature is not a democracy...

[progressoid]

13. Yes, but more a threat to my children's life and well-being.

I'll likely be dead when it really starts to impact the planet.

[Lochloosa]

15. Really? Who gives a shit about online polls?

[Duppers]

45. well, how nice of you to...

Understand that such polls, although unscientific, gives us some insight into just how deceived and stupid ppl are.

Obviously, your snide remark proves you disagree.

[m-lekktor]

16. hopefully i will be dead by the time all the ice melts.

for much younger folks I say, yes, it is THE main threat, imo, and everything else will be moot. I believe it might be too late already though, sadly.

[FSogol]

18. Maybe that 83% plans on evolving a hard chitinous shell to avoid the unrelenting uv rays on our

barren lifeless planet?

[bunnies]

19. Umm, well, I like to eat... so... Yeah.

Kinda a no-brainer.

[daleanime]

25. Good way to put it...

[lillypaddle]

20. I'm 66

I see it more a threat to my son/daughter-in-law and my granddaughter. Well, all future generations, if there are any after 2030.

[subterranean]

21. Of course global climate change is all about me.

If it isn't a direct threat to me personally, why should I care?

Just being facetious here, but I know that's how many people think, and this poll seems to reinforce that point of view.

[SomethingFishy]

22. As of this moment we are 60 years AHEAD of the absolute worst case scenarios

Climate Change scientists came up with just 5 years ago.

But we don't discuss climate change unless it pertains to Nate Silver hiring a denier and we can split up into our two corners and duke it out...

Climate change is the one issue we should all be able to agree on. But it doesn't show up on DU much, because then we would have to agree that the government isn't doing nearly enough to combat climate change and that would be bashing a Democrat.

[Oilwellian]

23. What do you expect from a cable news audience?

[haele]

26. Hasn't really hit "most people" yet. In about 3 years, you might start getting a different answer.

See, right now, except for a few things, supermarket prices haven't skyrocketed too noticeably. It's still spring, so the Northern Latitude growing and harvest season is still a couple months out.
You can still buy dairy, and microwave dinners, and soft-drinks that were bottled last year. People still go about their daily business - except for the few "inconvenient" or unseasonable storms, floods, or wild-fires that severely damage "somewhere else", and only those crazy Californios (or other Left Coasters) are looking at a summer of drought-driven water restrictions.

Your average American won't start feeling a pinch for another month or two. And that pinch can easily be shrugged off as another anomaly that lefty tree-huggers and ivory tower scientists who know nothing about the "real American World" are being cravenly alarmist about.
And next year, as the pinch becomes a slap, with few fresh produce, subsidized dairy at $8.00 a gallon, bottled water, sodas, and utility water/sewer costs quadruple because there's very little water left that's drinkable, when stores start selling more and more processed food that had been made for military shelf-life requirements that people might become uneasy.

Then the year after, when that slap has become a punch to the solar plexus...When more people - especially the elderly and children - start coming down with serious pest-borne diseases or die of heat stroke or hypothermia. When parks and recreational facilities are closed because there's no water. When less land is arable, and people's yards - not just grass, but established trees, hedges, and other vegetation, start dying off no matter what they do. When food prices don't go down after seasonal spikes, and processed food stores dwindle, further reducing the amount of available food that no one but the wealthy can afford in any large quantity. When average people in America actually start starving to death or dying of thirst. When governments have to start rationing food to stave off profiteering, riots and civil unrest.

It won't be until it becomes obvious that we're being pummeled by climate change and we aren't going to be able to go on with business as usual - that it's now too late and the tsunami waves are already climbing above our knees (or wheel-walls) and we are all going to either die or become seriously impacted for the next couple hundred years that this comfortable majority will think "well, maybe we should have done something..." and start looking for someone to blame.

Haele

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Not shocked at the results

American media has done a terrible job to personalize this.

Hell, I often write in wild fire stories, somewhere, that they are getting more severe due to that. And like clockwork the red pen goes over that line.

I finally managed to get a climate change statement on a water policy article, but only because I quoted the report.

Will it affect me? How about it already is

[doc03]

28. I don't see a change, I am 66, I have seen cold winters and warm winters

hot summers and cold summers. This winter has been one of the worst, so I don't see that as anything unusual.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Oh and I forgot, there is another aspect to why the media has failed here

trust me, editors and reporters know it. And with the exception of cranks like Norm Coleman (he is a well known denialist playing weatherman at a local station, but he is known nation wide as a crank), editors are afraid of angering the reading public. So multiple editors all over, bring out the red pen, and still give the denial (flat earth) side, equal time. Or worst, at times more than equal time.

