It is certainly happening. We need to accept the evidence for it and act before its too late. The oceans are warming up, and even a few degrees is enough to destroy ecosystems. The coral reefs which reside in shallow water are dieing off and not growing back as a direct consequence of global warming. Most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced. If we fail to act in time, it will not matter how much money we save in doing nothing.

Yes, Global Warming is happening. According to an estimate, after 10 years from now, people will be using skin protectors and temperature controller devices in their homes. According to me, whatever we do now to reduce or eliminate this effect, we cannot control it. Yes, now it is too late and we are helpless. A group of handful activists cannot eliminate this effect, and the rest are uninterested.

I'll just let this 3 minute video speak for itself:

The earth has gone through cycles of cold and warm throughout its history, but the global warming now is alarming because it is happening quicker and with steeper effects.

most of the time i hate appealing to authority because you're right most of the world thought that the earth was flat at one time. I feel that this is different because we have come to the conclusion of global warming on science and evidence, something they didn't have as much as when they thought that the world was flat. also the whole job of a scientist is to study and learn and i feel that must count for something.

Even if global warming weren't true would you want to take the risk? the steps we can take to stop global warming such as changing our source of energy have multiple advantages besides saving the earth. We can eliminate our dependence on oil, and we can start the market for renewable energy which once started and demand increased will lower in price and become profitable.

Didn't we answer that question 5 years ago? Anyone arguing to the contrary must be advancing some other agenda.

The problem is that we are stuck with the misnomer "Global Warming" because it's a nice, neat, media soundbyte.

If you follow the science of meteorology at all, the effects on the environment - raising the temperature enough to melt polar ice caps - is accompanied by extreme winter weather... so the 'warming' isn't really evident when looking at 'average' temperatures.

But anyone who thinks that the melting of the polar icecaps and the rise in water levels, increase in hurricane intensities, increase of cyclonic activity, tornadoes, earthquakes and extreme weather isn't related to the amount of pollution in our atmosphere? Needs to go retake 9th grade Earth Science.

But really, I'm arguing that while it may be alarming, it's not our fault...

Um, Im not sure if you realised it, but you kinda said, 'I don't like appealing to authority, but this authority's different'....

Also, that's called the precautionary principle, and is a unidirectional falacy. What you do claim to be benefits only benefits the western world, and indeed while I am all for anti pollution and conservation because of other reasons, the same cannot be said about developing nations. Because coal is 1/3 the price of solar power, and much more reliable, it is unrealistic to expect poor, developing nations to industrialize purely on green energies. The other side of that precautionary principle is that if these nations are not allowed to develop, the extreme poverty, including the low life expectancies, high infant mortality rates, poor education and non existant health care will never be provided adequately for those in 3rd world nations. To give you an example, there are african communities out there where two rooftop solar panels power the refridgerator containing vaccines and medicines, or the lighting in the building containing vaccines and medicines. So really, because they purchased such expensive unreliable, emerging technologies, they loose out on both quality of living and medical care, as the vaccines now expire before the use by date due to power failures (cloudy days).

"anyone who argues against me is bad"???

I am going to provide scientific articles that directly refute what Turpificatus is saying:

A) For one thing, the atmosphere regulates the heat and cold of the earth to a heavy degree.

This link, which I am using as a tongue-in-cheek (but true) reference illustrates a orbital body which is just as close to the sun as we are but lacks an atmosphere:http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/moontemp.shtml

The moon's temperature varies from a couple hundred degree below zero to a couple hundred degrees above zero (Celcius). The Earth would go through about the same temperatures without our atmosphere. This is very, very basic science.

B) You have to understand a couple things about science: they talk in scales that are very different from what we commonly understand. To a geologist 10,000 years is an extremely short period of time....but that is our history as a human civilization (when civilizations started to arise). The carbon being released into the atmosphere is going to raise global average temperatures by just a couple degrees. However, that has huge consequences for us.

If the planet warms by twenty degrees we won't be able to survive as species.

So you are right, the impact is small when speaking in climatological terms...but the impact is massive when you consider human civilization and human survival.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

C) There was 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in 2004, one year.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-05-21-carbon-dioxide-emissions_N.htm?csp=34

In one major eruption, a volcano can drop global temperatures by a few degrees. Those volcanic eruptions spew a few MILLION tons of byproducts into the atmosphere, at one time.

