If you check out globeandmail.com, you'll notice that they have web polls. This provides me with an interesting slice of what Canadians think, albeit of a particular demographic.
Anyway, sometimes the polls are silly, some can be serious. Sometimes, a serious poll can have downright ridiculous results.
Here's what I'm talking about:
see the poll.
If that link didn't work, here's an image of it:
Now, that in itself isn't the "big kicker" for me. Sure, I'm scientific enough, and cynical enough, that I believe humans, as a whole, and the now prevlant threat of global warming, have a causal relationship. However, I still respect another's opinion. Also, if the scientists can't persuade them with
facts, and
evidence, what chance do I have?
No, no. The most ridiculous part comes
here (or the image below), in the poll immediately after the previous one:
Okay. Did you catch that?
Think about it.
To allow you the opportunity to
really think about it, and not just as a passing blur, I am providing you more time to have it
really sink in.
To paraphrase the combination of the two polls:
Our actions in the past had no effect, so we should spend our efforts to combat it, as long as the "big players" do also.(yes, I intentionally used that preposition to lend it sarcasm. If you didn't catch it, it's fine. I forgive you. I promise.)I'll elaborate further:
Excluding the 27% who feel they would fight global warming "unequivocally" - as they are likely the ones who answered in the earlier poll that "human activity is to blame" - 67% still felt that they are willing to sacrifice to help fight global warming as long as government and industries do so.What's wrong with this picture?
If our actions in the past, for nigh two hundred years, did
not contribute to global warming (as shown by 35% of those polled, who believe that
[paraphrase] global warming is real, but is completely part of the natural cycle), how would
anything we do at all now even begin to fight global warming? How would sacrificing your own standard of living even begin to help? I mean, why bother to sacrifice at all, if you feel that our actions in the past could not affect it?
This is tantamount to: There is a monster living near our town. We've shown in the past that all our weapons could not hurt it, thought we've tried for two hundred years. The monster is now approaching our town. Let's sacrifice our standard of living to make more weapons in order to fight it, even though we firmly believe that our past two hundred years of effort did not put a ding in it at all.
I hate hypocrites. I absolutely, to very fabric of my soul, hate hypocrites.
(They would go to the 8th level of Hell, according to Dante. That's the level one above that reserved for Judas.)
Either that's what they are, or they are people who lack the ability to think and make logical connections. And I don't believe it's the latter, as that ability is needed to clothe and bath oneself properly; I just don't
see that many people walking around
with no pants on.*Yes, I know that a much smaller number of people took the second poll, and one could argue that perhaps only those who felt global warming is human-caused took part in the second poll. If that's the case, then it instead shows that people don't think it's a problem, which I am willing to acquiesce.
