Do you believe in climate change science?

Thanks for your input. I was poking fun by how I worded my choices but I think your reasoning is a better way to state choice 2.

I would like to clarify that choice 2 is a person who believes that climate change is probable, but cannot commit resources because of inadequate actionable information and/or other priorities are paramount at the moment.

choice 1 can be elaborated to mean a person who believes enough to proselytize others, actively reduces carbon footprint, or takes precautions to escape future impacts of climate change.

There is no right or wrong answer for me at this point.

Personally, I think that the global climate is changing as a natural phenomenon. The human contribution to that change is possible but not yet determined to a satisfactory degree. I do care about nature, so I am against pollution in principle. But I am standing down on global warming/climate change as it has been promoted and will await more information to convince myself of its validity.

Global warming advocates may yet prove to be correct in assuming that inaction will allow the world to deteriorate to the point that we can't do anything about it. But there are just instances where some advocates have shown signs of insincerity to make me feel that things are being railroaded on this campaign.

...here's what I would add:

I find it interesting that this particular environmental issue--that of climate change (previously known as global warming) receives so much attention these days as opposed to so many other issues that affect the environment. This focus moreover seems to have unfortunately devolved into much the same left/right dogmatism that we in the 9/11 truth movement have become all too familiar with as a method of division. That a certain strain in the truth movement, most notably the Alex Jones type, seems to latch on to one side of this "dogmafight" while another, perhaps best exemplified by David Ray Griffin falls on the other is also rather interesting to me. Could it be a way of seeding division to pre-empt a groundswell of popular unity around the issue of 9/11 truth? This makes sense to me.

I am agnostic on the science as I have not studied it enough to have reached a strong conclusion one way or the other. I can sympathize with JPass on the idea of doing something better than doing nothing but only to a point. If that something is the establishment of a "cap and trade" system then I worry about the implementation of such a system on a global scale in a period of history where corruption seems rampant and people generally so grossly misinformed on a routine basis about the most significant issues. How can we trust any authority today, the same ones that command us to disbelieve that explosives brought down the WTC, i.e. that hold scientific truth in such low regard, to establish a regulatory system over the environment or anything else for that matter that we can trust to actually be transparent and genuine in its purpose as opposed to a corrupt scheme of some kind?

As the "war on terror" scam has proven beyond doubt, it hardly matters if a problem is real or not--what matters is whether the proposed solution is pursued in good faith. With the war on terror hoax we have in evidence proof that there are proponents of both the "it is genuine" and "it is a hoax" view among those offering up bad solutions. If we get stuck debating the underlying facts as we do with 9/11 and seem now to be doing with "climate change" then we lose the ability to focus instead on the validity of the proposed solutions. Opposition to the war on terror for example could stem from disbelief in the fraudulent official story OR a belief that violent acts are best NOT met with more violence. Yet we get the worst of both worlds, i.e. a bad solution to the wrong problem, because an effective opposition is precluded by the division over the underlying facts.

Finally, I find it interesting that in less than 24 hours this poll got 20 votes or so when most polls here on the site end with about 8 votes total! C455 also alerted me during the day to a high number of guests, i.e. unregistered readers of the site, which I confirmed was indeed quite high at the time--evidence that the poll might be being deliberately "freeped"...

"With that said, I don't think you can be too careful in parsing the way an issue like this is treated by the media. I think something is happening and that a bunch of the overlapping-agenda usual suspects are probably manipulating public consciousness about it."

That, I suspect is what is happening. To what end? Perhaps to stop China from using it's coal reserves to develop. This is pure speculation on my part.

This speech from John Sununu, formerly Chief of Staff to President George Bush Snr would probably make Shell and Exxon executives tear up with affection. On the other hand I find myself uncomfortably believing his side.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44...

His comments on how a disinfo campaign is sequenced and delivered just makes it so hard to dismiss. Snip follows.

"As noted earlier, the alarmists have learned well from the past. They saw what motivates policy makers is not necessarily just hard science, but a well orchestrated symphony of effort. Their approach is calculated and deliberate. Remember the quote from one if the most outspoken alarmists, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we have."
They have used that strategy to execute an orchestrated agenda over the last two decades:
• Announce a disaster
• Cherry pick some results
• Back it up with computer modeling
• Proclaim a consensus
• Stifle the opposition
• Take over the process and control the funding
• Roll the policy makers
In the past, when they tried some of this on population explosion and global starvation, or global cooling, or their Malthusian vision of a world running out of resources, they were thwarted by nature and technology."

This guy is in full counter campaign mode, which makes me think he has a vested interest (maybe big oil), but his description of the Global Warming campaign is spot on.

to promote ad nauseum as the media and certain pols do? why pick a problem, "climate change", that also describes a perfectly natural phenomenon that has been going on for millions of years? what ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? that was a big issue when I was a kid, one that I used to be pressured to freak out over. did the hole disappear? did our decreased use of CFC's actually reverse the process? they never really told us--it just kind of disappeared as an issue. compare the hullaballoo over climate change to any other significant environmental issue--why such disproportionate attention? I can't believe that this has nothing to do with making people end up having to pay someone for something they didn't have to pay for before, which is a sure sign of a big scheme, yet another protection racket if you ask me.