Well, Ron Paul has said that if he's the next President, then he's going  to entirely cut out the Department of Education in his first year as part of his plan to cut one trillion dollars off the budget right off the bat, so you should approve of that since you don't like the Department of Education.

Ok, so obviously you don't respond to evidence, or to the beliefs of those who are much, much smarter, and more knowledgeable in the field than you and I, I have but one thing to say to you.

If everyone in the world believed me, and you turned out to be right, we would see reduction in air/water/land pollution, a shift to energy sources that will last indefinitely, as opposed to fossil fuels which are predicted to last 40-100 years, creation of jobs and eventually savings in money.

Now think about what will happen if people listen to you and I am right.

Even if the overwhelming evidence is only enough to convince you that there is a 50% chance that human caused global warming is real, surely it is not worth gambling with the future of the human race?

Also, this is really interesting. You are the first climate change denyer I have ever talked to. If you don't mind me asking; what country are you from? What level of education do you have? What are you currently doing in terms of a job/education/whatever?

Actually your ignoring the much much worse possibility.  Global warming is happening.

It's NOT peoples fault...

and we've wasted all of our time and energy on conserving energy and anti-pollution tactics and the like while stunting are economy to do so.

Versus continueing to grow our economy and focusing on Geoengineering solutions that handle both man made and natural global warming and also gives us help in regards to any sort of cooling we might face as well.

Yeah, but the Iowa Caucus is another event that skews heavily towards "people who give a shit more then other people"

Unlike voting, in a Caucus everyone gathers together and debates and shit first and has to sit through everyones speeches and arguements for hours and hear from representatives from the people running.

I don't think you need to be so patronising. 

I try my best to keep up with the debate, but freely admit I'm not the most researched in this area.  You're not even acknowledging a debate even exists.  The problem is the "much, much smarter and more knowledgable" people aren't all singing the same chorus. 

I recall seeing this clip below; that shows that CO2 is not the driving force in temperature change, but an effect of it.  What do you make of it?

Absolutely. I support Ron Paul and his goal of cutting $1 trillion/yr from the federal budget. I love the fact he's the only candidate talking about it other than Gary Johnson.

@ fumanchu

I was not attempting to be patronising. referring to you as less intelligent than a bunch of people with PhDs was not intended to be offensive, and I will point out that I also stated that they were more intelligent than me - these are some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I apologise if you took offence from it.

You didn't respond to my point that there are many good reasons to, even if you are undecided, act as if climate change is real, and effected by humans.

As for the video, it's quite hard to judge. If you pause it at 2:31 - you see a good screencap of their demonstrating CO2 lagging temperature. The problem is, this is a snapshot of a <5 000 year period, with a difference in temperature between warm and cold of approximately 0.15 degrees celsius. By contrast, Al Gore's full graph covered a period of about 600 000 years, and the temperature fluctuation was as high as 8 degrees celsius (14 for the most recent warming, ie the one that is presumed by many to be human caused) over the course of approximately 10 000 years.

Obviously, I would need to look into it more to be 100% sure, but it seems to me that those who made the video zoomed in on a tiny section of cherrypicked data, and attempted to use it to prove their point.

Even the original scientific papers on which that video are based seem to be cherry picked, covering only 15000 years, which had a temperature rise of approximately 0.3 degrees celsius. Again, both axes are very small compared to the full data available. The paper is available here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.short - although you will need to use a university proxy to get access. You should hopefully all be able to see the picture below, taken from the paper and showing the scale of the data.

I'm not saying that the paper is wrong, but I don't find it convincing - they need to consider more data before it is worth considering.

You have just bought way into the hype, without doing any research for yourself.  There is plenty of evidence of fudging of numbers going around because the actual data is matching what was expected.  There has been numerous  reports and studies and research (By 'intelligent' people)  as you referenced to suggesting that this is nothing more than a big load of bullshit.

As HappySquirrel, Kaz have stated.  Look into some of the CERN's CLOUD research (And actually take it for what it is).  These people are infinitely smarter than Al "I invented the internet" Gore. 

Maybe if you're in Europe you haven't had much Al Gore exposure, but the guy is a massive moron.  The USA was successful under Clinton (Electing him to 2 terms) and Al Gore couldn't beat Bush.  He's the self proclaimed creator of the internet.  The guy is a moron.  I would question global warming simply by his appearance on the list of people fighting for that cause.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFJ8cHAlco

I'm from Australia, I finish my Bachelor of Science (Physics) and Engineering (Renewable Energy) in June. Currently working for an environmental consulting firm in the holidays.

I'm still trying to understand what you believe. Putting aside the issue of cause for a minute. Consider the graph below. Note that in very recent times, there is an increase in temperature of around 5 degrees, in such a short time as the line appears vertical. The current point on this graph, is approximately 6.5 degrees celsius warmer than the warmest (pre industrial revolution) temperature on record. as I said, ignore the chemistry behind it. Do you think that this vertical section of the graph is

a) The result of human activity

b) Faked. Those who gathered ice core data simply drew the graph, and discarded all of their data.

c) A co-incidence.

graph is from Petit et al. - Nature, 1999

So I'm going to assume you picked a), the other two are both indefensible points so I won't bother addressing them. Now, as we have established that it is humans causing this warming, we must do two things. The first is determine what we are doing to cause the warming, and the 2nd is to stop it. This is of course a much more complex process, so I'll pause here to make sure you agree with this post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o&list=FLj4a_zyzEPrJ39HROlxxuwA&index=19&feature=plpp_video

Above is a documentary that's against the idea of human-induced global warming. I'm no scientist, so I don't have the capability to discern the validity of scientific facts when they're presented. But beyond whether this is scientifically proven or not, I am concerned that there are powerful groups of people who are using this issue to push political agendas that will ultimately lead to global oppression. It's not the only issue, but one of the key ones.

I do support Ron Paul, because he stands up against the agendas of global elites. With him there is a guarantee through his long demonstration of integrity that he will have a serious and uncorrupt approach to fixing problems - he'll try his best to carry out what he has promised. You can't really say the same about other candidates, whether they believe in global warming or not.