This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
What Sportsmen Think About Global Warming: A National Opinion Poll
A survey recently conducted for the National Wildlife Federation shows an overwhelming majority of hunters and fishermen agree with the consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real, that it already is eroding their quality of life, and that it poses a definite threat to the future of two things they love: fish and wildlife.
Note that this was not a poll of liberal-leaning sportsmen; 73 percent of respondents consider themselves conservative to moderate on political issues. The survey was conducted by the research firm Responsive Management, whose client list includes numerous fish and game agencies and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (click here for a description of the methodology).
Check out the highlighted results by scrolling down, or click here to see the full survey. And let your opinions be known by writing in your comments in the box provided at the bottom of this entry. You can also tell the NWF where you stand on the issue by taking their online followup survey here.
1: Global warming is defined as the rise in temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree or disagree that global warming is currently occurring?
2: Have you observed any of the following conditions where you live?
3: Do you agree or disagree that global warming is primarily caused by pollution from burning fossil fuels?
4: Global warming is a serious threat to fish and wildlife.
5: Global warming is a serious threat to humans.
6: The U.S. should reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming and threaten fish and wildlife habitat.
7: Congress should pass legislation that sets a clear national goal for reducing global warming pollution with mandatory timelines because industry has already had enough time to clean up voluntarily. 
8: Is the country on the right track or the wrong track when it comes to global warming?
Who took this survey?
The selected questions below provide a picture of the typical respondent to this survey.
1: On political issues, do you consider yourself conservative, moderate, or liberal?
2: Whom did you vote for in the 2004 Presidential election? 
3: Overall, how would you rate the importance of fishing or hunting to you personally, on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important?
Mean = 7.5
Percent giving rating of 10: 28%
4: Respondent's age
| 65 years or older | 22% |
| 55-64 years old | 22% |
| 45-54 years old | 25% |
| 35-44 years old | 15% |
| 25-34 years old | 4% |
| 18-24 years old | 5% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
| Refused | 4% |
5: Respondent’s gender
| Male | 75% | |
| Female | 25% |
Click the link below to view the survey in its entirety, click on the comments button below to tell us what you think about the results, or visit the National Wildlife Federation's special global warming web site, www.targetglobalwarming.org, which they are calling "a place where hunters and anglers can connect with other sportsman to talk about the effects of global warming, and what can be done about it."
Demographic information
1: Overall, how would you rate the importance of fishing or hunting to you personally, on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important?
Mean = 7.5
Percent giving rating of 10: 28%
2: Respondent’s gender (not asked, but observed by interviewer).
| Male | 75% | |
| Female | 25% |
3: May I ask your age?
| 65 years or older | 22% |
| 55-64 years old | 22% |
| 45-54 years old | 25% |
| 35-44 years old | 15% |
| 25-34 years old | 4% |
| 18-24 years old | 5% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
| Refused | 4% |
4: Do you consider yourself an evangelical Christian?
| Yes | 50% |
| No | 39% |
| Don’t know | 5% |
| Refused | 6% |
5: Do you consider your place of residence to be a large city or urban area, a suburban area, a small city or town, a rural area on a farm or ranch, or a rural area NOT on a farm or ranch?
| Large city or urban area | 14% |
| Suburban area | 17% |
| Small city or town | 25% |
| Rural area on a farm or ranch | 15% |
| Rural area NOT on a farm or ranch | 22% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 4% |
6: How many children, age 17 or younger, do you have living in your household?
| No children | 67% |
| 1 child | 14% |
| 2 children | 8% |
| 3 children | 5% |
| 4 children | 1% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 3% |
7: Do you consider yourself a farmer, a rancher, or both?
| Farmer | 9% |
| Rancher | 2% |
| Both | 3% |
| Neither | 81% |
| Don’t know | 1% |
| Refused | 4% |
8: Are you a member of a labor union?
| Yes | 16% |
| No | 78% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 4% |
Questions about the respondents' politics
9: On political issues, do you consider yourself conservative, moderate, or liberal?
| Conservative | 36% |
| Moderate | 37% |
| Liberal | 11% |
| Don’t know | 9% |
| Refused | 7% |
10: What is your political affiliation?
| No political affiliation / Independent / moderate | 29% |
| Republican | 27% |
| Democrat | 31% |
| Other | 1% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
| Refused | 10% |
11: Are you a registered Republican? (Asked of those whose affiliation is Republican.)
