Are you worried about the potential impact of rising sea levels?

I totally agree Mr Palin. The truth is it will be alright in the long run, but what that will look like for our grandchildren is the rub.

There is a story about an experiment that was undertaken between culling elephants to prevent damage to forest, and allowing them to take their natural course. It was conducted over years.

At first the 'culled' forest seemed far better than the left alone one. The elephants did less damage. In the unculled forest it became devastating to the environment.

As a result, elephants ran out of food and many died as drought ensued as a result of loss of trees. The herd became almost extinct. Bodies rotted back into the Earth, and fertilised the soil.

Over time and lack of elephants the forest recovered and grew more lush than the 'managed' forest ever achieved. The result was lauded as a resounding success in proving that elephants should be left alone to follow natures course.

On some level I agree with those findings, but translate that into humankind rather than elephants and the picture looks unacceptable.

Its true that die-off of humans would result in a refreshed Earth with all problems solved, but I for one don't want to be part of making that choice for the generations to come.

For sure, if we don't manage our own activities for ourselves, nature will do it for us. She brooks no argument when it comes to her own survival. I opt for taking responsibility before we are forced to.

We know our activities are damaging our habitat and our possibilities of survival. We should not need to have science point out to us what is right under our noses and obvious.

For me, the consequences of taking no action are unacceptable, even if they are just a possibility rather than the strong probability that we are being shown.

I could not rest easy in my grave when it comes knowing that I had not at least tried.

There have been a couple of posts which suggest that readers have taken the poll question too literally. Perhaps it would have been better to have asked "Are you concerned about....?"

I find it very strange that some folk have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to look seriously at how mankind has the ability to adapt to changes in the climate.

Go to this link to download a peer-reviewed article from Science magazine that compares observations of atmospheric CO2, temperature and sea level with climate projections of the IPCC from 1990 onward.

It is wrong to suggest that voters are doubting climate change. I see it as a relative slow process and have confidence that mankind will find an answer to the problem, so therefore I voted not worried as the most appropriate answer for me.

But at the same time I am utterly sick of the endless yak about climate change and name calling which is solving nothing.

We should be talking about limiting population growth, better population reduction, and relocation of people homeless from flooding and drought.

I find it staggering that the poll here shows 49% still doubt climate change.This can only mean that half of the people, here at least, have never taken the time to educate themselves as to what is really going on. That's scary.

Talk about "fiddling while Rome burns". (That means doing nothing while disaster happens as Nero did when Rome was on its last legs- for those that have never heard of it).

It makes me feel that the biggest problem we, and maybe human kind, faces is our own ignorance.

Please, get on the net, read a few books, look at the climate stats over the last decade. Open your eyes and wake up.

There is more to life than the next Speights, and Rugby match.

Do something that will make a difference and you can only benefit -and it wont even give you a hangover, Dunedin.

Unfortunately, crisis still is the mother of invention, but this crisis is terminal. Sit on your hands at your peril. And unfortunately mine too.

Local politics and national politicians who can use their constituents unawareness to prevaricate, thrive on the uninformed. That's why Obama had his hands tied at Copenhagen. That's why John Key could threaten not to even turn up.

Educate and update current information and vote people in who have a clue. Let's start at home with the next council election.

As a scientist, albeit a masters student, I find it hard to take your argument seriously. I implore you to go beyond the google search, Mr. Gong, and follow the literature. At least when building an argument include your sources of information, so we know from where you've built your knowledge. When analysing complex scientific issues such as climate change, one must rely on the balance of evidence, or consensus.
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC* on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) concluded that climate change is, without a doubt, occurring and the Earth is warming. More importantly, the IPCC concluded that there is over 90% probability that this temperature increase is due to human activities (Bernstein, Pachauri et al. 2007).
Now, the Stern Review, the most comprehensive review on the economics of climate change ever carried out, was commissioned for the UK Government in 2006. The Review, based on IPCC AR3 (2001) science, concluded that the body of evidence and the growing quantitative assessment of risks was “sufficient to give clear and strong guidance to economists and policy-makers in shaping a response.” In April 2008 in an interview with The Guardian, author Nicholas Stern admitted the Stern Review (2006) had underestimated the risks, damage and probability of temperature increases, and that climate change was happening faster than they had predicted (Adam 2008).
To compound this urgency to act, the recently released Synthesis Report (2009) found that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC AR4 (2007) range of projections (Richardson, Steffen et al. 2009). That is, the Stern Report and AR4 predictions have come to be, though what we're seeing is the top level effects. Your reaction to the question about sea level rise is common, and one I believe is to be expected. That is the tragedy of climate change, and its cause is evident when we analyse news media and specifically the necessity for objectivity.
A 'balanced story' cannot apply to climate change science, though it has been for decades and such public representation of the issue reflects this. Over 3000 scientists agree, with greater than 90% certainty, that this is happening and is happening because of us. One man's view balanced equally with this in a guise of objectivity can only lead one way. I welcome and look forward to your response, Nick Holmes
*The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.

Anyone who isn't worried about rising sea levels shouldn't leave their head in the sand for too long.

Not the least worried because the whole global warming thing is a scam.
Al Gore deliberately omitted the Medieval Warm Period off his graph and this same graph was later used by the IPCC. It was at least as warm but probably warmer during the medieval warming than now, but no significant rises (or drops) in sea level occurred then or during the subsequent cooling. There have been two further warm periods within historical times, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period. The point is though, if there were previous global warmings when there could not have been any possible effect from human produced CO2, it is entirely illogical to assume or even try to prove that the current warming is due to humans.
This scam is slowly being revealed by evidence of data tampering, the absurd claim that CO2 is a poisonous gas and the finds at the Schneidejoch pass in Switzerland where artifacts only of the periods mentioned above are being found as the glacier retreats. Some of the older members of our society can remember fears of a retreat into an ice age in the 70s, an oil shortage soon after that. They faded in due course.
It is also apparent that rising sea levels experienced to date cannot be distinguished from the effects of normal seismic and tectonic activity this being another distortion of fact offered to us by global warming alarmists. To cap it all officially it is reported that Antarctica except for the peninsula has not warmed at all. However this fact or the explanation for the lack of warming has been blamed on the Ozone hole. How gullible are the public. Not infinitely I suspect.