Well i really dont know what could happen but im 100% sure global warming its true ! I came to visit my family in mexico and the place where im visiting the usual temperature its 20 to 25 c and the past year grew to 30c and this year its about 39 to 43c, thats not coincidence. Im almost dying from the heat its horrible.

A quick search on Google and one can find all of the empirical evidence that suggests that yes, there is such thing as global warming. One can sit down and analyze all of the scientifically tested data, because it was made available to us.
That's a pretty objective answer, but you'd be surprised at how many people try and answer topics without ever having done any research.

I majored in meteorology for my science degree and studied numerous climatology subjects as well. I have taken an active interest in the science around anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for many years.

As far as the science goes it's simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and if you increase it's atmospheric concentration then it will have a warming forcing on temperatures in the troposphere. This isn't untested scientific conjecture, it's scientific fact.

So what does 'greenhouse gas' actually mean? Energy from the sun hits the earths' surface heating it up. Like anything that is heated up it radiates energy back away from the surface. The longer wave energy radiated away from the surface interacts with certain gases in the atmosphere like CO2. The CO2 molecules then radiate energy out in all directions. Thus some of the energy is kept within the atmosphere heating it up more. The CO2 acts in a similar way to the glass over a greenhouse. So if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases more heat will be kept within the lower atmosphere. Again this is not some weird, untested theory. It is scientific fact.

There is no doubt (scientifically) that mankind has been responsible for a rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last couple of centuries. In the climate record (determined from ice core data) it is very plain that temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are inextricably linked. So there is no doubt whatsoever that mankind is affecting the climate in a significant way.

Over the years I have seen some of the most incredibly uneducated debate on this subject it has truly astounded me. What has really astounded me is just how incredibly scientifically illiterate most people seem to be. Most people seem to have little, if any detailed knowledge of the natural world around them and the scientific principles underpinning that knowledge. It is staggering at times how little people know.

What I have also found amongst the typical deniers out there is that there is a certain mindset or phychology underpinning their denial of the science. For many the simple fact that the whole issue has been portrayed as an environmental issue is a big problem for their acceptance. Many out there would rather die than be associated with something 'green' or an environmentalist cause. They believe all the green movement is anti-progress, anti-capitalism and basically made up of communists. So it'll be a cold day in hell before they will believe in any science that's associated with environmentalism or the green movement.
It has been shown that you can get these people on board if you present the whole issue in a completely different way. Don't mention anything about the environment. These people want nothing to do with something that's good for the environment. Present it in a way that talks about new technologies and advancement and job creation and benefit for the economy and they seem to get on board a lot easier and will come to accept the science.

The other major group of deniers are the religious fundamentalists. Like christian groups who only believe the earth 6,000 years old instead of billions of years. They don't believe anything happens unless god wills it so if it's getting warmer then that's gods' will. Obviously like with all religious nutters there's no reasoning with these deluded fools.

The real fundamental problem in dealing with man induced global warming is that some of the most powerful and richest companies in the world are behind most of the production of the CO2 being released into our atmosphere. And the sort of change required to see meaningful reductions will severely affect these companies and the economies of many countries. And I think greed is still the prime motivator for much of the worlds' population. I don't believe anything will be done until it is too late and many of the worlds' biggest cities are struggling to keep the rising tide at bay. Only when the costs of doing nothing outweigh the costs of change will we see meaningful change occur. Of course we'll be living in a very different world by then with a very different climate.

It used to snow every year in Kobe, a significant amount, now it may or may not snow, and it may not stick to the ground.
This is my unscientific observation.

Either Japan is drifting south, the ground below Japan is heating up, or the air above it is warming up...

@GoNative, good post :)
Greed is definitely the biggest problem plaguing humanity now!

The earth goes through cycles. Warms up, cools off. It's on a warming trend currently, like all the other planets in the solar system. This is because the sun is going through a warming cycle. Can man enhance the effect of a natural warming cycle? Yes, The dustbowl of the 1930's shows man can effect the enviroment. However, the so called "green solution" won't do diddle. It would take 100 years to get rid of the co2 build up we have currently, and that's if we all moved back into caves. Some how I don't see China stoping to do anything about it, and they put more greenhouse gases into orbit than the US does.