| Yes | 77% |
| No | 19% |
| Don’t know | 4% |
| Refused | 0% |
12: Are you a registered Democrat? (Asked of those whose affiliation is Democrat.)
| Yes | 88% |
| No | 8% |
| Don’t know | 4% |
| Refused | 0% |
Respondents' perceptions of global warming
13: Global warming is defined as the rise in temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree or disagree that global warming is currently occurring?
| Strongly agree | 47% | |
| Moderately agree | 29% | |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3% | |
| Moderately disagree | 5% | |
| Strongly disagree | 7% | |
| Don’t know | 8% |
14: Do you agree or disagree that global warming is primarily caused by pollution from burning fossil fuels?
| Strongly agree | 30% | |
| Moderately agree | 26% | |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5% | |
| Moderately disagree | 12% | |
| Strongly disagree | 11% | |
| Don’t know | 17% |
15: Global warming is a serious threat to fish and wildlife. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 48% |
| Moderately agree | 23% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2% |
| Moderately disagree | 11% |
| Strongly disagree | 11% |
| Don’t know | 6% |
16: Global warming is a serious threat to humans. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 45% |
| Moderately agree | 24% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2% |
| Moderately disagree | 11% |
| Strongly disagree | 12% |
| Don’t know | 6% |
17: Global warming is an urgent problem requiring immediate action. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 46% | |
| Moderately agree | 21% | |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3% | |
| Moderately disagree | 12% | |
| Strongly disagree | 13% | |
| Don’t know | 5% |
18: Global warming threatens the economy and jobs across the nation. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 30% |
| Moderately agree | 23% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1% |
| Moderately disagree | 17% |
| Strongly disagree | 17% |
| Don’t know | 10% |
19: Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?
| Global warming is already beginning to impact hunting and fishing conditions | 34% |
| Global warming will impact hunting and fishing conditions in future generations | 39% |
| Global warming will have little or no impact on hunting and fishing conditions, and concern about it is overblown | 23% |
| Don’t know | 4% |
20: Addressing global warming should be a high priority. We can improve the environment and strengthen the economy by investing in clean, renewable energy technologies that create jobs while reducing global warming pollution. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 58% | |
| Moderately agree | 24% | |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2% | |
| Moderately disagree | 6% | |
| Strongly disagree | 8% | |
| Don’t know | 2% |
21: The U.S. should reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming and threaten fish and wildlife habitat. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 52% | |
| Moderately agree | 26% | |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2% | |
| Moderately disagree | 5% | |
| Strongly disagree | 9% | |
| Don’t know | 6% |
22: The U.S. should be a world leader in addressing global warming. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 60% |
| Moderately agree | 20% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2% |
| Moderately disagree | 5% |
| Strongly disagree | 10% |
| Don’t know | 4% |
23: Congress should pass legislation that sets a clear national goal for reducing global warming pollution with mandatory timelines because industry has already had enough time to clean up voluntarily. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 51% |
| Moderately agree | 24% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2% |
| Moderately disagree | 8% |
| Strongly disagree | 11% |
| Don’t know | 4% |
24: Legislation to address global warming should include funding to protect fish, wildlife, and their habitat from the impacts of global warming. (Do you agree or disagree with this statement?)
| Strongly agree | 54% |
| Moderately agree | 22% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1% |
| Moderately disagree | 6% |
| Strongly disagree | 11% |
| Don’t know | 5% |
25: Should the federal government provide incentives, such as tax breaks and subsidies, to companies that develop new energy efficient technologies that reduce global warming?
| Strongly agree | 57% |
| Moderately agree | 27% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1% |
| Moderately disagree | 4% |
| Strongly disagree | 9% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
26: Is the country on the right track or the wrong track when it comes to global warming?
| Right track | 26% |
| Wrong track | 43% |
| Don’t know | 31% |
Respondent's personal observations of global warming and its effects
27: In your personal experience, would you say the quality of hunting and fishing habitats has improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse within the past few years?
| Improved | 22% |
| Stayed the same | 31% |
| Gotten worse | 42% |
| Don’t know | 5% |
28: How concerned are you that the wildlife or fish populations in the areas where you typically hunt or fish will decrease significantly or disappear in the next 10 years?
| Very concerned | 44% |
| Somewhat concerned | 27% |
| Not at all concerned | 27% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
29: Have you observed any of the following conditions where you live?