It is not just my locals afraid that our rural communities will go argle bargle, iberals, ivory towers, universities, derp. This is a national problem.

[spanone]

30. i voted yes and poll put me down for no....fucked poll.

[Jgarrick]

31. Negatory.

[marions ghost]

33. The denial is huge

--because This is Huge.

The most frustrating thing is to STILL see NO changes in policy, no initiatives, no action coming from leaders. Instead we see the opposite--willful obstruction at the highest levels of government and the perpetration of the biggest lie since the flat earth society (very accurate analogy) --ie. the pretense that it's not as bad as those pessimistic scientists tell us it is. Everyone should be involved in energy, water, and resource conservation, and immediate reduction of pollution in every way possible. Not tomorrow. Now.

For people who know what is going on...this causes a lot of stress. I know I feel it, being surrounded by biologists. For people who don't care or don't know about it, they are in for a shock.

I think what disturbs me the most is that we are destroying the natural beauty and integrity of this place, our home. It is such an incredible creation, but we trash it, abuse it, and treat the planet and its inhabitants like it's all expendable. So stupid, so arrogant. The balance is very fragile. Degradation at the level we are witnessing is not reversible. This will become more and more apparent. Knowing the certainty of this day in /day out is already a stress to me and mine.

Drill baby drill, frack baby frack, die baby die.

[Omnith]

37. I do not deny climate change, but I do maintain skepticism.

[marions ghost]

38. What do you base your skepticism on?

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:51 AM - Edit history (1)

--in light of the fact that the most highly respected scientific organizations in the world have made unequivocal statements acknowledging climate change, and consider it to have enormous ramifications for us. Is it possible that you prefer to listen to politicians rather than scientists on the subject? Just curious as to how you could be an "agnostic" about it at this point.

----------

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

List of scientific organizations here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

[Omnith]

61. I'm skeptical in the sense there is a lot more to learn.

Those who study climate change will continue to learn about it and will replace old theories with new theories, just like any other field of science. If there was not skepticism there would not be improvement. If the IPCC were not skeptical ot their own work then they wouldn't study it anymore, but they do. Because skepticism means doubt and until you have complete knowledge about something you will have some degree of skepticism. Unfortunately when it comes to climate change skepticism has become a naughty word, when in reality it is a good thing and those who study the climate do have skepticism. It is key characteristic of science.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

65. Climate change is not a "theory". There is demonstrable proof. You lose due to ignorance. nt

[Duppers]

74. They still study gravity too. nt

[Duppers]

48. that's like being just a little pregnant.

Either you accept the scientific evidence or you don't. There's nothing to be skeptical about.

[SoapBox]

35. I do know...

In California, we are dying for rain...and haven't enough in years. Idiots do keep watering their lawns...one guy in the area says climate change is "stupid".

I also have traveled by air for work, multiple times weekly, all a round the 50 states for 30 years...the weather in all regions has changed dramatically...and, the turbulence has increased, to the really rough side.

[Bigmack]

36. Carlin said it best...

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that."

[lovemydog]

41. hehe

[mrdmk]

42. For me, climate change is not far enough in to effect the world I live in

Now for my great-nephews and nieces, they and their children are royally fucked.

Excuse me for the vulgarity, but did you read the comments on that poll?

[Rex]

43. That's fine, it is probably better this way.

That way the majority can stay blissful til the very end.

[taught_me_patience]

44. Meh

Honestly, I try hard to do my part to limit carbon emissions. Yet, I see people driving behemoth cars, wasting electricity, etc... I'm nearly to the point of not giving a shit any more. I'm rich. If water and food were 5x more expensive, it wouldn't affect my life one iota.

[Duppers]

47. have children?

Care about future generations? Other ppl's children? I think you do, so you must keep trying.

[Duppers]

46. to my well being, hell yes.

I will not live to see the worst to come but my mental health has already been greatly influenced b/c I grieve for my son and the fact that he's decided not to have children because of the coming hell. My immediate family takes this very seriously.

[marions ghost]

49. To those who take it seriously

we have to stick together. Standing against the willful ignorance and outright denial is the most important job of our time.

[CFLDem]

50. Nope

And I'm in first-to-get-flooded hurricane country.

The don't pollute part I agree with. It's the the apocalypse part I can do without.

It's just more hyperbolic doomism to bring us down.