I think you need to think harder on how much of an impact human beings are having on the earth. Our productive capacity has grown immensely in a short period of time, in 1980 we only spewed 18 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, a 60% increase in 24 years.

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.php

D) There were quite a number of volcanic eruptions during the time-frame you are talking about. Scientists have long known that both the sun and volcanoes have an effect on the climate. Unfortunately for you, the sun has been on a decreasing energy trend (though there may be periodic upward spikes).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ research/1282246.html

You are also conflating a couple of things about industrialization:

Yes, it began in the 1890s and became a major force in the 1920s-30s. But this occurred mostly in the United States and Europe. The scale has been on the increase ever since, and as industrialization has increased (along with population) around the world the greater effect it's having. According to the above link, the sun and volcanoes were able to mask this warming up to a point, but now our CO2 and other greenhouse byproducts have increased beyond what these and other natural processes can counter.

D2) That study you are citing works entirely against you. I am absolutely astounded that you do not understand what those scientists were saying, what politicians they are talking about. Those scientists have been interfered with by conservative politicians trying to keep people from hearing the truth about global warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/hundreds-of-epa-scientists-0112.html

From the article: ""OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons," said a scientist from one of the agency's regional offices. "Because the real reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit."

I am appalled that you would misrepresent the article, that you would outright distort the truth behind it. The scientists are complaining that the White House has been censoring their findings about global warming, not that liberal politicians have been keeping them from telling people that it isn't real or man-made.

You should be ashamed for either lying about these facts or not doing sufficient research and reading the articles you are talking about.

E) You may want to have a word with NOAA and every single prestigious scientific and climate-science oriented body in North America and the world:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

F) and G)

http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111511

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/03/root18.html

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ccp/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/

It usually isn't considered propaganda when most independent scientists and scientific organizations in that particular field agree with most if not all of what is said.

I think you need to do a little bit more research before you start getting overly upset about organizations saying such things about global warming. National Geographic has almost the entire scientific community behind it, what exactly do you have?

In another case in which you mislead us all, your own link says this:

"What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor – most probably orbital changes – caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming."

What your article is actually telling us is this:

"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."

The sun warmed the earth, this warming caused an increase in the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. This CO2 release caused a much higher increase in temperatures than would have happened if it was just the solar warming alone.

Your own article is telling you that what you are telling us is an outright lie.

What is even funnier is, and I really hope others are reading this post, the article you cited is part of a series of articles. This series of articles is aimed at disproving every single thing you've said about Global Warming, it in fact supports the view that Global Warming is man-made and is occurring in the way our side is telling you.

In other words ,your own source is telling you that you're wrong. I think you ought to be awfully concerned by this.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Yes it's happening, the evidence is overwhelming. We need to take action because the evidence that it is largely caused by human technology is convincing as well. Every time I hear the roar, feel the heat, smell the fumes of a car I think about the noise/heat/smell of the manufacturing processes which built it and so on in lengthy regression. Noise/heat/smell is indicative of inefficient energy transfer aka pollution. Multiply this by the trillions of units of technology whirring, clicking and beeping in the world and it's clear we have an affect on the environment that can be improved.

Reading through these one has to wonder, as I have in the past when others of the right have stood up to the majority of scientists, decrying what they propose, why individuals like turpificatus would not at least say something like "Certainly big business and humanity need to curb their emissions of harmful pollutants" or "Even if humans aren't creating the global warming we could try to better our polluting ways and clean things up, just in case because we know what we're doing isn't making our world 'better'." It often reeks of big business agendas, but I suppose could just be an instance of fear (fear that the evidence given is true and so ugly does not want to face) inducing contrary reactions.

"The sunlight's intensity falling on earth is a much bigger factor than the percentage the atmosphere absorbs."

But the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth is dictated by how much is absorbed by the atmosphere, so while badly expressed, the program got it right. The amount of heat radiated by the sun may vary naturally, but there's no real chance of permanent changes for hundreds of thousands of years, when it starts to run out of fissile material.