| Earlier spring? | 37% |
| Earlier bloom times? | 32% |
| Hotter summers? | 39% |
| Warmer, or shorter winters? | 54% |
| Drying wetlands? | 28% |
| Unusual drought? | 30% |
| Less snow? | 36% |
| Less ice cover on ponds, lakes, or rivers? | 28% |
| None of these | 24% |
30: Do you believe that (seasonal weather condition given in the above question) that you have observed (is/are) related to global warming?
| Yes | 54% |
| No | 22% |
| Don’t know | 24% |
31: Have you observed any of the following conditions where you live?
| More wildfires, forest fires, or brush fires? | 15% |
| Unusual flooding? | 13% |
| More intense storms, including hurricanes? | 31% |
| Changing migratory bird patterns? | 15% |
| Decreasing bird, fish, or wildlife populations? | 35% |
| New pests or invasive species? | 20% |
| None of these | 38% |
32: Do you believe that (natural disaster/wildlife condition(s) given in the above question) that you have observed (is/are) related to global warming?
| Yes | 44% |
| No | 35% |
| Don’t know | 21% |
Questions about America's energy policy:
33: Which of the following do you think is the best way to address America’s energy needs?
| Drilling for more oil and gas in the U.S., including areas within wildlife refuges and other public lands, to increase our domestic energy supply. | 15% |
| Conserve more, waste less, and develop more fuel-efficient vehicles so we use less oil and gas. | 27% |
| Rely less on oil and gas and expand development of renewable forms of energy like wind, solar, and ethanol. | 51% |
| Don’t know | 7% |
34: President Bush said in his State of the Union address that “America is addicted to oil”. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
| Strongly agree | 69% | |
| Moderately agree | 12% | |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1% | |
| Moderately disagree | 7% | |
| Strongly disagree | 8% | |
| Don’t know | 3% |
35: Are the Administration and Congress doing enough to break America’s addiction to oil? (Asked of those who agree that America is addicted to oil.)
| Yes | 6% |
| No | 86% |
| Don’t know | 8% |
36: Is the country on the right track or the wrong track in meeting our national energy needs?
| Right track | 18% |
| Wrong track | 69% |
| Don’t know | 13% |
37: Should the federal government provide incentives, such as tax breaks and subsidies, to industries to replace some energy from oil, gas, and coal with renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power?
| Strongly agree | 61% | |
| Moderately agree | 25% | |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1% | |
| Moderately disagree | 4% | |
| Strongly disagree | 7% | |
| Don’t know | 1% |
38: Should the federal government provide incentives, such as tax breaks and subsidies, to make energy conservation technologies more affordable for citizens?
| Strongly agree | 69% |
| Moderately agree | 18% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1% |
| Moderately disagree | 4% |
| Strongly disagree | 7% |
| Don’t know | 1% |
Questions about respondents' voting habits
39: Are you currently a registered voter?
| Yes | 82% |
| No | 11% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 5% |
40: During Presidential election years, would you say that you vote always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never?
| Always | 64% |
| Usually | 11% |
| Sometimes | 7% |
| Rarely | 5% |
| Never | 5% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 6% |
41: During non-Presidential election years, would you say that you vote always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never?
| Always | 44% |
| Usually | 20% |
| Sometimes | 13% |
| Rarely | 8% |
| Never | 8% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 6% |
42: Did you vote in the 2004 Presidential election?
| Yes | 77% |
| No | 15% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 6% |
43: Whom did you vote for in the 2004 Presidential election? (Of those who voted.)
| George W. Bush | 53% |
| John Kerry | 29% |
| Ralph Nader | 0% |
| Other | 0% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
| Refused | 16% |
44: Do you plan to vote in the 2006 non-Presidential election this November?
| Yes | 76% |
| No | 9% |
| Don’t know | 8% |
| Refused | 6% |
45: In general, how much of an influence do candidates’ conservation policies or views have on your actual voting behavior? Would you say they have a major influence, a minor influence, or no influence?
| Major influence | 37% |
| Minor influence | 43% |
| No influence | 17% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
46: Which candidate for office you would be more likely to favor. (Note that the order of candidate position was randomized to eliminate question order bias.)
Candidate A believes we must take action now to reduce pollution contributing to global warming and supports strong laws.
