Survey Results

As promised, here are the initial results of the "Climate Change Predictions" survey that we opened a week ago (click images below to enlarge).

Part One (Questions 1-5):

Part Two (Questions 6-10):

There was, as noted previously, an annoying glitch in the survey software that prevented choosing the same answer to a question for both time periods. We don't think that it necessarily negates the value of the this survey; however, we have figured out how to prevent its recurrence if we either repeat the survey or do another one.

Next week we'll report on some of the comments that were made by survey takers and we'll offer analysis of these results.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Hal]

The big thing that jumps out from those results is that almost everyone expects things to be better in 2100 than 2050. I would lean towards them being about the same, but that was not an option. Given that, I too answered that things would be better. I wonder how many others did the same thing.

[Rip]

Why do you use the term climate change instead of global warming? Are you trying to surreptitiously lump cooling in with possible warming to implicate man made effects on climate?

I don't think you can have it both ways.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Rip, sometimes when people hear "global warming," they assume that every place should be getting warmer all the time, and since that is obviously not the case, they question the whole idea.

In reality, of course, the concept of anthropogenic global warming only suggests an average increase in the global mean surface temperature, which can have impacts varying widely from time to time and place to place.

I prefer to use "climate change" because it takes into account that some regions will experience cooler temperatures, while others will see wider swings in minimums and maximums. In some regions, it will not be temperature, but storm frequency and intensity that indicate the results of "global warming." Certain places will suffer from long severe droughts, while others will see unprecedented rainfalls and flooding. All of this falls under the rubric of climate change.

[Enuff]

Rip: What MIke Treder is saying is "Yes, I can have it both ways". You have to go to a State Department press conference to hear more rambling subterfuge of obvious positions.

Now that Earth is stubbornly refusing to get hotter (for the last decade), Mike is really stuck. He must call any change in the weather a catastrophe. It would be hiliariously funny if he wasn't supporting laws and policies which *actually will* devastate the planet.

They forgot to read the story of Chicken Little to Generation X.

[Hawkeye]

I am still disappointed at the predisposition of the survey dictating only one half of the spectrum...it can ONLY get hotter. Obviously that isn't true.

I don't think I'd take it to the level Enuff has, but just not even approaching a scientific survey on any level.