Although you say "Global industrialization did not take off until the post WWII boom,", this isn't about globalisation, this is about major industries creating CO2 emissions, and that started with the Industrial Revolution, starting in the late eighteenth century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution). Major and credible scientific studies have found rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's a pretty much accepted fact that this is causing global warming.

There is no debate about whether or not the Earth is heating up. The question should be 'Does mankind have a serious effect on the global temperature?'

You should actually read the peer reviewed literature on the subject, ALL of them state that the Earth has natural climate variability. There are a few things you need to know about science before having this debate.

1) There is a difference between empirical fact (like 'the Earth's temperature is increasing') and conclusions as to why where there is more than one cause ('90% is manmade, 10% is natural variability'). The second item is ideologically driven (just as it would be if a scientist argued that 10% was manmade), it's as close to guesswork as science is allowed. All the peer reviewed literature on the subject states that there is an unknown amount of natural variability.

2) Continuing the concept in (1), remember that scientists correctly found that Genetics plays a huge part in human health in the late 19th century, where scientists went wrong was the conclusions they drew ('if we don't stop minorities from reproducing, society will suffer'). The debate on global warming has reached this point, taking empirical concepts and giving them political agendas.

3) Keep in mind that when we talk about CO2, we're talking about about 385 ppm (parts per million), or .000385% of the atmosphere.

4) If people were really concerned they would curb meat production, not CO2. Methane contributes more greenhouse gases (by far) than CO2.

I don't doubt that the globe is warming, and it's possible if not likely that people have something to do with it. But spending billions or trillions of dollars on fixing a 'problem' when we don't know the extent of it is just a bad idea. That's money that could save lives if applied somewhere else. A perfect example would be biofuels. In the rush to 'save the Earth', millions of people have starved to DEATH (and millions more will still starve). To you, this is academic risk management, but there are real people who will die when people make the wrong decisions about this stuff.

yes i see your point, i think alot of ppl are mislead about what global warming actually is... and to tell u the truth the media and everything seems to pertray global warming as man made , but if its part of the cycle thats been here forever it cant be.

I did realize what i wrote. There are a few times where authority is right. Scientists who study climate change know more about that topic than most common citizens so they have some authority over the issue. For instance most of the time if students have a question about a subject (math, science, ect...) they ask the teacher. why because the teacher is expected to have good knowledge about the topic(authority) since that is their job. Why should scientists not?

here is a list of of nations that make up this consensus and authority. http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/ consensus.htm

solving global warming will benefit the world. at first only the developed nations will really benefit but as they make it general practice prices will decrees so those solar panels are not so expensive that they are might possibly ruin poorer people's lives.

also solar power is not the only renewable energy source, so in places that are ill suited for them(areas that are often cloudy) they could use a different form.

the reason these "new" technologies are at times unreliable is because few have put in a concerted effort to switch to them because the initial cost seems to high. over time however money will be saved, the earth will be saved and that technology will become more reliable and efficient.

also as a human race we should move towards stooping global warming however we can, but i feel the initiative should be from western nations that can take the current high costs while the developing nations work to gain an economy strong enough to switch to renewable energy.

In case anyone doesn't think it's real:

Barcelona authorities are having to take the unprecedented step of having to have water brought in by giant tankers. The water levels in the reservoir that feeds the city has sunk so low it's exposed the eerie sight of a medieval village that was flooded when the reservoir was opened in the 1960s. See for yourselves:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7398012.stm

And check out this NYT article, "Family Science Project Yields Surprising Data About a Siberian Lake" - Since 1945, Dr. Kozhov, a professor at Irkutsk State University, would record water temperature and clarity and track the plant and animal plankton species as deep as 2,400 feet. Later other family members and now scientist continued his work to find surprising warming of "very deep" water temperatures.

Some of these things may be happening naturally, but what level of ignorance would say that "we" don't have something to do with it!

Actually, Dead Eye, ice takes up the exact same amount of space as water, the water level wouldn't change at all.

However, that is only the case with sea ice, ice that is floating in the water. Unfortunately, there is ice on land on both Antarctica and Greenland that would cause sea levels to rise by 20-40 feet world-wide.

Anyways, I dare you to find reputable sources that back up this claim:

"It is happening, yes, but there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Sure, using "green" technology is a good thing, but the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. Remember the ice age? We are now going into Earth's heating cycle. A "heat age" so to speak."