Not to mention one volcano puts out as much Co2 in a day as all of mankind does in a year. So I'm not hugely worrid about it.

The weather where I live has been unpredictable - and unexpectedly dynamic - at times... Very hot winter nights and hailing summer days. Is it global warming? I'd be lying if I said I knew. I do live in California, after all; the weather has always been a bit crazy. And, as GoNative said, some of us can be extremely scientifically illiterate. I blame my school system and President Bush for that one. From what I've seen, there are those who are quick to dismiss scientific data, then there are also those who ignore logical reasoning unless there are statistics to prove it -- which is somewhat irrational, in my opinion, considering that statistics may not necessarily exist for every argument -- and then there is the issue of accuracy and, possibly, deception. Whatever the case, I'm certain, if there is any problem, it would have to exist in people's interpretation of valid data and events, not the data and events themselves.

Although, I've become wary of the politics and dogmatic bickering revolving around this subject, I would still be inclined to support the virtue of practicing responsibility and wisdom when it came to our role in the world. I don't follow the idea of Global Warming to the extent that I'm cursing people for driving big trucks... but I do make an effort to recycle and save energy, when I can. Just in case.

By the way, GoNative, your comments about religious people are offensive. I'm a Christian myself, but I have no problem with science or the idea of Global Warming. I'm sure I'm not the only religious person in the world that has opened their mind to the notion.

So, If I could ask politely, would you, please, tone down on the bitter remarks?

I think that you just defined yourself as Religious where as GoNative was referring to Religious Fundamentalists, these are two entirely different categories.

You're on the safe side ;)

It is absolutely uneducated drivle like this that truly astounds me. Coming from a religious nutter I'm hardly surprised.

Firstly the sun is not currently going through a warming cycle. In fact it is in a cooling cycle. It is actually one of the better pieces of evidence in support of the dominant role of CO2 on climate change. Although the output from the sun has been in decline now for almost 30 years we have continued to see increases in the temperature trend. This suggests very strongly that the warming forcing by the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is stronger than the cooling forcing by the declining solar output. There are other natural factors that affect climate which also would normally point to a cooling period currently like the PDO moving to a so called cool phase recently. In recent years numerous uneducated swill peddling psuedo-science have actually predicted we are heading into the next ice age because of all the natural factors pointing to a cooling period. And it's true most of the natural factors that would normally be leading us into a cooling climate scenario are there. The temperature trends though are continuing to increase. How is this explained? Simply CO2 is a major factor in climate change and is currently the dominant factor driving our climate.

Human activities release far more CO2 than do volcanoes. In 2010 human contributions were 135 times more than that from volcanoes. If you want to read one of the latest scientific papers on this go to this link

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

Jaydelart I couldn't care less if you are offended by my comments about christians. If you wish to believe in fairytales about gods then you deserve ridicule as far as I'm concerned.
Plus I referred to religious fundamentalists not all religious people. Do you believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Do you believe that dinosaurs and humans lived during the same periods? If your answer to either of those questions is yes then you are an absolute idiot. If your answer is no then maybe there is some hope of you seeing the light one day.
Stop believing in fairytales and get into the wonders of science for real enlightenment!

Thank Go -- oops! :eek:

I had almost forgotten how much I appreciate that Japanese culture isn't so full of die hard atheists and and die hard religious enthusiasts ....

Thank you Japan for just not caring about it either way. You save me countless headaches dealing with extremists on either side of the fence.

That's pretty rude. No manners towards the "nutters", eh? Classy.

No, sir, you're pretty close, there may be diminishing hope for the likes of me. I can, in fact, appreciate the possibility that the world is merely thousands of years old, instead of billions. I can, in fact, appreciate the possibility that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. I may be an absolute idiot. But I would rather be an idiot, capable of appreciating new ideas, while also having the capacity and humility to acknowledge the wonders we have already established as true than a closed-minded bigot. Science and Christianity aren't enemies; they do not necessarily negate one-another... The interpretations of people do. If you can agree with this concept, then, ultimately, you would realize that you're just as bad as any radical, religious "nutter". Proclaimed intelligence shouldn't excuse treating people badly.

I'll keep my fairytales, thank you.

