Is Global Warming a threat to the environment?

No, though it exists, it is a natural occurrence and not a threat to our environment

GW is inevitable, we should develop methods of dealing with it.

To a degree, yes. However, it is vastly overstated. I would use private property law to combat pollution and environmental destruction only.

Global Warming is a reality, but it is not the fault of man. I goes in natural cycles.

There is not enough Data to determine whether any of the current climate changes are a result of anything other than the normal cyclic weather worldwide. Even if AGCC was real and causing warming this would be a good thing as the warmer the planet is the more life thrives.

"Global warming" is a natural occurrence. Human intervention in a natural process causes unintended consequences, usually worse than the original problem.

Doesn't matter just stop using oil already

Government agencies should more rigorously oversee companies who stand to damage the environment.

One cannot have a political opinion on whether or not something is a scientific fact. The USA should follow the recommendations of the scientific community on this matter.

It's unclear why global warming is occurring. We should spend time on things that we know we're doing that are bad for us, like manufacturing plastic and not finding a sustainable, non-petroleum based energy source.

Let each state decide. Allow for tax credits on a federal level for alternative energy innovation and implementation.

Global warming may or may not be caused by humans. However, government grants should be given for the use of green energy. Also, the government should promote green energy.

pollution is a threat to the environments

the science is not yet to the level that one can make a valid yes/no statement. Politics and science don't mix

Global warming is a misnomer. Climate change is real and humans need to understand how we affect the earth's systems and limit those affects

To excuse Global warning is foolish but to spend Federal Government resources on the issue is unacceptable.

"Global Warming" is natural. Government funding should not be used to attempt to prevent it. Man has insignificantly contributed to the greenhouse effect. Warming is beneficial for many flora and fauna, some will prosper, others will not, the natural cycle.

Climate change, not Global Warming, should be investigated

Yes, and the government has a role in encouraging us to address it.

need more info

Yes but government subsidies frequently encourage the behavior environmental regulations try to prevent. End those first and see where we stand.

Human activity is amplifying the current natural cyclic warming of the earth, with potentially dangerous consequences. The federal government should provide incentives to private enterprise that encourage putting more of an economic stake in renewable energy technology.

There needs to be a more definite, consensus-backed (by only the most qualified climatologists, meteorologists, and so forth) understanding of the phenomenon (if there's a 'phenomenon' to begin with).

I don't presume to understand the subject.

Global warming is an issue we have to deal with. It is a natural phenomenon that is compounded by our use of energy. I doubt the government is the proper vehicle for ameliorating the effects.

It might be a problem. We need to invest more time and resources to research.

I am undecided

I believe in the possibility of humans affecting the environment. I do not however believe in the "science" that's been used to "prove" it's currently happening.

Yes, Global Warming is occuring and is a threat. It is scientifically unclear as to the extent to which its' causes are natural versus human impact driven. Meddling in the issue without clear scientific understanding is both fiscally irresponsible and possibly detrimental. As such, direct devotion of resources by the government is ill-advised and likely ineffective. I would prefer to see government resources devoted to exploring ways to creating a sustanence based society.

Yes but it is not the role of the government to act on it.

Global Warming is a serious environmental problem that may not be able to be prevented and the government should devote significant resources towards adjusting to its consequences.

Global Warming is part of a natural cycle, but that does not excuse humans from being good stewards of the planet.

Do we really know?

This is a bullshit question with some bullshit answers. You are not entitled to your own "Opinion" on something that is scientifically well established. Global Warming is real, and significantly influenced by humans. As to whether we should do anything about it, well, do you want to live in a blighted hellscape?

Prepare international cooperation using global incentives since spending money unilaterally may not reap any benefit.

Make corporations and people liable for damage they cause, risk matters more when those that cause it are the ones that get hit with the consequences.

Regardless, government should promote environmentally friendly corporate practices.

Global Warming Exist. Man-Made Global Warming does not exist. The government should not devote any resources or time preventing the release of a gas all plants absorb in order to release oxygen.

Not sure.

We should all do our part to protect the environment. However, we don't need an encyclopedia full of laws because we think the Earth is warming at am astounding rate.

global warming is both man made and a natural process. although funds need to be allocated to prevent further damage by man it also needs to be understood that the global temperature goes in cycles and changes are bound to happen.

Global warming is a religion and should be squelched at every opportunity like Judaism and Christianity with the notable exception of Islam.

Yes and the government should devote resources to the dual tasks of limiting it and preparing for its effects.

We don't have a large enough sample of data to know if it exists or not however we should still take steps to limit emissions/pollution for a number of other reasons.

Yes, and the people as a whole need to decide if they care enough to use the ballot to do something about it.

global warming is a threat to what we consider the environment, however the likelihood that this is a natural shift has a great deal of evidence.

Global Warming exists, but who cares, it will not be critical in my lifetime.

Its to late to reverse, we need to find ways to live with it.

our effect is not significant either way.

It is a real problem that we need to keep in mind, and should devote research to stop/prevent it. However, I am not sure if government resources should be the way to research it.

Yes, but we should not devote government funding to prevent it. Instead, we should tax companies contributing to global warming, for their companies here and abroad.