The percentage of heat aborbed by the atmosphere and the percentage that falls on the atmosphere is however, less significant than the amount that falls.

Also, globalisation is different to Global Industrialisation. In the latter, the Global is being used as an adjective, while in the former, the global is being used as a root. Ie Globaliasation is about the world getting more unified, while Global Industrialisation is about the world building factories.

"Its a pretty much accepted fact", appeal to authority.

Yes, I agree with A, however the atmosphere still absorbs a percentage of the incoming energy, which does not the argument that the sun is more responsible any less valid.

Yes, I also agree with B, but if those 20 degrees are due to natural variation, is it still correct to prevent this?

To C, yes, 27 billion sounds like a lot, but consider 220 billion tons released by natural, rotting vegetation, or the 3000 billion tons already in the atmosphere. In relation to volcanoes, a, they release copious amounts of matter every explosion, and these millions of tons of matter include significant portions of particulate matter, that reflect sunlight, and hence the significant drop in temperature, before settling on the ground. Yes, this may have affected global temperatures, and kept them down. Yes this may have also been a significant source of CO2, which would later, after the particulates settle, contribute to the global warming. How can we be sure?

Also, yes, I am glad you mentioned that, periodic upward spikes, and the long term trend. What we have seen on earth seems to be a short term trend, so how can we say it isn't the sun?

No, actually, it doesn't work it anyone's favour, it reduces the credibility of published scientific work. What is stated is that a scientist's work in relation to a regulation, we do not know whether it is related to global warming or acid rain, and you cannot assume that.

And you my dear, should be ashamed for not actually thinking while you read these things. And no, it may not be propaganda, but it may too be propaganda. The greatest fault with our current scientific community is that it values homogeneity, and everyone adheres to the western paradigms. Richard Lindzen was himself criticized for critiquing a scientific report on global warming. It is also interesting that you state E) You may want to have a word with NOAA and every single prestigious scientific and climate-science oriented body in North America and the world right after you assert that scientific research has been tampered with. Indeed, I refer you to the UNIPCC in reference to malaria, "mosquito species that do transmit malaria do not usually survive where the mean winter temperatures drops below 16-18 degrees Celsius", however it is a well established historical fact that in the soviet union in the 1920's suffered a malaria epidemic, the mosquitoes reaching the Arctic circle, so how can you say that it must be the conservatives that are utterly repressing liberal findings without considering liberals suppressing evidence that supports conservative agendas?

Moreover, just because an organization has a well respected past does not mean that it will continue to do so. Fox news was once respectable, and now is just a government mouthpiece.

And I think we should probably lay off the ad homiems, they don't seem to contribute to the debate.

For sure - do you know how hot the sun is?

"Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period, including changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Impacts also included changes to biological systems, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and ranges of plant and animal species moving toward the poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities."

I think it is silly to believe us little humans can affect the warming or cooling of the earth.I mean think about how dumb that sounds.Although i do agree we need new energy.More for our economy than for our planet.

Its great to have something to blame everything on.Theres no way to be wrong.If its hot err global warming cold err global warming raining err global warming EARTHQUAKES err Global warming?????You gotta be kidding me.At least look at the other side.

The Earth is certainly getting warmer, how much of it is our fault and what we can do to stop it is a completely different question.

How to we know what the sun's radiance level was 20,000 years ago? Does anyone have information of that, because I find that curious?

People who say "scientists have already proven" global warming is a hoax either aren't paying attention to any scientists or are listening to right-wing radio. The IPCC (Internation Panel on Climate Change) has put together four reports on the issue with contributions from over two thousand scientists. I defy you to find a comprehensive report with that many scientific minds saying climate change is a hoax. Seriously, go find it for me. When you give up let me know.

Also, no scientist is willing to conclusively say 100% that climate change is man-made and will lead to catastrophes, because they know that no matter how sure they are, their work is still a scientific theory, they are very careful about their wording. This last report from the IPCC was regarded as "the strongest wording yet" on climate change.

The point is, any scientist who says conclusively that global warming is a myth is a shitty scientist . . . and probably a dickbag.

