Weather and climate change are not the same thing. You need to do more research on the subject.

I don’t know much about weather or climate change, but I can tell you that winters were definitely colder and we got a lot more snow 20 years ago than we do now.

Anything with Al Gores name attached is suspect if not outright preposterous.

I think people use it as an excuse to not do anything about the environment. They say to themselves that the idea of global warming is rubbish, while they continue to not recycle, drive everywhere and needlessly, throw away perfectly good clothes etc. Whether global warming is real or not is not the issue, the way we are living in the west is not sustainable. We’re living like the world is going to end in 2012.

My belief is that in such matters, trained scientists with data are more trustworthy than ideologues with agendas.

I’m with @lemming on this one – global warming arguments are problematic because they end up distracting more than helping.

Environmental impact depends on so many factors that there’s always a contradictory piece of evidence. You can’t really understand it without a PhD.

Focus on sustainability, negative impacts caused by overinvestment in particular resources – make the argument about personal harm rather than that to the environment.

It is a fact that the earth is on warming trend right now. What is up for debate is how much we as human influence climate change through our actions, and whether the trend is just a cycle, and how long the cycle will last.

I think better to err on the side of caution and assume we are causing some of the climate change. Everything implicated in global warming are things we should want to change anyway. How can anyone argue it is good to use fossil fuels, rape the lands, create pollution? It is just stupid. If we can use sunlight and wind and biofuels and not be dependent on other nations why not? Hell, if you can put solar shingles on your roof, you might not have to be dependent on a big company or your local government for power. That sounds good to me.

I wish I had solar “shingles” or panels on the roof. That is, if I could be independent of a utility company for my power. I never see them , though, for some reason. Except on tv.

@Aster I think they are still rather expensive. I once saw on TV (just to reinforce what you said lol) a builder who did a whole community with solar shingles and cheaped out on some other things so the houses were in line with other houses in the local community per square foot. Things like the kitchen was not granite countertops and some other high end things. We need builders to start going this route, but people a resistant to change. Those houses actually were connected to the grid, and when they overproduced energy they sold it to the power company. In the end they wound up basically not having a utility bill at all, it netted out to right around zero.

Those houses also had instant hot instead of hot water heaters. I definitely want at least that in my next house. If for anything because I am tired of running my water forever just to get hot water to come out of the faucet. Oh, and the energy savings.

I think the pro/anti global warming debate is basically a smokescreen for the scaling of weather and tectonic modifying technologies perhaps in addition to being a run of the mill high priest attempt at pretending ownership of the sun/eclipse.

Sorry not to provide links, but if you Google the following phrases, you’ll get my gist.

“Space Preservation Act of 2001”
“Cohen eco-type terrorism 1997”
“Weather as a Force Multiplier”
“Chemtrails HAARP”
“NOAA weather stations reduced 6,000 to 1,500”
“la times travel beijing olympics weather modification”

I’m sure I’m forgetting one or two of my usual responses, but that gives you the basic idea. www.weatherwars.info also has info and opinion along these lines.

@kevbo

Sorry, but that is paranoia and conspiracy fantasy. The moment I see chemtrails, I know I’m not dealing with anything reasonably scientific in nature.

Well, we all have our own ideological fantasies, yourself included.

The article you link to does nothing to disprove the assertion that chemtrails, unlike normal contrails, spread out over time to form clouds. One only needs to look up in the sky to see that. It’s hardly paranoia or fantasy.

Your characterization is offensive, but I really don’t give a crap what you believe. If you want to play the sucker and assume someone else’s misplaced and manufactured guilt, be my guest.

@thorninmud has it absolutely spot on. I’m no climate scientist, so I can’t give any sort of considered opinion, but I tend to trust the vast majority of scientist who believe that anthropogenic climate change is a fact over the few sceptics who think it’s some sort of conspiracy. In the same way that I would trust the bulk of the medical profession’s opinion that anti-retrovirals are the best treatment for HIV/AIDS, instead of the few quacks who think herbs are the way to go.

Global warming isn’t about beliefs. It’s about reading and recording data from tens of thousands of thermometers placed all around the world. Year after year after year. This isn’t rocket science. Global warming is a fact. Anyone who denies this is an imbecile.

More complex is determining the causes and making predictions about the next 50 years.

We should not become victims of cheap polemics like ‘anthropogenic global warming is history’s biggest scam’ which has nothing to do with serious science.

There are reputable climatologists who have honest doubts about man-made climate change. But right now they are a very small minority. We should listen to them and read research papers when they publish them. This is good stuff and there wouldn’t be any words like biggest scam, bogus or cornered proponents in them. But the vast majority of the good stuff comes from very concerned experts. What does this mean?

To me it means the following:

1) There is no 100% correct prediction about the climate in 2050 – climate is too complex
2) Human greenhouse gas emissions most likely contribute to global warming
3) It’s quite possible that natural cycles contribute as well
4) A few cold winters or cool summers are no proof against the continuing overall trend
5) The vast majority of reputable climatologists think that the potential harm is enormous
6) Humanity would be very stupid not to apply the precautionary principle
7) The growing middle class in Asia will significantly affect supply and demand equation for fossil fuels
8) To create welfare for all world citizens we simply have no other choice than to invest in green technology
9) The unfortunate climate change denial movement is most active in the US. This is bad news for the US, but good news for the rest of the world because innovation will happen elsewhere and the US will eventually have to import new green technology products. A nation of consumers instead of producers. Unless reason prevails.

@mattbrowne, this isn’t to start an argument, but I am genuinely curious to know a source that describes “tens of thousands of thermometers.” I have not heard that before, and it runs contradictory to NOAA’s reduction from 6,000 to 1,500 weather stations within the last few decades (although this fact may be out of date by now). Are there multiple data collection networks, or is temperature gathering fairly centralized? Any elaboration is appreciated. Thanks.

@kevbo – Weather stations use more than one thermometer. Plus there are other measurements as well, e.g. from weather balloons, even satellites (which use different means to measure temperature). We really got plenty of data. 2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record. The discussion is about why this is so. And what will happen in 2050.

So we should stop wasting our time discussing if global warming is true or not. It is getting warmer.

This is an area where “belief” is largely irrelevant. All of our feelings/instincts on this issue are completely useless. The earth is such a complex system that we can’t begin to conceptualize it without years of study.

We have had years of study, with better data collection and computer modeling over the more recent years. You’re right, it isn’t about the feelings or beliefs. It’s about the trends the data are showing in the rate of change in global temperature relative to the rest of Earth’s history.

The last time atmospheric CO2 concentrations (391 ppm in 2010) were this high was 15 million years ago. Different ecosystems. Different species. And time to adapt.

True Science have no beliefs! Believers of Global Warming-Climate Change-Global Climate Variation lack scientific attitude. They have GW-CC-GCV Religion not True Science. Computer models have flaws, is wrong say they prove anything. Most believers of GW-CC-GCV are Lunatic Left Democrats at USA. Al Gore use it swindle millions.

… @Shinimegami… And the extremist right wing conservatives use their belief to insure that what ever they’re doing to the environment for personal profit remains in their grasp as well as making sure that Obama and the Democrats don’t get any credit if it is true. It’s all political manipulation and scare tactics brought on by both parties just like wars and rumors of wars and too many of us take their word as gospel in both directions without considering that they’re just a bunch of mouth breathers like us.. Nothing more special about them to warrant heeding their babbling. I’m sure at one point in time global warming will become a real issue just as one day dark matter will take over the entire universe.