Where's the 'like' button, hehe.
No doubt, moderation is best. I can't even stand religious people's arguments sometimes.

I don't think the earth is 6000yrs old, I do think it's pretty ridiculous to think that, but most importantly I don't think my opinion about it or people who think that is more important than friendships and keeping good relations with people.

In Japan it's very common to be good friends with someone who may disagree very fundamentally with you on any "strong" topic.
In western culture, politics/religion/etc often times come between friendships and even family... that's just getting it all wrong.

Sure, It's perfectly fine that you think it's ridiculous. In all fairness, I could say the same about a lot of alternative theories, some of which I'm sure you believe in. What matters more to me is how you act with those beliefs. Like you said, the important thing is to recognize that opinions very between individuals. And that's where I think objectivity is too rare a quality.

Many of my friends are Atheists, with conflicting political views. We poke fun at each-other, from time-to-time, in good fun. And that's how it should be, in my opinion.

But to accept those things as possibilities means that you have to ignore science. It's not being open minded at all. Science is all about having an open mind but with a healthy bit of scepticism.

Science can't co-exist with religion if you want to believe that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time (even as remotely possible). There is no evidence whatsoever of this. In fact all the evidence supports that the last of the dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago and the human species just wasn't around at that time. You also can't accept as even a remote possibility that the earth is only 6,000 years old because all of the scientific evidence shows that it is much, much older. There is such overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old that it truly is ridiculous to consider otherwise. It is the sort of evidence that anyone of any religion or cultural backcground could do experiments to verify and all come up with the same results if the same good scientific methodology is followed.

The sort of thinking you are talking about is credulous thinking. Where anything is possible regardless of any evidence to support it. So you believe in one of the myriad of gods that have been worshipped over the millenia and basically there is virtually nothing you could consider impossible once you start down that road. There is just as much proof in the existence of vampires, fairies, werewolves, ogres, etc, etc. You believe in something for which there is no proof whatsoever and are unconvinced by things for which there are mountains of proof by some of the most intelligent people the human race has ever produced. If this isn't idiotic I don't know what is.

When you have schools teaching kids creationism over evolution or that dinosaurs co-existed with humans once upon a time then we have a huge problem. If you teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old instead of billions then religion negates science. We may as well accept that all human advancement over the years has been for nothing if we cannot accept that our understanding of the world has moved on quite a bit since some old blokes sat around a few thousand years ago and assembled a book of stories called the bible.

The biggest hypocrasy of fundamentalist religious nutters is that most of them happily live in the modern world using the creations of science and technology whilst denying the basic precepts of the science that helped create such things. Surely there is something mentally wrong with people who support such delusions?

I have quite a number of friends who are religious. I've made it quite clear that I think they're nutters for believing in such rubbish but that hasn't always meant an end to our friendship. We just don't discuss such things much. At the end of the day though I have no problems with not having friendships with people because of their beliefs, be they previous friends or family. I get to choose who I have friendships with (that includes family) and if I choose not to be friends with religious nutters then I can't see how that's a problem. I'm certainly not one of these people who needs to be liked by everyone. Don't mind at all if I offend people! ;)

You have lived in Japan for a while, so you know this.
One of the major contrasts in western and Japanese cultures is how often arguments revolving around religion/science/god/belief/faith/etc occur.

Japanese people have pretty nutty beliefs too by western standards, and among the people here there is a huge range of belief, but it hardly ever enters conversation, and even if it does, it hardly ever gets emotional, and it's virtually non-existent to hear of a person making such factors a basis for friendship or not.

I might believe in global warming if it were actually happening. If one cares to check the average temperature of the last 20 years, one will find that the world has not gotten any warmer since 1998. In fact, the average temperature has decreased slightly since then.

In a BBC interview a year or so ago following the "Climategate" scandal, The head of the UN's Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones, was forced to admit that there has been any not statistical global warming since 1995.

