SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the who-cares-about-future-generations dept.
Papas Fritas writes "Megan Gannon reports on Live Science that, according to a new poll, although most Americans believe the effects from global warming will take hold during their lifetime, they don't expect these changes to pose a serious threat to their way of life. A Gallup survey found that 54 percent of Americans believe global warming is already impacting the planet; another three percent think these effects will occur in a few years and eight percent think these effects will occur in their lifetime.
Meanwhile, 16 percent think global warming's effects will happen sometime after they die, and 18 percent don't expect these effects to ever take hold. But the way the public perceives the reality of global warming seems to be somewhat disconnected from how they perceive the threat of a warming world. Just 36 percent of people in the United States think global warming will eventually disrupt their way of life, they survey found.
Age also affected how people saw the effects of a changing climate. Among Americans ages 18 to 29, Gallup found that 78 percent thought the effects of global warming were already occurring or would occur during their lifetime. Just 47 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) said the same. Gallup officials say their poll's results could explain why Americans don't politically prioritize environmental issues; instead, their top concerns are issues that will affect them immediately, like the economy and health care.
"Whatever the reasons, those who argue climate change is the top problem of our age are no doubt aghast that even now, in 2014, Americans are not more worried or concerned than they are. A lot of the efforts to raise concern levels and awareness to date have obviously not worked well. It may be that new tactics are needed. So far, however, even if it is a case of whistling past the graveyard, Americans are clearly more focused on other issues.""
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 15 2014, @12:00PM
Can't, the scientific method prevents me. Right now what they have is not a theory, it's a hypothesis that they've tested using only computer simulations (Going by computer simulations, I'm a god with a sniper rifle. Turns out this is not in fact the case.).
When they can reliably make predictions that are borne out by actual data, I'm willing to listen.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Open4D on Saturday March 15 2014, @12:22PM
They have made predictions for what will happen to our planet if we keep emitting 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. This is one science experiment I very much hope we don't proceed with.
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 15 2014, @01:09PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Cold Fjord on Saturday March 15 2014, @05:41PM
Which debate caused an airplane to be flown into a building? Figure that out, then tell me which debate is less civil.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sumdumass on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:15PM
From the World Health Organization [who.int]:
More people are dying from air pollution than over a plane hitting a building.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Open4D on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:25PM
I presume you're joking about a computer game. Whereas genuine computer simulations should definitely not be rejected out of hand. For example, computer simulations of nuclear weapons are sufficiently good that this DoD associate argues [cryptome.org] that the "decontrol of supercomputers" and the shift away from real world nuclear weapons testing is making us less safe.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 16 2014, @04:18PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Open4D on Sunday March 16 2014, @05:58PM
If computer models of nuclear weapons have been used to make successful predictions about subsequent nuclear weapon tests, that should further increase our confidence in computer modelling in general. As I say, it should definitely not be rejected out of hand.
They have made predictions for a range of scenarios. We only have one Earth to experiment with, so we have to choose which scenario we're going to test for the next 30 years. I'd really rather we tested the scenario that optimized our overall risk/benefit position. Hint: that's not the one which involves continuing to emit 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year.