Candidate B believes more study is needed on global warming and believes there should only be voluntary responses rather than government regulation. Which candidate would you be more likely to favor?
| “Strong laws” candidate | 64% |
| “More study” candidate | 28% |
| Don’t know | 8% |
The McCain/Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act
The following six questions asked about support or opposition to five elements of the proposed McCain/Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S.342, H.759) and then about overall support or opposition to the bill.
47: The bill would provide $500 million annually to state wildlife agencies for fish and wildlife conservation. Do you support or oppose this element of the bill?
| Strongly support | 58% |
| Moderately support | 26% |
| Neither support nor oppose | 1% |
| Moderately oppose | 5% |
| Strongly oppose | 7% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
48: The bill would provide funding to boost research and development of advanced clean energy technologies, including new ways of using crops from America’s farms to create fuels that substitute for oil. Do you support or oppose this element of the bill?
| Strongly support | 70% |
| Moderately support | 22% |
| Neither support nor oppose | 1% |
| Moderately oppose | 2% |
| Strongly oppose | 4% |
| Don’t know | 1% |
49: The bill would provide funding to America’s auto industry to help retool auto plants to incorporate the latest gas-saving technologies. Do you support or oppose this element of the bill?
| Strongly support | 49% |
| Moderately support | 22% |
| Neither support nor oppose | 2% |
| Moderately oppose | 8% |
| Strongly oppose | 17% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
50: The bill would provide funding to develop a new generation of advanced nuclear power plants. Do you support or oppose this element of the bill?
| Strongly support | 32% |
| Moderately support | 26% |
| Neither support nor oppose | 6% |
| Moderately oppose | 12% |
| Strongly oppose | 18% |
| Don’t know | 7% |
51: The bill would provide payments to farmers and landowners who conserve soil and plant trees for reforestation. Do you support or oppose this element of the bill?
| Strongly support | 64% |
| Moderately support | 21% |
| Neither support nor oppose | 2% |
| Moderately oppose | 6% |
| Strongly oppose | 6% |
| Don’t know | 2% |
52: Overall, do you support or oppose legislation with the provisions in the McCain/Lieberman bill?
| Strongly support | 34% |
| Moderately support | 43% |
| Neither support nor oppose | 6% |
| Moderately oppose | 6% |
| Strongly oppose | 4% |
| Don’t know | 8% |
Methodology
Responsive Management conducted this national survey of hunters and anglers on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation. The survey was administered in March through April, 2006. A total of 1,031 telephone interviews were completed: 212 interviews with those who fished only, 148 interviews with those who hunted only, and 671 interviews with those who both fished and hunted. The interviews were only of those 18 years of age and older.
For the survey, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling medium because of the universality of telephone ownership. To ensure the integrity of the telephone survey data, Responsive Management has interviewers who have been trained according to the standards established by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations. Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday noon to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., local time. A five-callback design was used to maintain the representativeness of the sample, to avoid bias toward people easy to reach by telephone, and to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate. When a respondent could not be reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of the week and at different times of the day. The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language 4.1.
The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management. The data were weighted to represent the actual nationwide population of anglers only, hunters only, and those who participated in both activities. Sampling error was + 3.05 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level. The proportions of hunters only, anglers only, and hunter/anglers was designed to correspond with the most recent (2001) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Census Bureau.
I think global warming is a serious issue that threatens the entire planet. Though periods of global warming have taken place in past eras, the rapid temperature increase can only be attributed to man and industrialization. People who say otherwise are simply fools. It is time to stop the problem before it gets out of hand and we find ourselves in serious trouble.
Posted by: Wes | May 15, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Count me as a fool then. Global warming as used and defined in our media is bunk. This survey was conducted during and right after one of the warmest winters in years. No wonder it came out the way it did.
The weather goes in cycles. It wasn't but a couple years ago we were in the middle of one of the coldest winters on record and pro global warming nuts justified that as a sign of global warming. It was Henry Clay who said that statistics are no substitute for judgement.
Let's retake the survey after one of our colder winters and see what the results say.
Does that mean we shouldn't persue cleaning up our atmostphere? No, we need to do what we can to preserve our planet, but I'm one of the fools who just doesn't buy into the politics of global warming.
Posted by: Tom | May 15, 2006 at 05:59 PM
So Tom, all the science of global warming is bunk? I don't think so. It's not just winters. It's drought, it's migration patterns. They don't happen overnight. It's been happening for a while, pal. And it's pretty obvious to anyone who spends time outside. The debate has been over for a while. Now it's about fixing it.