Temperatures have been increasing in cities, but this has more to do with urban heat island effect than Co2 in the atmosphere. Temperatures in the countryside have been decreasing. In a damning part of the emails leaked during the "Climategate" scandal, CRU scientists expressed their concern when tree ring data collected in Siberia showed cooling temperatures, and these same scientists tried to figure out a way to "hide the decline" in their official reports. Their method has been to continually reduce the numbers of thermometers, taking readings from thermometers in city and suburban areas, and not from thermometers in the countryside. In 1960, more than 6000 thermometers were used for this purpose, whereas nowadays fewer than 2000 thermometers are now used. This point should be moot, as America's GISS satellites have been able to measure atmospheric temperatures since the late 70's, but you won't find satellite temperature readings used in the IPCC reports, probably because their readings can't be "massaged" by IPCC scientists to show anything but what they are.

All previous UN IPCC reports included computer models which were used to predict increases in global temperatures. To date, not a single one of these computer models has proved accurate.

Regarding the official IPCC reports, all of them have been plagued with errors. The 1996 report originally stated that scientists were unable to verify any man-made influence on climate change. However, this was changed to say that there was a "discernible human influence". But this change was made without consulting the peer-review group of scientists. It apperared that the authors of the report were made to change it's contents so as to agree with the political agenda of the policy makers who sponsored the report.

Universities and research centers around the world receive billions of dollars in government and industry grants, and global warming has become a multi-trillion dollar industry itself. If there were no global warming (and Dr Jones admits right now there isn't, though he believes it will start "eventually"), what would these organizations do?

Sangetsu I reckon I could probably guess the psuedo-science websites you're getting that BS from (it's practically word for word I've seen on some sites). It's the same BS that all denialists circulate over and over again throughout the internet. And for people with no background in science (I guess you have little to none) it's impossible to guage what is right and what is wrong.

In actual fact warming has continued unabated through the naughties with global average temperatures surpassing the average of the 90's significantly. 2010 was the equal warmest year on record globally (equalling that of 2005). 9 of the top 10 warmest years on record were recorded in the 2000's.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010

You state that not one single climate model has proven accurate. In fact the opposite is true. The latest models have been supprisingly accurate in their forecasts with actual temperatures following the models well. It really depends on what you mean by inaccurate. Will they exactly predict the temperature in years to come? Of course not, hell we can barely forecast weather a few days out with a great deal of accuracy. What they have been pretty good at is showing likely trends. To test accuracy of models they do a thing called hindcasting. This is where they run the model say from 1900 and see how it does against the actual temperature record. If it does pretty well then it is reasonable to have some confidence that it will be somewhat accurate if continued on into the future. The IPCC has used a fair number of models and got a range of expected temperature and sea level rises out to around 2100. So far the actual observed temperatures and sea level rises have been right at the upper end of the forecasts of the models. So if anything the IPCC has probably underestimated and understated the likely effects.

Yes there has been many 100's of millions of dollars put into the science around global warming and guess what? It has had results! We now understand climate and weather far better than we ever did and the fact the mankind is affecting the climate (warming it) through increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is not even debatable anymore. There's virtually no government in the world now that doesn't agree with the scientific concensus on this (especially now that the old mate of the oil industry Bush is out of the picture). You talk about the money involved in research on climate change as though it's a large amount. It is but a small drop in a vast ocean when compared to the money involved in the fossil fuel industries like oil and coal and the downstream industries these support. That's the gravy train that has the most to lose and has been muddying the scientific waters for years with pseudo-science and misinformation (just like the tobacco industry did).

in my point of view it is simple. climate changes and that is it. it always has and always will. it just that people starting to notice it more so they get scared since - well it is a change and who knows what will happen with their beautiful lawns. personally i don't care since nature is nature and it will do as it please. and to think after all that has happened to this planet - pole shifts, asteroids, ice ages, plate tectonics and world wide fires - we, humans, are going to put this blue-green ball in danger? we can launch all of our nukes and it won't even scratch the surface of the planet and after some 30 000 years when radiation is gone everything will be back to normal and life will go on.
only question is will we stay. :cool:

i also red an interesting article. it said that cars and the rest of man-made greenhouse gasses are nothing next to a simple volcano eruption a week long which throws in the atmosphere more sulphur and aids warming the same way humans do in 20 years.

Well ill may try it later cause some other guy told me HUMAN JAPANESE was way lot better than rosetta stone so i decided to give it a chance, if it doesnt works ill try your method, Thanks though.

