I hate how you all make this political.

This is pretty much the exact same situation that existed with the evolution debate a few decades ago. This is science, not opinion. The research has been done and the data is there. 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.

Most of the people giving their opinions here have probably read a single article or book on the subject and think their experts. How did this country go from being at the forefront of science and technology to banning stem cell funding, denying evolution, denying global warming and trying to make out the scientist as being some shady back door business man making millions off lying to the public.

The funny thing is there is just as much money and jobs in "green"/renewable energy, if not more, as there is in oil. Its just the people that have the money now don't want to give it up. If we find a better source of energy a hundred years in the future we will probably run into the same problem again. All the billionaires that make their money off green energy will resist change.

btw I'm not supporting Numonix, he's just as bad as the people denying man made climate change because their political party tells them to.

That's just it; there are limiting factors to EVERY technology available today. While you advocate solar power, you completely ignore the incredible maintenance costs and massive energy loss from having to import it from a good solar climate (say, Nevada) to where ever it needs to go (pretty much everywhere else).

On the other hand, nuclear power plants can be built reasonably close to almost any major population center and we have the technology to do it RIGHT NOW for a reasonable price. The French have proved it and they're even using some pretty outdated nuclear plants compared to what can be manufactured today, especially if money is invested into recycling nuclear waste.

I'm all for going 100% renewable. The thing is that right now, it's not cost effective and the initial expense would be beyond what any voting population will pay so no politician is going to actively pursue the technology in abundance.

There are thousands of scientist in the field of study that say it;s inconclusive at best. How many scientist say evolution is not true?

The reason we make it political, is because it is. There were thousands of doctors for years who said smoking was not bad for your health. Not because they thought it to be true, but because they were being paid well for it.

If you remove everyone who stands to profit from climate change being man man, or not man made, and then look at the opinions of the scientists left, you will see it's far from understood.

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.

The Big Oil and Big Miners oppose climate change because they believe it slows down their Oil productions and mining activities. The scientists who are climate change skeptics/deniers provide no evidence to support their claims, they are frauds and more than likely have been paid to by Rupert Murdoch to oppose climate change. Most of the scientists support climate change but there are scientists who deny climate change. The majority of people under 40 believe climate change is a huge problem and it is due to human's destruction of the environment. It is the older people over 40 who believe climate change is not due to man.  Fox News anchor man Glenn Beck regards climate change as a huge scam. Age does play a role in whether a person believes or denies climate change.

The climate change scientists have clear evidence to support their claims that excess carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere due to heavy industry and increased production, increased buring of fossil fuels and the explosion in human populations has resulted in increased carbon dioxide trapping heat inside the Earth's atmosphere resulting in higher average annual temperatures around the world. Al Gore, David Suzuki and David Rothschild are just three of the main leading climate change celebrities educating the world about climate change. People need to read David Suzuki's books, read and watch Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and become educated on Climate change and how man has played a pivotal role in the transformation

To delay action on climate change is to deny the future of our children's children. Please think of the children. Lobby groups and politicians who run governments need to take action and satisfy the majority of their citizens who believe in climate change. 

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

Their evidence is that few can even agree on even how much the Earth has warmed in the past century and that most, if not all, prediction models have been off thus far. Other than that, I suppose you're right.

*rolls eyes*

And I loooooooove how you discount contrary opinions by saying they're probably being paid off by someone. That's very scientific of you. And by "scientific", I really mean "conspiracy theorist level bullshit".

You really need to learn to step back and question what information is being given to you, not blindly follow propaganda like An Inconvenient Truth. Yes, the film has factual data in it. It also has wild speculation and sensationalist bullshit thrown in for good measure.

Not unlike almost everything ever said by Glenn Beck, a guy you hate but apparently only because you disagree with him, not because of his fear-mongering, self-serving tactics.

Of course there's a lot of data, as there was in the early days of evolution, too. The problem is that we don't understand enough of it, just as we didn't understand the data we were collecting in the early days of evolution study. The fact that the Earth naturally changes temperature throws an ENORMOUS monkey wrench in the entire study.

Will we figure it out over time? Sure, I think so. Should we invest more money into unbiased research? Definitely. Whether it's man made or not or whatever mixture in between, we need to find out why this is happening and what the effects will be longterm for mankind.

But at this point, very little has been proven concretely past "the Earth is warming; how much, we're not really sure". That's not the same stage we're at with evolution.

I oppose nuclear energy and fossil fuels. More wind mills and more solar panels and geo-thermal and other renewable energy sources should be built now. Carbon taxes and increased fossil fuels can pay towards the development of renewable energy sources. 

Nuclear power is the most expensive energy source to set up and safely maintain. Nuclear waste disposal is expensive. Do you suggest dumping toxic nuclear waste into the landfill or seas/oceans? We do not need more Chernobyl catastrophes.

You just regard my views as radical liberalism or an anarchist. I am a environmental activist. You could say I am a Green Conservative. Conserve/save the environment and go Green!

BTW: I support the views of Alex Jones and oppose Glenn Beck.Fox News and Glenn Beck's views on 9/11 and climate change are wrong. Alex Jones exposes the truth on both the Republicans/Democrats. 

I am 9/11 Truth Now Supporter and  a Climate change believer.