Yeah, awesome. You know that anyone can sign this petition right? I downloaded the petition for myself, I could sign it if I want, all I have to do is put "Ph. D" at the end of my name.

Oh, also, Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, the first guy on the list is a creationist. Rad.

If authority is wrong than why do we worry about somebodies credentials? If we can't trust authority than why do we need the titles and statues of professors, scientists or doctors? aside from medieval Europe thinking that the world was flat what other examples are there of authority being completely wrong? What right do you have to say that the authority is wrong? is it an authority you have or of some other group's authority you share beliefs with is it a set of facts? and from what authority did those facts come from?

maybe i wasn't as clear as i thought i was but i didn't say developing countries had to switch to greener technology now, just that already strong developed countries like Britain and the US should switch. once the developing countries obtain a functioning economy strong enough to begin switching over to green technology they should but i agree they need a decent infrastructure first, not world class quality but one which can support the movement even if it is slow.

It appears you are skeptical of global warming but even if global warming is wrong or not as severe as many think, the steps to take to combat global warming would benefit society such as switching to greener technologies.

I believe we both want the world to be a better place for future generations and we have a moral obligation to ensure that our children breathe cleaner air, and so why can't you give the benefit of the doubt, because if global warming is true we will have taken proper steps to ensure our children have cleaner air than us.

There is no doubt whatsoever that it is happening, there is no controversy on this point. There are however some crazy loons who think it's not attributable to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere but whatever the cause, it is happening - natural cycle or not. This side of the debate should have been 'are humans the cause'.

Global warming is happening and i think that everybody should make an action to stop this. It is not too late yet and we should try to do something before its to late. If everybody joins together and make an action we can make a difference and stop this.

Global warming is happening. According to the United States Environmental Protection agency brochure entitled, Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics, "Scientists have observed a warming trend beginning around the late 1800s. The most rapid warming has occurred in recent decades. Most of this recent warming is very likely the result of human activities." Also according to the US EPA, "Many human activities release “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. The levels of these gases are increasing at a faster rate than at any time in hundreds of thousands of years." The earth really is getting hotter. Stated by the Natural Resources Defense Council's website, "Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history."

Fred Singer, a atmospheric physicist and a know global warming skeptic, argures that global warming is not occuring, but Singer is using data from satellites that measure the atmospheric tempurature of the Earth rather that using data that states surface tempuratures of the Earth. This information is found on http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let06.html.

Globull Warming IS real. Elvis is alive and he told me so. So there!

Great! Thank you for this great information which I've just gain by stopping here. Infect i am student and was busy in my study but still get time of few minutes to being on your site while searching about my course thesis project which i'm sure will be completed soon. I enjoyed my stay and really like to be here again.

You have to ignore a lot of facts if you deny it's happening.

It's highly likely that it's man-made but I don't think that can be proved at the moment.

Although this question is slightly misleading, because Global Warming does exist, and it is part of a natural cycle. When we look at earth's history, the climate on earth is not dictated so much by carbon dioxide, but by the Sun's radiance. Nothing short of a dysonsphere is going to liberate earth's climate from the sun. To address ideas about carbon dioxide and temperature, one must realise that ice cores samples show carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, however rather than carbon dioxide affect temperature, when superimposed, Carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind, by an average of 800 years. This can be explained by the solubility of Carbon dioxide in water as a function of the temperature of water (warmer water will dissolve less carbon dioxide). Likewise, when we superimpose recorded sunspot activity over temperature levels, there is a much closer correlation between temperature and sun surface activity than between temperature and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, if we want to really consider greenhouse gases, Water Vapour contributes 95% of greenhouse warming, without which, we would be a frozen deslolate planet.