I actually agree fully with GoNative. I don't really believe there is such thing as atheist extremism, simply beating back what's had our culture in a choke hold for two thousand years when obliged. Although I think that there are plenty of people out there who don't believe in global warming even without religion, so I wouldn't put that as solely to blame. It's more in part to people just not having the proper education and rather make claims based on hearsay without actually doing the research themselves. It's until you examine the evidence for certain topics that you can make your own informed decision.

You obviously missed the bit about mankind producing 135 times the amount of CO2 than from volcanoes in 2010. I also posted a scientific paper that clearly shows that mankind on average produces far more CO2 than volcanoes do.
Sulphur actually helps to cool the atmosphere not warm it as long as it is ejected up high into the stratosphere. It forms sulphur aerosols which reflect more sunlight causing cooling in the troposphere. It's only the really big eruptions that do this though. Pinatubo was a good example of this occurring. Injecting sulphur aerosols ourselves into the stratosphere is actually one of the main ideas out there to attempt to rein in the warming.
I don't know where you read that crap evanny but believe me it is utter crap or you just didn't really understand what you were reading.

Yes the climate has always changed and always will. The mechanisms for natural climate change are now pretty well known. As I said previously, most of the natural factors suggest we should currently be cooling but we are not. This is some of the best evidence of how big a role greenhouse gases like CO2 play in our climate and the fact that we have been artificially raising their concentrations in our atmosphere is not something that there is any real debate on. We also know that the earth has been far hotter and far cooler than it is currently. We have pretty good ideas as to why as well. The fact that the climate has varied so much in the past quite naturally shows us clearly that it is very susceptible to subtle changes. And the changes in the level of CO2 in our atmosphere since industrialisation haven't been all that subtle. The big fear is if we artificially raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere enough we'll reach a sort of tipping point where we'll have runaway greenhouse effect (it's happened before) that will entirely melt the ice in Antarctica and Greenland.

If this occurs in a reasonably rapid timeframe (say within the next few hundred years) it will have catastrophic effects. Most of the worlds major cities will be under water. Massive regions where billions of people currently live will also be inundated (much of the worlds' population lives close to the ocean). Regions that are major agricultural areas may become deserts or too wet. Such upheaval on a global scale would almost certainly lead to wars and incredible hardship and global economic crisis.

Anyway as I've said most people have little to no understanding of even the most basic concepts of science. We've seen plenty of that on this forum already. And human kind as far as I'm concerned is primarily motivated by greed. So I have little hope at all that anything will be done that will avert a rapid warming of the planet. Maybe our only hope will be science and technology coming up with some viable solutions. Because I can't see nations changing anything they currently do that would overly affect peoples lifestyles and threaten the viability of some of the biggest companies on the planet.

'Nature is nature and it will do as it pleases'. Yep nature will do what it does and life on planet earth will likely survive anything we could possibly do to it. Thing is do we care about the lives of future generations or not? Or are we just concerned with our own selfish wants and desires now? I suspect the later for most people.

Please understand, I never said I believed those things to be true. I believe they could be true, of course, that is my belief as a person with religion. However, I wouldn't necessarily assert it as absolute truth. I deliberately stated that I could appreciate their possibilities; considering what they would entail. Science has, no doubt, provided explanations for many things we witness, but the nature of science suggests there is always more to learn. I am, in fact, alluding to the point of open-mindedness.

Referring to what RealJames stated - and I'm using this as an example - he considered the Earth being 6,000 years old as ridiculous... which is not uncommon. I'm significantly interested in the reason for this. Of course, the answer is relative to Science, I could be called an idiot again, and the question will end there; However, I believe the issue may also delve much deeper: Psychology. It's obvious there are established beliefs for this specific topic, one of them being that the world is billions of years old. I find it unlikely, however, that either of us has extensively researched the possible age of the Earth. Frankly, our beliefs, based on separate logic, are both the product of faith; a confidence or trust in something we have no first-hand observance or knowledge of. That notion aggravates many anti-religious, self-proclaimed intellectuals whom I've talked to, which I also find interesting, as it's founded on the basis of objectivity.

