Do You Know More or Less about Global Warming?

I don't think its fair to suggest non college educated people aren't concerned about global warming. I won't even touch the slight hint that non college educated people don't understand global warming.

However, if the non college educated don't understand it then the elected officials should explain it. They are the ones appointed to keep us safe from foreign and domestic threats correct? Yet I hear some politicians say its nothing to worry about. I hear others say its going to destroy us in 20 years or so.

I really should take it upon myself to learn the truth. The truth is out there but I probably don't understand as much as I should.

I know much more than the average person. I come to my own conclusions and don't reiterate everything I read by "copying and pasting". I don't follow the drones when there is no real evidence. If a debate is going on, I will side with what I believe. I know I am not always right, but I will stand tall with this global warming hysteria. This has been an agenda of Hansen and Gore since 1987 and they (at least Gore that I know of) stand to make billions of dollars if this agenda goes forth. If the science was absolute or even close to absolute, I would most likely agree. But so far this debate has been based on loose facts, statistical manipulation, media hype, and vast amounts of propaganda. The switch to alternative fuels is perfectly fine, but the tax payers should not pay for it. It's like inventing a cooking machine that is innovative and will allow every household to get rid of stoves and microwaves, and having the citizens of this country pay for it's R&D, materials, construction, and shipping. The business of alternative fuels should be like every other business, they pay to start up their product and earn returns. The only problem is the companies involved in the alternative fuels business are moving too slow for some unknown reason (probably because they are from the hippie generation and lost too many brain cells).

I know a good amount of the science and a good amount of the business involved with "global warming". The science doesn't add up. They should do more research before jumping to a conclusion.

If the day comes where I discover that this hysteria is real, I will believe it. until then, I will continue my research and continue to develop my own conclusions.

Impossible to answer without understanding the baseline a little better - I don't have sufficient data concerning knowledge levels of the average college educated US citizen on any subject is especially as the range is going to be very wide dependent upon age, when their education finished, social status, where in the US they were educated and where they consequently lived, work experience, etc etc

Although it seems that a large number of contributors in this forum are American, I suspect (hope!) that most of those are not college educated. If they are then:

a) I know a lot, a very substantial lot, more than the average and

b) The US education system is in dire straits!

i do no longer likely get that graph. How can there be 24 pink dots over one hundred twenty years if each and every is to symbolize a "length" of 11 or so years? The graph purely is going from 1860 to 1980, if each and every element is meant to hint the dimensions of an ~11 year cycle there ought to purely be 12 documents factors, no longer 24...

This is a tough one, since I feel I know more than when I first started posting to the Yahoo Answers - Global Warming answer page, but more than someone that got a more comprehensive associates degree than I have? I think it would depend on how much their digging into researching the subject on their own, since that's what I've done since I started answering questions on the subject. So my answer is I know more than those that aren't self educating themselves on the subject, but less than those that have dug into it more than I have.

If Yahoo users are any indication of the average college educated citizen, then I know way more than the average user.

I've read a significant portion of the IPCC AR4 reports, and try to follow the news. When there is a "global warming" story in the news, then I will track down the peer-reviewed journal article and read it (or the abstract if only this is available) for myself. I also know better than to rely on left- and right-wing “Think Tanks” for reliable information.

Edit, Get Real's List:

Sami Solanki - This quote is Cherry Picked. Solanki has also said, "However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."[1]

Habibullo Abdusamatov really is a kook.[2]

Christopher Landsea is NOT a denier. "We certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming." He believes in anthropogenic global warning, but is just skeptical of a link between global warming and hurricane activity.[3]

Richard Tol is NOT a denier. He is an economist who promotes a sound responds TO global warming.[4]

It's clear that Get Real has simply been trolling for quotes without really comprehending what is being said. Another example: David Bromwich actually stated the exact opposite of what Get Real suggested.[5]

I am highly skeptic of his entire list. I bet that most of those people on his list really are not skeptics or deniers. This list is a great example of the disinformation floating around on the internet concerning global warming.

I probably know more than average. I form this opinion because my interests draw me toward reading about or watching/listening to programs about ecology and global climate change.

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.

The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.[1]

Increasing global temperature is expected to cause sea level to rise, an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, and significant changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other expected effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences.

as much as i like to talk about global warming,i wish i could say that i knew more than the average college educated.but im learning more by the passing days,so that's good enough for me. =D

I konw more than the average american (which doesn't mean too much I know). But I have a basic understanding of the theory behind it, and a limited understanding of the climate systems