God created the earth and we as humans should be good steward of our environment.

Though there is scientific evidence that the is environmental change, there is no consensus on how, or why. Policy change for environmental preservation is good and important, but should not be done for ignorant reasons.

Global warming is a a real consequence of human industry that increases with economic demand. The government should provide incentives for industries that make an effort to reduce their carbon footprint.

No, the environment will survive without us. Global Warming is a threat to us, and the solution needs to be bigger than the government.

Global Warming, or more accurately "Climate Change" is now well under way. Because the fuckers in charge have decided en masse that short term profit is worth more than long term viability we are already screwed. So we should make sure that the costs of mitigating the enormous harm caused by these changes to our ways of life is borne by those most able to afford it. Tax and fine the corporate entities and individuls who have allowed this chaos to ensue in order to save the lives they would so willingly sacrifice for their elegant Chardonnay.

Unknown, Key holes even in the IPCC reports. Act sensibly now but continue to fund research.

Yes, the government should sponsor research that promotes technologies with small global footprints

The consequences of global warming are poorly understood and any time the government intervenes things get worse.

Humans should do our best to maintain a livable environment while still progressing technologically and economically, to do otherwise is irrational.

Yes and the government should enforce laws to decrease the harm by U.S. companies, while devoting resources to a switch towards more green technology.

Science supports both sides, and no one really knows, only speculates

Yes, and the people and the government should work to reduce emitions and pollution

not sure

Humans have been the main aggravators of global warming, and although it is a natural occurrence, we should take every measure we can to eradicate the cause

Yes, and the government should promote individual responsibility rather than fund research.

I am not sure that Global Warming exist, however, we should be much more concerned about our impact on the enviroment than we are at this time...alternative energy!

Do not believe in global warming. Believe in climate change caused by natural cycles which effects are worsened by human influence.

don't believe in global warming but believe environmentally friendly options should be explored

Yes and the only action the government should take is to provide tax breaks to those preventing it.

yes, but we should not devote government resources or funding to preventing it. It is the job of those who can do something to fix it to be given the resources to do it.

There is just not enough viable date beyond a few hundred years for us to say it is or isn't a credable threat. If anything, there should be government resources funded to investigate current scientists and their data to determine credability.

Yes and the government should make it advantageous for companies and individuals to be more environmentally friendly through tax incentives.

The sample size being used to "prove" global warming is approx. 200 years out of billions. The sample size is not big enough to prove one way or the other.

doesn't matter if it does or doesn't exist. the fact is that we, like everything else in science, have a direct impact on our environment. if we don't take steps now to make sure that impact is positive then we will have to work twice as hard in the future. it will take up twice as much time, money, and resources. if we get a head start we can improve life for ourselves and the next generation.

Probably but the science is not yet conclusive. Small changes in preparation for the likelihood of big changes are worthwhile.

"Global Warming" is a myth, we are experiencing climate change including warmer summers and harsher winters.

Global warming is a natural occurrence and is not something to be concerned about. However, we should still do all that we can to do things that have as little impact as possible on the environment.

Maybe - but the science to prove this claim has too often been shoddy at best, and at times outright fraudulent. As a result, we can't have any confidence in the threat, and thus should not spend tax money on solving a problem that may or may not be real.

Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle. Scientific evidence has been provided that substantiates the claim that humans have not had a large impact on the overall global climate of the earth.

YES

Aliens and Germans.

The U.S government should make every effort to conserve resources and create energy through more efficient means. We can not simply drop oil all together, but we should take steps towards becoming less dependent upon it.

we should do things to preserve natural resources

Global Warming is a theory. We do not know enough about it at this time to assume that humans cause it, it could be a natural phenomenon.

I think we should devote government resources or funding to prevent global climate change.

Climate Change is a natural occurrence that has been exponentially accelerated by humans, and one that often accompanies magnetic pole reversals. These events happen on Earth approximately every 1,000 to 10,000 years, though Earth has not experienced one for 780,000, breaking the pattern since the most recent one. We are due for one, thus climate change is a good indicator that a pole reversal may be coming.

Regardless we should take care of the earth

It is a natural occurrence, but we as a nation should try in all aspect to conserve energy and utilize alternative source when economically feasible.

Not sure whether it does or not.

still needs more research

Global climate change is a natural trend, but the government should still make efforts to become more environmentally responsible

Global Warming may or may not be affected by our choices, but government involvement is not likely to solve the problem, only complicate things.

Global warning is real but not a threat.

Global warming is a solar act of nature. Humans help to polute the environment but are foolish if they think they can control hot and cold cycles that have occurred since there was atmosphere on the earth.

yes because our environment will change radically and the pollution makers need to be regulated because a polluted planet equals a polluted people.

Not sure but if we need an artificial crisis to have a cleaner and better environment then lets treat the world accordingly.

There is not enough evidence to firmly support the idea of global warming, to the extent that we should insist on intense government regulations in effort to prevent something that may possibly not even exist.

I don't know

Global Warming is probably happening, but it's not necessarily a "threat to the environment," and the government should devote resources to preparing for it and mitigating its effects, not preventing it (which is never gonna happen).