Not that you can observe age to prove it, of course, we need tools... allowing me to include my next questions: Are our methods adequate? Are they accurate? I say 'our' because I'm not just arguing out of pride. Believe it or not, I am genuinely curious about the topic, as it does concern the history of our species. These questions should be asked if we're to determine the truth, shouldn't they?

I am not ignorant of science, simply because I don't want to be. I don't doubt, in all certainty, the validity of science and Global Warming. If you read my first post, I have no qualms about taking precautions. I certainly don't doubt that science can/does/will accomplish finding answers for our inherent questions as human beings, nor do I that science hasn't accomplished wonderful achievements from which we can take advantage of... but I also don't doubt our hubris. The fact is, our technology and subsequent ability to determine absolute truth, although admirably developed, isn't perfect. And this isn't an argument compelled by religion; it's reality. Science should be able to speculate the unlikelihood of something, but it should also hold itself to a certain humility, paving the way for new discoveries.

The data for your article was derived from ground temperature stations, which have long been subject to manipulation. Nearly two years ago Russia filed a formal complaint with the UN stating that IPCC scientists cherry picked temperature data from Russian weather stations, and used data only from stations where increases could be found, and disregarding those with showed neutral or cooler readings.

Look at the GSS satellite record for world temperatures, they are available to the public. The GISS satellites measure temperatures from the upper atmosphere, and are not subject to the same fudging which occurs with readings from ground stations. Look carefully and tell me which way the trend is running. Since 1998 world temperatures have decreased, have they not? And, if temperatures have not increased, where is the global warming? During this time, Co2 levels have increased about 5 parts-per-million. According to the established "science" of the UN, temperatures should have increased, but they haven't, have they?

It was this specific flaw in global warming theory (and it is A "theory") that necessitated the change in terms from "global warming" to "climate change". I don't need to read articles from alarmists or skeptics when I can see the data myself. Just as Bob Dylan said "you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows...".

Are we meant to take any of the above seriously in any way at all? Or did you post it all for the laugh factor at how ridiculous it all is? You don't actually believe any of that crap do you???

This is one of the reasons why people with little to no science in their backgrounds are so easily manipulated by pseudo-science and misinformation. Again I assume you have never studied any science Sangetsu beyond the absolute basic stuff we all get in secondary education?

In a warming troposphere scenario we actually expect to see cooling in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere). Here's a link that explains why this is so in nice basic language even the scientific illiterate like yourself may understand.

- Cooling

In regards to your assertion the IPCC only chose sights where warming was recorded I suggest you take a look at the following. 'The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was created to make the best possible
estimate of global temperature change using as complete a record of measurements as possible and by applying novel methods for the estimation and elimination of systematic biases.'

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (

It is the most comprehensive project to bring as much temperature data together as possible form around the world. They have expanded the dataset of stations from 7,280 (used by the IPCC) to 39,390. The project has been fully supported by both sides of the debate and is deemed as independent from bias.

Their initial findings were rescently presented to the House of Representatives.

Imporatantly they found the following

So your assertions that site selection by the IPCC has biased the temperature record is without any basis whatsoever and is just part of the denialist blogosphere unsupported by any actual proof.

Specifically in relation to US weather stations and siting which has come under a lot of criticism by climate denialists in recent years they have the following to say.

I'm an Enviromental Science Major, who graduated with Honors in my field, Go Native. This Global warming thing everyone is complaining about...BIG DEAL...You heard me, big woopie.

Back in the 1300's, they grew wine grapes in Britain 300 miles farther North than they do now, They were so good at it France considered going to war over it. They can't grow them now because despite your "global warming" scarefare.. it's TOO COLD.. That's historical fact, it was warmer in Europe 700 years ago than it is today, so cry me a river over your global warming sob story, it just isn't as big a threat as you want to make it out as.

Oh yea, communist do actually run much of the "global warming" fear factory. It's the reason one of the world's leading scientists droped out of the earth day thing, cause it was full of political idealoges and not actual scientists.

We've all said it before Ryzorian and I'm we'll all say many times in the future. You are an idiot. Not only do you believe in religious fairytales but now it seems you believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories. Like all conspiracy theories they cannot be proved or disproved. A bit like religion really so I can see why they might appeal to you. I mean really communists run the global warming fear factory?? You really, really are an absolute idiot. I expect nothing more from you though considering the utter crap you keep inflicting us with on this forum.