I am gonna cry after this. HOW COULD NAT GEO DO THIS???

a. The sunlight's intensity falling on earth is a much bigger factor than the percentage the atmosphere absorbs. "the greenhouse effect begins with the sun, and the energy it radiates towards the earth". Does that not tell you that if the energy of the sun changes, so to will the amount of radiance absorbed?

b.'Naturally occurring greenhouse gasses' includes water vapour which is a much greater constituent of global warming than anything else, contributing 95% of the total sunlight energy absorption. Compared to this, Carbon dioxide and Methane don't even measure.

c. Did not they begin with 'earth's climate has fluctuated, cycling from ice ages to warmer periods'? Then suddenly humans come along and change it, well, what happened to all the other factors?

d. In the last CENTURY, the planet's temperature has risen unusually fast. Global industrialization did not take off until the post WWII boom, which would suggest that temperatures should increase most significantly during the 50's and 60's, however records and ice cores show that in fact, during the 50's, 60's and 70's, the global temperature decreased... what gives? If an external factor affected this, obviously that factor is much more powerful than the combined efforts of the Global economy to pump out CO2

d. 'Scientists believe', no, scientists do not believe, they provide impartial evidence for. Also, there has been significant political interference with modern science, a recent survey at the EPA recording that 41% of scientists feel that their work was misrepresented and/or distorted by politicians. So who's opinion is really being broad-casted?

e. 'Evidence for global warming includes a recent string of very warm years'. RECENT. Yes, it may indicate global warming, but because it has only been a short spell, you cannot conclude it is a trend.

f. 'researchers predict that'. Is that not ambiguous? Who? What qualifications do they hold? How did they research? Was their research valid?

g. Focus on possibilities. Yes, it could mean this, or it could mean nothing. Nothing is gained from speculation, rather one should focus on what has happened, and attempt to extrapolate. Better yet, tell us why researchers think this, or that, rather than dwell on possibilities. The most obvious stamp of propaganda is fear, and when one speculates, a lot of bad things can happen.

Global warming was happening before we got here. It will be here long after. And skin protectors relate to the hole in the ozone and UV radiation, not global warming. We already use temperature controller devices in our homes, it's called air conditioning.

It was always happening. ARG. sorry, yeah, makes me angry because people always think before humans, there was no global warming. Anyway, back to the argument. Yes, the oceans are warming up, which will reduce the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, which will put out more CO2. If CO2 had a significant effect on global warming, then it's a self reinforcing cycle and we would have been crisp long ago. I do concur that dying coral reefs is quite bad, because it means we're destroying natural resources, it's just that we aren't the ones causing it. Also, 'most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced', come on, that is blatant appeal to authority. Most of the world once thought the world was flat, did that make them right?

I would be more inclined to learn more about that "carbon dioxide lag" theory if you had some supporting evidence to back it up! (an article from a scientific journal, perhaps?)

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Thar she blows.

OMG here we go again, Global warming is another big "MYTH" this which we are seeing is part of the cycle that the earth has gone through from the beginning of its time. Scientist have already proven it. Global warming is a gimmick always has been.

NEXT!

Its happening, just not for the reasons mentioned in traditional media. It is the natural cycle of Earth. Recent studies suggest we could experience significant cooling do to the solar cycles in 150 years (I don't have a citation). I do what I can to protect the Earth, but if we disappeared from the planet, in 1000 years (nothing on the scale of the universe) there would be no evidence our civilization ever existed.

It is happening, yes, but there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Sure, using "green" technology is a good thing, but the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. Remember the ice age? We are now going into Earth's heating cycle. A "heat age" so to speak.

People also make a big deal about the polar ice caps melting due to global warming. Something I don't think many of them realize: The ice up north is already floating on water. Water also expands, rather than contracts, when it freezes. Therefore, if the northern ice were to melt, without the ice in Antarctica melting, the sea level would actually decline due to the ice not taking up so much space. Combine that with the ice in the south melting....Well, the sea level wouldn't change all that much.

Kid

Global warming is most likely a normal cycle; which may or may not be exacerbated by humans. It's consequences may or may not be as bad as most experts would lead us to believe.

That being said...there is no way you can call it a "myth". It's very real. All sides pro and con agree on this.

Yes, but I choose this article because it was the most reasonable, rather, pro global warming however suggesting why it isn't man made. You will also note from the article "The source of this extra carbon was the oceans". To me, since we're not really aquatic, screams natural causes, even if the details are still under investigation.

Also, I think this article may have been a little more bias than thought, because retired professor Timothy F Ball (Ph.D) has made the claim that CO2 from humans is not the cause of Global warming.

On the contrary! The article states that it is fluctuations in the sun that influences this amplitude effect. IE, it is the Sun that triggers this. Remember, global warming is still a natural process, but it is not the most important, the Sun is.

