^Christian fanboys

the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere jumped up by ~100ppm since the "industrial revolution" from a mean of ~280ppm in 1000-1850 to 380+ppm nowadays (graph ends at 330, but newest measurements show 380-390ppm)

the other important contributor to the green house effect is considered to be methane, which shows a very very similar trend

seems we had a lot of volcanic/natural activity lately, as human activity doesn't emit much, huh?

At my university we occasionally have inter-faculty research conferences. We have a group doing research into various areas of the environment. Being familiar with the literature, they all seem convinced that it is happening and humans are the leading cause, but at the same time they seem optimistic about the future too.

Personally I'm undecided. I sway towards thinking it is mainly caused by humans, but I'm not informed enough to make a real decision. My opinion means squat in this debate.

^Always so neutral. I love it :)

That's why I said "most". It was not my intention to generalize, but in most cases the critics are Christian and the other way around.

Pure polemic, as always. How about you prove the things you say, show me where the climate science is acting like a religion. You're denouncing a science that existed for several hundred years, scientists all over the world come to the same conclusion, and the very few who disagree happen to live in...America, which is known for radical Christians influencing the science and politics.

It's not a matter of faith. I'm one of these "weird" people who know instead of believe.

@Silver-tiger.

Yeah. I see where you're coming from too. Alot of the more capitalistic portion of the american population has a strong christian upbringing and could be tinted with entitlement thinking.

Thanks for getting me

meh, you make it sound like the problem with them was that they are christians (and so am I), but the real issue is, that it's in their best interest to believe they don't play a part in global warming with all it's consequences

Well, as others pointed out, thorium based reactors are a good start to at least avoid worsening the problem, but let's also consider that thanks to the increased computing power available, all the researches that are intensive in calculations and simulations now proceed a lot faster than in the past. But yes, as until a solution is found we can't be sure it will ever be, better stop producing long-lasting wastes, new fission reactors, waiting for fusion ones, should be only thorium ones.

Of course science isn't a religion. First of all, religion is a spiritual path based on culture and philosophical knowledge. Often spoken through scripture which is typically metaphorical.

Science is a method which uses experimentation and observation to explain or predict.