The fact the climate has changed in the past is proof of how susceptible it is subtle changes in the forcings that drive it. Plus what you are attempting to talk about and revealing just how terribly ignorant you are is the medieval warm period.

From wiki

So yes there was a warm period back then but it was not as warm as it is now. If you want links to actual scientific papers I'm happy to supply them as we all know that wiki isn't the most reliable source but in this case it certainly agrees with the mainstream scientific concensus.

Where do you get your science from? The christian science monitor or something similar? LOL

This is veering a bit too far into religion bashing territory. Let`s stop now before the thread has to be closed because of it.

Your polar ice photo is from 2003, you'll find more ice if you look at a newer photo. Coincidentally, the ice caps on Mars have also been fluctuating as well, I suppose those pesky Martians had best stop driving SUVs. For a period of time nearly two centuries ago, the Northwest Passage was free of ice. It is frozen over now. Funny that no one mentions Antarctica, which now as the highest ice levels recorded since measurements began being taken.

Last winter saw snow in all 50 states in America, including Florida and Hawaii, something which seldom happens. Here in Tokyo, snow fell 7 times last winter, which is 5 or 6 times more than usual. This is another reason why "global warming" was renamed "climate change". I love how global warming supporters explained that the record cold weather felt in many parts of the world last year was somehow caused by global warming...

As for the glaciers, some have receded, and some have been growing. Yosemite National Park and many other North American valleys were once glaciers.

More tellling may be the fact that Al Gore bought a multi-million dollar seaside home in California. He apparently isn't too worried about sea levels rising. As a controlling shareholder in Generation Investments Management (which sells "carbon credits" to weeboos), he is making a financial killing from climate change. Dr Pauchuri, head of the UN's IPCC panel (and is a railroad engineer, not a climatologist) also is a managing partner in India's largest alternative energy company, which stands to get billions of dollars in funding from dirty western counties if the IPCC gets it's way.

Honestly, glaciers melt and grow, it's all periodical. The whole thing is just fear mongering. The planet has warmed up..OMG..we need a global government so we can control those arrogant western governments. ( read USA). It's all huey. The sun is the BIGGEST factor in global warming, ALWAYS has been and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, or LYING.

Adapt, improvise, overcome. Learn to live with a warmer climate, scuse me while I go turn on my AC.

Remember the time when we were taught not to use products with cfc because they were harming the ozone layer? I think this is just the same case presented in another form of problem.

We cannot really do much to bring it back but we can just prevent further damage that he have inflicted upon ourselves. Global Warming is indeed a big problem and much can be felt now.

So when the last Ice age suddenly ended in under 50 years, it was our CO2 emissions fault too? BTW, the last climate change is late with about 50k years, according to data collected from samples taken from Antarctica's km's thick ice.

Pollution is bad, I agree, but CO2 isn't the most pollutant, Lead, sulfur and many more are.
CO2 from a SUV driven 1.000 km has less influence in global warming than a fart from the driver does.

Global warming has more to do with the reshape of the Earth's surface by our hand and animal farming, than by CO2 emissions from the industry.

PPS: What a nice logo this should be: Stop farting for a better future!

The main issue for me in this whole debate is that it is not really a debate of the science. Probably 99% of the people debating have no idea about the science whatsoever. It is a political and social debate. The science is only being brought into question because it's conclusions have brought into question the way we currently live our lives. It is threatening some of the biggest companies on the planet and how we source our energy to live the way we do.

I mean we can see from most of the responses in this thread that most of you haven't got even a small clue of what you are talking about. It would be like me attempting to debate a controversial issue in say the neurosciences. I have no background whatsoever in any sort of medical science or biology or anything like that. It would be ridiculous would it not if I seriously attempted to tell some of the most respected neuroscientists in the world that they were wrong and I knew better than they do? Of course it would but this is what we see all the time in the debate on climate science from supposed sceptics. You see how pathetic some of the arguments by the sceptics are just in the last few pages of this thread. You guys have no idea whatsoever about climate science yet you carry on as though you've got it all worked out. It's utterly ridiculous and incredibly arrogant. I mean really it's just so laughable seeing you guys try and throw in some science (that you have absolutely no clue about) to try and justify your points of view!