And yes, there are articles that do seem to be pro-global warming is human caused, but if we take away the opinions thrown in, it is actually a very good series that weigh both theories for, and against global warming.

My source may have a pro-human influenced global warming emphasis, but really, I'm not interested in what its emphasis is, but rather what information it is presenting.

The global warming that we've been experiencing over the past decade or so is part of a natural cycle that will be reversed in the near future. Check out the article that shows we are about to experience a 23 year Global Cooling period.

The weather changes, some years are hotter, and some are cooler. In the 70's people were freaking out about global cooling. There's a Newsweek article on it...Google it.

the temperatures go up and down as they have over the centuries.

Al Gore and his slideshow.Look what he has done.I guess he answered one of the other questions I saw on here.Would you kill one person to save 100?He is the one flying on private jets all over the world showing his middle school slideshow.Greater good huh. I guess its OK for him to have 30000 dollar light bills since its offset by his work for the global warming cult.Sorry to go Gore but he is the face of global warming. I believe its the socialist driven agenda to take more of our freedom and money so they can save us from ourselves.

uh hum.... http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/160010/31_000_Scientists_Dispute_Man_Caused_Warming

Yes there are times where an authority might be right, but what gives you the right to say that this is one of those times? Medieval Europe agreed the world was flat. Is that also evidence?

Yes, it can be beneficial, but while you're waiting for the price to decrease, people are starving, children are dying, and the poor cry for help. Whereas if you develop your steel industry, if you develop your electricity generating coal plants, the time between investment and return is much shorter, and your people will live longer, more securely, and then give thought to improving the world around them. Also, I've yet to see a developed nation that did not initially industrialise through coal.

I used solar power as an example to demonstrate the unreliability and prohibitive costs of green energy to developing nations. And yes, they are unreliable because they are new, but the old technologies, the ones that pollute, are not only cheaper and readily available but also guarantee development. Would you choose the risky, high cost, low return infrastructure over the low cost, low risk high return infrastructure?

Yes, it should be the responsibility of the industrialised nations to move towards cleaner energies, and it should not impede the development of lesser developed countries, but the development of lesser nations hinges not on clean power, but on the old fashioned polluting kind.

But this gets away from the argument, yes, the industrial nations should develop cleaner industries, yes, developing countries should not be required to jump from wood to silicon, but not neccessarily due to global warming. It is a moral obligation we have to ensure our children breathe a cleaner air than we have.

Exactly, so we should try to avoid authority arguments all together.

Yes, but see, that's what is actually happening. It is the developing countries that are landed with the consequences of what developed countries think they should be doing, and so are being forced into positions where they don't have a choice. This is utterly irresponsible, they should be given the same opportunities that developed countries were given, and if that can't be achieved, the same opportunities that developed countries have now in terms of carbon emission per capital.

But does the end justify the means? Sure, we can get greener technologies going faster, but is that worth the fear mongering and propaganda? Hitler's goal was world peace, he just happen to think that it should be achieved with him as an overlord of sorts.

it is an natural cycle but we are speeding it up.

Globull Warming IS real. Elvis is alive and he told me so. So there!

Thank you for this great information which I've just gain by stopping here. Infect i am student and was busy in my study but still get time of few minutes to being on your site while searching about my course thesis project which i'm sure will be completed soon. I enjoyed my stay and really like to be here again.

As far as I can tell the IPCC is a political body that receives data and conclusions concerning bits and pieces of the climate picture; such as findings regarding solar output or findings concerning the effect of co2 on solar radiation retention. This political panel uses the information submitted by scientists to form conclusions on climate, how it will affect humans, and what needs to be done to reverse any adverse affects. The IPCC is biased from the beginning, in their approach, by assuming something is wrong with climate and we must fix it. This gives me trepidations about having a panel of a few politicians sift through the mountain of data submitted by scientists in order to make conclusions about what is causing a change in the weather from what we saw a few decades ago(The earth is many thousands of decades old). I am then supposed to trust that this panel has considered all submitted data for the report are you nuts!!! The other thing that worries me is the lack of credentials of panelists provided on the IPCC website. So as far as i can tell AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming), as you see it, sir, is based on the IPCC reports which so far as I can tell are written by politicians. These politicians can use the information provided any way they see fit, they could make honest mistakes leading to the wrong conclusions or they could manufacture conclusions or they could just be right. The very existence of the IPCC to me ruins the argument of a consensus and of the peer review process. I mean come on Stalin and Hitler both were both peer reviewed and had reached a consensus among their political parties to commit mass genocide. I personally think science should be done by scientists not politicians. I personally don't think humans are causing a rampant heating of the planet, but that does not mean I won't keep an open mind.