Posted by: Chris | May 16, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Chris quit buyin into all that liberal media bull. We sportsmen should be concentrating on what affects us most...developement of our hunting grounds not this myth of global warming. Im with Tom and say its all just a bunch of bunk.
Posted by: Jack | May 16, 2006 at 10:24 PM
What rapid rise in temperatures? The AVERAGE temperature has risen one degree celsius since 1812. If you want to a good read, with documented sources, on so-called global warming, pick up a copy of Michael Crichton's (sp?) "State of Fear." It will be an eye opening read, and a darn good story to boot. You will learn the true nature of the global warming hysteria.
Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2006 at 06:43 AM
This survey shows that any survey will convey the desires of the surveyor. The questions are worded in a way that demands an answer of "yep, it's global warming!"
Trouble is that this survey, much like nearly all of the global warming hype, neglects to consider (IMHO) the biggest factor. Blacktop & concrete.
Sure, hunters and anglers believe that there will be less wildlife and habitat. Because we keep expanding our cities into the country bulldozing the farmland and replacing it with excellent heat conductors: blacktop, concrete & asphalt shingles. I'm always amazed that no scientific types have even considered, let alone studied, the impact of sprawl on wildlife. It's just simpler to blame the wildlife impacts on "global warming" then to take on the developers.
Posted by: Mike | May 17, 2006 at 08:17 AM
Global Warming huh? This topic is not just open and shut, obviously. There is a lot more to everyone's arguments that have posted so far. To me, the debate is so open ended that it seems we might be talking about it until it is to late to reverse the cylce, whatever might be causing the changes to our atmosphere. There is, however several factors to consider....being an avid outdoorsmen, and enjoying quality of life for all living creatures, (and i'm not an extreme liberal!!!) I think that there are plenty of facts out there to prove that our planet is undergoing some changes that clearly cannot be overlooked, ie.ice caps melting, shorter winters with not as much snow, less ice cover on lakes and rivers. So many things could be causing these things to occur. I think we can all agree that it is hard to pinpoint just one thing. Whether cycles do happen, but in the past they have not been this extreme.....and as far as the 1812 comment, that is totally irrelevent to anything that is happening currently. GET BUSH OUT!!!!
Posted by: Shaun | May 17, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Global warming is probably the greatest socio-political scam to come along in decades. The results of the poll show just how effective the propaganda from the global warming hysterics has been. That humans have caused global warming and that humans can do something about global warming is not based in any scientifically derived reality.
Posted by: G. Burgett | May 17, 2006 at 03:33 PM
Atmospheric warming and cooling runs in cycles. This warm cycle might be a bit warmer and a bit longer than some in the past, but don't sell your long johns yet. It will get cold again!
Posted by: Rich | May 17, 2006 at 05:31 PM
I think Al Gore sucks. He is the reason for the warm puffy wind.
Posted by: Art | May 17, 2006 at 08:29 PM
In the last decade or so scientists have studied ice cores which have annual layers containing climate, atmospheric and temperature data, very similar in a way to the information available in tree rings. However, in contrast to tree rings which cover at most a few thousand years, the ice cores cover a half million years, a period which includes a number of natural cycles of successive ice ages and warm periods. The ice core data show that we are in an unprecedented situation, that is clearly brought about by our own activities. The global melting of ice caps, glaciers, and arctic permafrost, etc., are merely confirming evidence of a long term trend that is clear in the ice core data. This is a link to a Scientific American article, which makes an unusual point about human activity, but contains a good explanation of the situation.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/es18/docs/Ruddiman_article.pdf
Posted by: Ron | May 18, 2006 at 08:28 AM
In general, humans don't get the concept of change...we live only an extremely short time in the life of this planet. And in my short 36 years on this planet, I've learned how to interpret data objectively. Those of us concerned about our environment for our children and your children are not global warming hysterics...we're just people who want our kids to enjoy fish and wildlife like we and our parents did. For whatever reason you want to believe or not believe, there ARE changes going on. Politically it really doesn't matter how it happened. What matters is what are WE ALL going to do about it. Ignoring the changes and dogging on people like Gore and Bush is childish and petty. Lets be proactive here sportsman...I love to fish, and I'm currently a biologist for our government, devoted to helping the environment for ALL OF US and our interests. I'm not complaining...I'm working to help rectify some problems. I challenge you to do the same.