Did you think the scientists who claimed smoking was bad for you were only in it for the big gravy train of research grants? Did you ever question their motives? Why are climate scientists supposedly these great villains? The science of global warming has been around since the 1950's but it was only once governements started taking it seriously and started talking about actually implementing some measure to reduce CO2 emissions that the science started being questioned by numbnuts like yourselves.

I think it's the biggest attack on the integrety of science probably since the days of Galileo and his great struggle against the religious dogma that would have had us believe the sun revolved around the earth. We are seeing an attack on science now not because of religious dogma (well not entirely) but mostly I believe because of economic dogma. We live in times where economic growth seems to be more important than just about any other consideration on this planet. People see policies to reduce CO2 as an attack on growth and progress. And however little they actually understand the science (which in most cases is next to nothing) they have decided to attack it to try and keep the status quo. It's as simple as that. The science itself is unaffected by the debate. It's only the political response to the advice of the scientists which will be affected. And that's democracy. I fully expect that greed will defeat the scientific advice. I guess I lament this so much because I love snow and skiing so very much!!

I'm a Science Major Gonative and I'm telling you the whole GLOBAL WARMING thing is a sham. It's whole purpose is to deny the US and other Western powers the ability to maintain a 1st world economy. I'm sorry I have to break it to you that way, but's that's how it is.

Now you can disagree with me if you like, that's fine. But Global warming is far more about polotics and political agendas than it is about helping the planet. That's how I see it, and it's how I'm always going to see it.

loool

You a funny dude...Go pollute the seas, air, go exploit some little kids in Africa\Asia\Latin America. Go ahead and promote modern day slavery in "third world countries" so you can live comfortably in your great First World Nation....The reason ALONE that you're give us on why global warming is a sham is because of $$ lool.

@GoNative
I agree with you at a 120% you're absolutely right...

If you're a science major then let's debate the science. What part of the science do you disagree with and why? What scientific papers have you read that have lead you to the conclusion it's all a sham? Or do you just get your science from internet blogs and the teachings of the church? ;)

The science existed well before it became political and will continue even now that it is very political. The first scientific papers on the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas were in the mid 1800's. To this date I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that the science was fundamentally flawed in anyway whatsoever. The first simple calculations of the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere due to the influence of mankind were in the late 1800's. Was is political back then as well? Was it political in the 1950's and 60's when the first Global Climate Models were developed and the first papers on the possible collapse of the Antarctic Ice Sheet were published? What about in the late 1970's when the US National Academy of Sciences report that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to between a 1.5 and 4.5 temperature increase globally? Please tell me when did it all start to become political and the science not matter anymore? Right back in the mid 1850's?

I've seen plenty of political BS and pseudo-science and misinformation (from both sides) but the real science going on away from all that is what I'm interested in. I've already said that I believe mankind will continue to ignore the science or not do what is really required to avoid catastrophic climate change because of greed. I'm a little beyond caring about that anymore. Greed and stupidity seem to rule this world and it's only got worse in recent decades.

The science though still interests me. If you want to discuss it I'm more than happy to.

Excuse me, but who has much more influence on temp increase, CO2 or methane gas? GoNative, maybe you got a degree, but for me, it's enough I have two Olimpic Diploma's in Mathematics and Science. And btw, my prediction model (developed with my science and math teacher) is used by a few labs around the world and adapted even to climate change prediction.
You need me to explain in detail why 1.000 cows produce more climate changes than 50.000 SUV's?
CO2 is just a part of the climate change system, but you're too keen on your believes (almost like religion fanatics) to see anything else. You need to change a lot more things to manage to control this, If you reduce the CO2 by 50%, you will only get a decrease in the entire system of under 1%.
You are right, the companies manipulate, but it's because CO2 is the one that they can decrease the easiest and cost efficient (for them).
When you want to stop this system you need to work on the entire spectrum, not only on the smallest part (even though it helps, it's less than you can think).
I'm sorry but I'm tired of people who think they know everything just by having a sheet that writes University on it....
And really now, I'm not debating that climate change isn't happening, it's really happening, but CO2 has less influence on it than you can think of.