Opinions? Personally I just think it's an excuse for the gov't to tax the crap out of us.

Greenland and polar bears beg to differ. Mind giving us some examples of climate change taxes?

why do polar bears and greenland differ? Cap and Trade, a bill hopefully that will never go through.

Global climate change is nearly undeniable. It's a natural process. Human caused global climate change is disputable, as there's a lot of money to be made pushing it forward (who do you think is employing the scientists who say it's real? The same people who will keep them employed if the scientists keep 'em worried. I'm not trying to cast doubt on their professionalism, just presenting a possibility) and a lot of money to be made by convincing people it doesn't exist (oil companies. 'Nuff said).

How would the cap and trade bill be such a bad idea? The less you pollute, the less you have to pay. Giving companies an economical reason to reduce their pollution is, well, practically the only reason that a business would even bother to do it. If all we had in place for regulation where there are limits on how much you pollute, then it seems more then likely that companies would stay try and stay at that limit and make little to no effort to pollute less.

The reason I say that Greenland and polar bears would beg to differ, is because Greenland is actually starting to becoming green and polar bears are losing their habits.

Because global warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate from a geological perspective, and because there is a solid scientific model explaining how humans contribute to global warming, I have no reservations in asserting that humans are indeed the primary cause of climate change on earth. The idea that virtually all climatologists are conspiring to put forth a false idea for the sake of government funding is preposterous in my view.

I agree totally with H₇₇₇, although my days of arguing with climate change deniers is over.

But how much of the scientific community actually backs it up? And why would the UK have an investigation that ended in it being banned from schools due to scientific inaccuracies if, as you claim,it is indeed accurate.

Google says 97% of Climatologists believe we're causing climate change.

Politicians aren't scientists. They care about their votes more than they care about the truth. Also, I can't find any evidence of this UK ban.

Mr. Awesome, you've already admitted that the only reason you don't believe in global warming lies in the policy implications. I personally try to start and end with science on these sorts of things, and let policy fall where it may, and I suggest you do so too.

I come from the uk and can say with certainty that we are taught about global warming in both geography and science. Apparently, the geography teacher isn't allowed to tell is that it is certainly human caused, but they provide us with a lot of evidence and models that suggest that it is. Seems to be something about not wanting to indoctrinate us into this belief, but wanting us to make up our own minds.

That's reasonable. Science never decides anything for certain. As long as the evidence is accurately and honestly portrayed, the "truth" should be apparent, with no need for indoctrinating statements.

During a Q&A session at the 2009 Nobel Conference, a panel of scientists which included experts on climate change were asked to make a "show of hands" on how many of them believed climate change was a real threat. Instead of doing so, they responded by saying that "science is based on facts and we don't vote on facts". I've heard similar responses from the AAAS. Whether or not there's enough research to prove that climate change is primarily human-caused, there is definitely enough research to prove that it is happening.

There is no chance that anything will happen on this matter. It is a global problem can only cooperate at national scales. Maybe in a few decades, but then it will be far too late.

What we need is a UN with far more power, so that we can get every country to comply with regulations.

I beg to differ. Global Climate Change was first found in 1970, it certainly exists (the scientific community is anything but a conspiracy).

"What if it's all a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing?"


Thank you

[Please don't double post. Use the edit button instead.]

IMO it's real. Did you know the Permanent Ice Caps have started melting? The ones that have been there far longer then we have? Doesn't seem like something that just decided to start happening to me.

I've always wondered, what do you guys think about those emails that were released?

What emails? You're going to have to be more specific than that.

When you say 'released' I think you probably mean 'leaked'.

Probably these ones.
Here's a 'response' from some climate scientists.
There was years of private emails ripe for cherry picking. That the most sensational things they could find were some data witholdal, squabbling and some buxx phrases that sound faintly shifty is remarkable, actually.
At worst, one group of scientists falsified data. At best, the media displayed they still no fuck all about science and will use that ignorance for an excuse to sensationalise.

Did you ever cut corners?
Yes?
Then whatever you have said is false

how can a question be false? And thenagain found the emails, yes they were leaked, hacked i think.

Cosman is giving an example of what some were trying to say about climate change because of the emails.
Apparently the scientists involved were using techniques to speed up the data processing, the media assumed it was a trick to hide the REAL TEMP OMG and then tried to use that as an excuse to discredit all climate change science ever.

Oh i see what he was saying now