Foxy - Nice try but please read the quote again ""Just think very near half of the world agrees with us Many many country,s do too""

Note the words "very near half of the world agrees with us" a poll of a small percentage can't make that assumption also "Many many country's do too" countries do not agree the leaders of those countries may but they have an agenda that does not include you and me.

Limited polls are easy to manipulate. This is something you should always remember.

Also you forget or dismissed this comment by me. "I would bet the poor in China, India,Pakistan, Africa have not even been asked what they think, that alone disproves your claim."

Belly has failed to answer this and other questions, I call that an epic fail.

Philip S.,

You asked for one poll from one country.

You were given three.

Are you even aware of the work that the Pew Research
Center does? Somehow I doubt it. Just as your reference
to NASA showed how limited your knowledge was to have
made the comment that you initially did.

Go back and read the Pew link - all the countries are
listed.

For your information - the Pew Research Center is a
nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about
issues, attitudes, and trends, shaping the world. They
conduct public opinion polling, demographic research,
content analysis and other data driven social science
research. They do not take policy positions. They have
supplied us with global information. If you want
to dispute their findings kindly give us evidence to
back up your claims

Foxy - Correct me but did the polls say Trump would not be President, so much for the credibility of polls.

Lowry questions.
Are a joke they do not in any way differentiate between man made global warming and naturally occurring warming.

How high do you think that survey results would be if they included in the question mans contribution to global warming is say 10%, the other 90% we have no control over?

Also quote "According to the Lowy poll, which involved a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adults" ** Great poll 1,200 get to represent 12 million or so adults does not say where they came from etc.

http://lowyinstitutepoll.lowyinstitute.org/climate-change-and-energy/#

Now for your Stanford link
1,000 people get to represent 150 million or so adults.

Look who conducted the survey. "The study was conducted with ABC News and Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization."

Here is your PEW one.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/2-public-support-for-action-on-climate-change/

When you can't see the exact questions asked and to who, I am not going to waste my time.

Can't you get this thru your head quote "Just think very near half of the world agrees with us Many many country,s do too" 1,200 people do not represent Australia, 1,000 people do not represent 150 or so million Americans.

Also the questions were biased.

Sorry I missed comment 2 on 15/12/2018

Comment2- "right liberals/ free traders" won't admit to climate change
Meaning2- Business people "free traders" won't admit to things that create expenses for their businesses- a company director that admitted something publicly outside of their duty under law wouldn't be a director for long. Businesses want growing markets as it means a growing business- immigration can create a growing market- but more people mean more foot prints by man. Businesses consider themselves to be the drivers of the nations economic activity- perhaps, perhaps not- but if so they are then their activity probably also drive the damage- all other things being equal

Dear Philip S,

You asked;

1. Out of 100% exactly how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

The initial impetus for global temperature research was the fact that solar cycles had predicted a cooling planet yet midway through the last century it was instead it was found to be warming.

The most robust explanation for that warming has been the huge rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. No reputable scientist is saying these increases have primarily come from any other source other than mankind's activities. Given this I see little reason to ascribe anything less than 100% to global warming being attributed to humans but happy to look at arguments to the contrary.

2. What is the optimal average temperature the planet should be?

Us humans have inhabited this planet as a species for well over 100,000 years. However it is only in the last 10,000 that civilisations began to form. Many ascribe this to what has been called the “Eden Period” which is a period of relatively even climate at a temperature that has been conducive to the advancement of human kind. Now it is true that many civilisations around the world are now better equipped to handle some changes in climatic conditions but you asked for optimal so Eden Period temperatures would be it.

3. Scientists made all the predictions in the past without knowing there was another cause for the ice melting "a radioactive heat source is slowly melting it from underneath" 

Given the lead scientist says; "The process of melting we observe has probably been going on for thousands or maybe even millions of years and isn't directly contributing to ice sheet change” why are we even discussing it?

4. Take the trillions of dollars away from the solution, would there still be a problem? That's how much money will go from so called rich countries to poor VIA the bankers and Al Gore and others they will make billions.

This is nonsense at every level but if you would like to rephrase it sensibly I will have another look.

SR,

Given the variety of dubious sites that you have sited, you have no moral authority here.

Secondly, tiny number of genetic markers found in EWs test are predominately found in native Americans from both north and south America, (as these populations mixed) but can also be found far more rarely outside the continent.

So that EW has a very distant relative from the continent is likely, but that she can claim Cherokee heritage is purely fanciful. And as Heritage is far more than distant DNA, this part of the claim from EW is extremely tenuous.

Finally, that she widely advertised her "heritage" from school to Uni etc makes it highly likely, but not necessarily provable that she gained some advantage.