[marions ghost]

52. Well that's better than total denial

I appreciate your efforts to recycle, drive a less polluting vehicle, conserve water (esp in Florida land of sinkholes), support wind and solar, protect natural habitats, limit consumption, support sustainable agriculture, and use reusable shopping bags.

If you're really on board with all the anti-pollution efforts that urgently need to take place, if you really ARE making the effort, that's a big help.

OK with me if you want to let the rest of us do the worrying...as long as you do your part to make a difference where it counts.

[Niceguy1]

51. I think that

The reublicans are more of a risk than climate change

[marions ghost]

53. RethugliCons heavily promote climate change denial

...it's all part of the same strategy...I don't think they can be separated.

Case Studies: How Does Koch Industries Influence the Climate Debate?
Download our full reports:

Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial, 2011 Update (PDF)
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine (PDF)


The Koch brothers, their family members, and their employees direct a web of financing that supports conservative special interest groups and think-tanks, with a strong focus on fighting environmental regulation, opposing clean energy legislation, and easing limits on industrial pollution. This money is typically funneled through one of three "charitable" foundations the Kochs have set up: the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation; the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; and the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

[Niceguy1]

56. republicans have a tangible

Negative effect on people's lives. Climate change mayb or may not have such devastating effects one day in the future.

[marions ghost]

57. "May or may not"

have devastating effects, in your view.

OK--how about we don't support the Rethug POV and denial effort--just in case?....

[Duppers]

69. Thanks for this info & link.

There are too many here with hands over their eyes and fingers in their ears.

MG, you are a treasure trove of info.

[marions ghost]

70. Yeah that's a great link summarizing the Koch's

well-funded efforts-- for at least the last 15 years --to diffuse and deflect all the research results and scientific opinion building the case for climate change. Good video too. Illustrates how they've succeeded in creating the impression that there are "two sides' to the issue, in the general public's mind. (However, not in the minds of 97% of scientists around the world).

The Kochs have been huge players in catapulting climate change denial...just one of their many "successes."

Thanks ++++ for the props--well since I'm researching these topics anyway, it's great to be able to share it with others who appreciate and can use!

[Chathamization]

54. "Climate is cyclical." Just like how "accidents happen all the time."

Or if you watch The Simpsons, "maybe the bridge collapsed on its own."

[NaturalHigh]

55. I voted no.

Sorry, I just don't feel it.

[dipsydoodle]

59. Still says 83%

[marions ghost]

60. "not a scientific poll"--freepy

--the numbers in the US re. Climate Change are more like:

70% accept

30% deny

[marions ghost]

62. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Does the IPCC accurately report the findings of science?

The IPCC was formed to report on a broad range of scientific enquiries into the climate, and our effects on it, and to summarise the science for laypeople. The science they summarise is published so it is simple to compare the primary science with the IPCC reports, and compare both to what actually took place.
---------
It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious. (reasons given)

In fact, there is evidence however to suggest that the exact opposite is actually the case, both in terms of the scientific evidence itself (see below) and the way the work of the IPCC is reported. A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. They found that "...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

--------------
Global warming and climate change MYTHS: (And rebuttals):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[ChisolmTrailDem]

64. With that many stupid people walking around, I say fuck it. Let it happen. nt

[hunter]

66. Nature doesn't care what MSNBC says or what the results of these polls are.

Climate change is going to suck (and is already sucking) for a lot of people, even here in the U.S.A..

Plenty of places become uninhabitable when the water runs out, or they go underwater, or the electric grid crashes.

Even if you live in a safer place, when your second cousins and a couple of long lost friends show up on your doorstep with nothing left but the clothes they are wearing, are you going to let them in?

[bigwillq]

67. Yes (nt)

[HereSince1628]

68. Marginally. Increasingly dynamic weather could threaten me this year

but, the broad impacts of climate change are outside my personal projected survival which is less than 5 years.

[B2G]

73. "The Alarmists vs The Deniers"

I would imagine the truth falls somewhere in between.

So I voted no. For now.

[dionysus]

76. personally? immediately.. no. in the future, perhaps. for future generations; a big big problem.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

77. I say yes, in about 15-30 years, the planet's fucked

But I'm hoping to tap out by the time of the extreme drought, great flood, or the planet freezes over. I can survive the next 15 years eating Twinkies. Those of you who got conned into drinking water and eating fruits and vegetables will be paying $50 for a cup of water and a Lima bean. Children? Never wanted them and don't have any. Yours are going to have one hell of a future...