How often to you think about global warming/climate change?

Be honest.

Many times a day. 8
Daily. 14
A few times a week. 19
Once a week. 4
Few times a month. 12
Few times a year. 14
Few times in my lifetime 6
Never, I don't understand what it is. 2
Never, I don't think it's happening. 24
Other. (comment below) 3
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 20 )
  • howaminotmyself

    Whether or not climate change is man made or nature made is the debate that is allowing corporations to continue their mass destruction of our natural resources.

    If we continue to pollute the planet, the temperature outside will not matter. But they will still be waving their arms, screaming look at me, look at me, while their cohort slips through the back door.

    This debate is being used to distract us from the real problem. Climate change is real, can't argue that. Water isn't clean to drink, fish carry heavy metals, our soil can't produce food for us to eat, our air is suffocating us. This is a crisis and governments are intentionally blinding us. And while politicians are being used to push big money agendas- they blame "liberals" and "environmentalists" for job losses and low profits and throw a little name calling into the mix. I know all too well how the unemployed lumberjacks think hippies care more for spotted owls than people. They use this argument to justify the destruction of the watershed. Why do humans need more wood products now and forget that we may need other things that come from the forest in a few years. (air, water, a nice place to walk)

    And apathy will not prevent you from feeling the effects.

    Anyone who is concerned with the welfare of our society should watch (or read) "Collapse" by Michael Rupert

    Thanks for reading :)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • It's on my calendar--once a week at 2:15.

    Unless I'm in a meeting

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dappled

    Almost daily. Especially in the context of how the media have baselessly attacked science with populist arguments that seem to find favour despite being obviously wrong. I wish journalists had enough courage in their convictions to tell their brain surgeon he's "doing it wrong" and should instead use a red hot poker instead of a laser.

    That there are a growing number of people who believe global warming doesn't exist makes me ashamed to be a human being. The earth has got warmer in the last century, and at an unprecedented rate. As to the reasons? Who do you believe? The scientist who have spent years researching it? Or the journalists who are paid not to have knowledge but to tell us things we agree with (so we buy newspapers)?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • disthing

      Scientists are also paid, funded, just as journalists are, and as with journalists, the bigger the find, the more sensational the results, the greater funding will follow. It's big business in itself.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dappled

        True enough, but science is peer reviewed on a massive scale, i.e. internationally and frequently. Other scientists are often keen to either discredit or benefit from another's work and, in that way, bad science gets rooted out.

        Journalism is reviewed only by the public, who don't have equal voice when they disagree with a journalist. Furthermore, they're a biased public because they're the public who buy a particular newspaper with a particular political leaning; one that the journalist is playing up to, whether they agree with it or not.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • VioletTrees

      This is the first time I've seen you voted down to zero. How depressing that it's on this issue, of all things.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dappled

        Ahh, this was the bad old days. Someone had about twenty accounts and would thumb me down with all of them. TheManagement had to change the way thumbing worked. A handful of others suffered the same treatment.

        I once said "Thanks very much" to someone and got down to -28.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • CatOnTheRun

    Fake, even my science professor at college thought it was fake.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Science professor? What's a science professor?

      Physics, Mathematics, Biology, those are sciences, but science?

      Global Warming is factual. Period. Take a boat past the arctic circle out of Barrow and find out for yourself (you didn't used to be able to take a boat from there because it was all ICE until global warming melted it all)

      The EXTENT of man's contribution to global warming is what is in debate, the warming trend is not.

      I take it you're careful when you drive so you don't fall off the edge of the earth?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • jucedaguy

        Oh the icecaps thing.... Ever heard of polar switch? Mother earth is starting another cleansing cycle, humans weren't meant to be here forever. Ain't nuttin we can do about it.
        I guess you're just one of those that if they read it in the murdoch'$ newspapers or on the packer'$ tv it must be true people.

        Climate change is just whole new economy for the rich.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
      • CatOnTheRun

        Alright, dipshit. You want me to go into details and specifics? Environmental sciences.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • monkyyy

      i had a science teacher u thought the oceans rising dozens of feet, fake

      nasa said its happing really slowly

      the only real reason to lower pollution is pollution itself causes tons of problems shorting life-spans, rising health care cost, acid rain, rare, but animals that can not handle it at all and die out extermly quickly and probably hundreds of others

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • collegecoed

    I can't miss all the hoopla and self-serving nonsense that passes for "science" as it pertains to the hoax of MAN-MADE global warming. Recently global warming was discovered on mars. WOW, guess that co2 really gets around, kind of like phlogiston, AND we know ALL the "scientists" of the time believed in that "peer-reviewed", "settled" reality .

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • baserian

    When the summers go over 110 for days on end
    When the monsoon brings dust but no rain
    When the rainfall in Arizona has been deficient for 10 years
    When one winter no rain fell at all

    and most people say "well that's climate change"

    and one day there won't be much water left in AZ

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • jucedaguy

      Check into HAARP. Seems science fiction. But can they control the weather? lord knows they've been trying for years to master the ultimate weapon. Just search for US Weather modification patents. Oh while your at it consider the other side to every argument and make your own conclusions. Don't believe mass media.

      Also you cannot destroy water!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • ninjabase

    If Global warming is true or not, there is only ONE CONCLUSION.

    WE STILL NEED TO LOOK AFTER OUR PLANET.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • collegecoed

      Did you EVER consider that maybe the planet may actually be entering ANOTHER ice-age as predicted by the peer reviewed science brains of the 1970s. If that is true, then the more co2 generated, the LESS the cooling effect will threaten our planet: a la current flawed climate models. Want the truth?? Watch a true, UNBIASED, GENIUS of a physicist: Freeman Dyson, on youtube. Learn something real.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • disthing

    A level of scepticism is healthy.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • eternalsmoke31

    Whenever the weather is irregular which it has been for a while...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • scott90

    it's very warm this year in the north east

    Comment Hidden ( show )