Global warming IS a natural cycle. The same thing happened not too long ago (I believe less than a century) and will happen again. There will be a time when the earth replenishes it's atmosphere but that time is way beyond ours and I believe the Earth will give us fair warning before that happens. (A good movie to watch to give an idea on what will happen would be "The Day after Tomorrow")

Nevertheless, we are harming the earth in many ways by our exhaust emissions and we should put a stop to it, but it is only speeding up global warming which is a natural cycle, not "causing" it.

NO! In case you didn't hear....NO. Global warming is not happening. Why has the Global temperature fallen over the past six years? Wow. Why do the global warming pundits not include the past six years in their computer model qualifications? Simply put: Al Gore's Mythology is busted!

Many people busted Al Gore and his jet-setting high-flying carbon burning-terrorist cell. Yet, the money has not lead the purveyors of modern truth (money mongering media-types) to speak the TRUTH.

My ace is a confidential discussion held with a world renowned geo-physist who, point blank said, "Humans have had nothing to do with the current global climate change." Dr. R. further explained that the current global change is a natural occurance.

So, an ice age is coming. Take it on faith, if you will. The rational will survive. Honestly, I hope the environuts chain themselves to trees. More oxygen for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

;)

Do not become angry with me for saying this, but Global Warming in itself does not exists. What is happening is a Global Climate CHANGE, but not a WARMING. Our Global Climate Change is affecting our climate in more ways than just heating it up; it is also causing it to cool.

Playing the other side, the one which I support here, I do not think that Global Warming, or Global Climate Change for that matter, exists. Climate fluctuation is a constant process with the world's climate reaching both ends of the spectrum throughout history and prehistory. It is hypothesized that we are, in fact, overdue (by a couple thousand years) for another Ice Age, and then another warming.

In short, there is no Global Warming, merely the natural shift of temperature and climate in the various biomes of the world.

HERE is a classic example of selfish corrupt pollitics and their climate change copouts .

http://www.australiamatters.com/cms/node/58

NOTE: How they cut this from the air just as Peter was about to name names.

Please chech out TMA.

http://www.truthmovementaustralia.com.au/feed

And please help save Peter from our corrupt government.

NOTE; This is not a request for donations.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/peter-spencer-petition/

Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group

The origin and development of government institutions is the most visible subject for the study of Politics and its history.

Regardless of how civilized the world is, there are still large numbers of people living in the most primitive conditions. The most important of these because they are the most scientifically studied are the "aborigines" of Australia. The scientific study of the aboriginal Australian forms the basis of what is best known of primitive societies in general.

Yes but its not our fault its a natural cycle. After every ice age we have had global warming

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness.

The Earth has had many cycles including ice age eras,(many before mankind walked the earth) at the end of every cycles we have had global warming. we could use a little more of it right now in the north east!

Looks like I'm the tie breaker. Read this and weap:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-senatetestimony.html

Michael Crichton shows in a speech to the Senate that climate research is not reliable and that more studies by independent organizations are needed to prove it true.

What a load of Bollocks.

Global warming is a lie, sent by politicians so that they can tax us on our emissions of carbon dioxide, simple as that. Ice caps melting? The average temperature at the north pole, (location of the famous 'hole in the ozone layer') is -50 degrees centigrade. I don't know about anyone else, but i don't think ice melts until about 1-4 degrees. If that is the case- which it is, if you believe the 'science and evidence', then we've got a while to go yet before we all live in canoes.

Can you actually give us one piece of 'overwhelming evidence' to support you argument? We have an 'affect' on the environment? I won't take scientific arguments from a person who can't spell the word 'effect'.

'there are however some crazy loons who think it's not attributable to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere'. That qualifies as controversy, I'm afraid.