Climate Change Deniers/Skeptics or Believer?

[Mendicate Bias]

rocketpig said:

Mendicate Bias said:

There is just as much a consensus in the scientific community that the current climate change is man made as there is that evolution is true.

While I agree with several of your other points, this is patently untrue. Evolution has been proven in almost every way except actually witnessing it because of the immense amount of time required to do so.

Climate change is a relatively new subject and the actual recorded data acquired thus far (much less than the 160 or so years we've been working on evolution) pales in comparison.

And I'm not just talking out of my ass here. My best friend is a geology student and we've had lengthy talks about this very subject, on top of some of the journals and articles I've read on the subject. There is A TON of information we don't know about climate change and one of the most important factors is "how much is caused by man?" When that's still a pressing question, comparing it to evolution is folly.

What I agree on is we can't predict accurately exactly what the effects of climate change will be, but we can clearly see that it is happening. We have far more than 160 years of data. Using the ice cores in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic we have hundreds of thousands of years of data. Yes all the doom and gloom reports are probably over exaggerated, but the overall consensus is the same, no matter what happens in the future what is happening now is man made.

@TheReal Mafoo

What matters is not the amount of people that voice their opinion on the matter but the amount of scientific articles being published and their overall consensus. I challenge you to find 20 scientific articles denying man made climate change published in 2009 or 2010. I can procure hundreds for you saying the exact opposite. No matter what topic you look at there will always be disagreement, no matter how widely accepted something is.

As for the smoking argument, I completely and utterly agree with you. In fact if you look back the majority of scientist that said smoking wasn't harmful back then came from research institutions completely funded by tobacco companies. We have the exact same situation here with oil companies paying millions of dollars to come up with data that looks favorably upon them. In fact one of the biggest dissenters of man made global warming was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, although they have started to change their position lately.

The fact is that as of today not a single scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting position on man made climate change. A far cry from the tobacco situation that had a majority of voices saying tobacco smoke was harmful, even at the height of tobacco's power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change