Posted by: Heidi | May 18, 2006 at 10:06 AM
Yup, the blind are thick around here...
I could pop up the links to the dozens of legitimate studies showing the exact proof that we're causing global warming. To be honest it would be a waste of time. Those not believing it now, won't believe the proof, regardless of how accurate it is.
Besides the whole deal can be side stepped in the case of outdoorsman.
"Would your grandchildren to be able to fish, hunt, camp and be able to drink the water in the streams, without a major health risk?"
I'll assume yes, or I wouldn't have posted the question. The simple answer is that we need stronger pollution controls on big companies, and consumers. The side bonus is we can control Co2 and other pollutants along the way.
Posted by: Corvidae | May 18, 2006 at 02:21 PM
Humanity is a long way from true understading of so complex a set of systems such as the Earth's climate. The so-called "scientific consensus" needs to dial back the hubris and find some humility, not to mention their dependence on grant monies from left-leaning philanthropic foundations, USEPA, etc. The rest of us ought to be more focused on more localized enviromental problems: unsafe drinking water, unreliable or non-existent sewerage and waste disposal, and air pollution from burning wood, dung, etc. for heat and cooking.
Posted by: Mark | May 18, 2006 at 05:04 PM
ATTENTION: STOP GLOBAL WHINING IM not gunna lie our environment is in trouble but its not from the myth of global warming. Im from Califronia and over the past 30 years real estate and polluted rivers and oceans has affected my hunting and fishing more than any of this bull global warming. We need to focus are energy on protecting whats here not fighting an imaginary enemy.
FRIST
ROMNEY '08
P.S.SHAUN BUSH=HERO
Posted by: Chris | May 18, 2006 at 07:12 PM
Global warming is not a matter of opinion. It is a scientific fact like gravity is a scientific fact. If you ignore the fact that we are creating a warmer climate through our burning of fossil fuels, then you are signing away the lives of your children and grandchildren. We need to do something now, and it needs to be drastic. Otherwise, there is no future.
Posted by: Jess | May 19, 2006 at 02:51 PM
One volcanic blast like Mt St. Helens puts more CO2 in the air than man has since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We are in a warming cycle now coming out of a long cool cycle. The sky is not falling. Read Michael Crichton's book!
Posted by: Matt | May 19, 2006 at 05:48 PM
All you tree huggers need to start cutting down trees they are the biggest emitters of green house gases. If you put ice cubes in water it makes the water warmer!??? By the way 5 billion chinese are the biggest emitter of fossil fuel gases. I realize that on planet leftist the criminal united states is responsible for all the evil. But here on planet earth reality is quite different especially for thinking human beings. Please keep up your childish temper tantrums in the media, its just too funny. One final thought come the final vote in Novemer remind us stupid voters how we failed to get the message again. You guys crack me up!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Bruce Hultquist | May 20, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Bruce, what? I think you might have inhaled too much CO2, because trees don't emit greenhouse gases. They absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.
The United States leads in carbon output, with nearly 23% of the world's emissions, whereas China, the second largest emitter of carbon, contributes some 14% of the total. Even if your claim were true, it is a childish argument. "Since so and so is doing it, it is ok that we do it."
I keep hearing anti-warming folk reference volcanic eruptions. First, this has nothing to do with the global warming debate. Global warming theory is based on how human activity is exacerbating the natural cycle. So, yes, a volcanic eruption does emit massive amounts of CO2, but this is besides the point since we aren't speaking about natural occurances, but instead about activities that makes these natural occurances more dangerous to our quality of life.
Michael Chrichton writes FICTION. He is no more an expert on global warming than Dan Brown is on theology. We talk about climate change, and people suggest consulting a fiction author. Hilarity, and the demise of the habit we are collectively working to protect, ensues.
Posted by: Josh | May 23, 2006 at 12:10 PM
How the Earth warms itself up without humans -- Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for "global warming," Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of "Burning Ice" (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical / scientific issue to resolve.
The issue of "global warming" brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects ("inputs" and "outputs") and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, "Statistics for Experimenters," by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.
When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.
http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.html
http://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html
Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, but then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc.
Scientists should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming "effect" is due solely to "greenhouse" gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually cooling:
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/121699text.html
http://ees5-www.lanl.gov/IGPP/Debate2.html
(some of these links may not be working due to computer changes since 9-11)
Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there is still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.
Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?
When it comes to Nature's greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth's past, long before humans were ever around.
Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth's Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:
General information on chemistry and biology of Methane Hydrates:
--> http://www.at-sea.org/missions/extremes/preview.html
--> http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sassen.html
--> http://ench1.ench.ucalgary.ca/~hydrates/
--> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
--> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/
--> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm
--> http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Margin/Marg-Hydrates.htm
--> http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/NaturalGas/hydrates/index.html
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets:
--> http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/hydrates/
--> http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
--> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/
--> http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/
Germany's research:
--> http://www.mpi-bremen.de/deutsch/biogeo/mumm2.html
--> http://www.gashydrate.de/
In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth's geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.
http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html
And then there is the aspect of climate change from meteors:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzo.html
Outgassing of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from volcanoes:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/
Inaccuracies in Measurements of Climates:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html
Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html
green plants also cause Global Warming:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2006/060113/e-list.html#Wi1
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Forgotten_Methane_Source.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Could_Forests_Worsen_Global_Warming.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Extinctions_Linked_To_Climate_Change.html
Farming Provides Wildlife Habitat And Reduces Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Farming_Provides_Wildlife_Habitat_And_Reduces_Global_Warming.html
Prehistoric warming helped preserve fossils:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzi.html
Ancient tropical warming and nature's greenhouse gases
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzj.html
Volcanic impacts on ocean levels:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/oceans-05y.html
climate change and massive flooding:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Role_Of_Massive_Floods_In_Climate_Change.html
Late Pleistocene Americans Faced Chaotic Climate Change Environments
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Late_Pleistocene_Americans_Faced_Chaotic_Climate_Change_Environments.html
Global Warming evidence from 55 million years ago
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzzb.html
How continental splits resulted in global cooling:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/antarctic-05q.html
Earth's burping from wobbling also affects climate:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzt.html
None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!
It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.
But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us. Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities -- their words, not ours.
Posted by: Catherine French | May 24, 2006 at 07:59 PM
"Bruce, what? I think you might have inhaled too much CO2, because trees don't emit greenhouse gases. They absorb CO2 and emit oxygen"
Better review your life science, Josh. During the light phase of photosynthsis green plants do take in CO2 and emit O2. During the dark phase the they emit CO2. That means all night long. Plants also release CO2 as they decay.
Posted by: Ronnie Garrison | May 27, 2006 at 08:42 PM
"This survey shows that any survey will convey the desires of the surveyor. The questions are worded in a way that demands an answer of 'yep, it's global warming!'"
I did a somewhat tongue in cheek survey that proves Global Warming can't exist. Just ask the right questions and limit the answer choices. There are 9 different questions in my survey. Some call this Pollaganda and is also known as push polling.
Posted by: Ronnie Garrison | May 27, 2006 at 08:45 PM
"So Tom, all the science of global warming is bunk? I don't think so. It's not just winters. It's drought, it's migration patterns. They don't happen overnight. It's been happening for a while, pal. And it's pretty obvious to anyone who spends time outside. The debate has been over for a while. Now it's about fixing it."
Chris - I spend a lot of time outdoors. I know weather changes every day. This spring has been much cooler in Georgia than normal, but that is not a sign of global cooling, just a cycle of weather. The winter of 2003 was the coldest since 1979 - another cycle.
If Global Warming is true because we are breaking weather records 50 to 70 years old, what caused the records back then? Another cycle.
Posted by: Ronnie Garrison | May 27, 2006 at 08:49 PM
"People who say otherwise are simply fools. Typical comment by a closed mind - call names, don't offer information and facts.
I guess I am a fool, but so is:
Richard S. Lindzen
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Ronnie
[email protected]
http://fishing.about.com
Posted by: Ronnie Garrison | May 29, 2006 at 05:30 PM
More fools, according to Chris:
Just ask the 4,000 scientists from 106 countries who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which includes 72 Nobel Prize winners. The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
What about the Oregon Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/), sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of Sciences? It has over 17,000 independently verified signatures from scientists. It reads, in part:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Or, what about the 46 climate scientists who sent a letter, printed in the June 3 edition of Canada's National Post, to a Canadian member of Parliament, questioning the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming? According to the signatories, the Kyoto Protocol "lacks credible science." Moreover, "Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord."
Posted by: Ronnie Garrison | May 29, 2006 at 08:24 PM