If you can find me a scientist working with something so hard to measure as climate change who will honestly say that his results aren't flawed in some way, then please bring him to me. He will be an oddity. The lack of transparency in results comes from further down the line (media, journals, politics, etc...).

Anyway, yes I do accept that man made climate change is happening and it is a man made phenomenon. However, I do not believe all the doomsday scenarios I read about.

At best measuring greenhouse gases is an extremely hard task to do. There are so many greenhouse gases, and we don't even know the emission volumes for the vast majority of them. At best we can guess, and this leads to quite a wide band of results. But when papers and politicians get hold of these results they are unlikely to use the small results because they don't win votes and sell newspapers. So they constantly press on the idea that global warming will destroy mankind, and will use the high ranging results to press that point. A headline like "We will all be dead in 10 years!" sounds better than "Holland may see floods by 2100".

I don't think mankind has as much to worry about as they think with climate change.

However, I do see many of the positive benefits of this climate change panic. Let's face it, environmentalism is through the roof and that is having a lot of social and economical benefits. 

Key word is highlighted. So you now admit you started this thread in order to "convert" believers, right?

This thread should be stopped, but it wont be, and the mods that participate in this thread should be banned for letting it continue, but they won't be.

Even that crap about Hurricanes being blamed on global warming was just debunked. I need to find the article where global warming scientists can't actually put together any evidence that this is the case.

Typical Liberal response. Your arguments are flawed, and you are losing on logical grounds, so we need to be shut up because we don't agree with you, right?

The problem is even a very small increase can lead to large changes. A small increase in temperature could help to reduce ice coverage across the planet. Ice is the most efficient reflective surface on the Earth and so a decrease in its distribution will allow more sunlight to be absorbed and hence create more warming. Further warming would raise the temperature of the oceans which would release more CO2 into the atmosphere creating an even larger temperature increase. This is the problem with the whole issue. No one can predict how all these independant variables will react to even a small (but perminant) temperature increase. 

Global warming (and cooling) are natual effects but the issue here is that we are adding a brand new variable to the natural system which has balanced itself out over great periods of time.

Carbon credits are a poor idea at best. Well, I say that; I mean poor for the world, not for those that use them. An honest carbon tax or energy efficiency plan could have an abstract wrote on one A4 sheet of paper and would be simple enough to get action done. but it's not, everyone wants to know "how will this benefit me now?", hence carbon credits and a bad system to boot.

*Bleh*

I'd expect better from you highway star... for the last 15 years the temepture rise has been statistically insignifcant.

What is the conclusion you are supposed to make when something is statistical insignifcant?

It's that it's not happening.

I mean think about it...  EVERYONE who knows something about the climate will tell you that an unnatural global warming effect is supposed to multiply.

As you put more CO2 in the air, the warming gets worse, which makes more greenhouse gasses get put back in the air.

If it's suddenly insignificant there are HUGE holes in the modern climate theory.

The problem there is that 15 years is not climate, it's weather. It is highly unlikely that any climatic changes will occur over just a small period of time (it's not going to be 'The Day After Tomorrow'). Unfortunately when the media report on scientific predictions they tend to only focus on the two extreme models (i.e. nothing will happen or it will all happen tomorrow!) when in fact these are generally just worst/best case scenarios.

Here's something else to consider. The warmists have said that mild winters, as well as unusually harsh winters are a result of warming. One example was brought up that harsh winters in the U.S. with a ton of snow are a result of the Great Lakes no longer freezing over due to global warming. Lake Erie just froze over from coast to coast. Are we going to hear next week that it has done so due to global warming? Where does the insanity stop?