Yep highly recammend watching Chasing Ice.

Also the future looks bright.... for people that want to live underwater in domes.

A generalisation of the point. The planet will be fine, we know that, it's just a planet but it's about being sustainable. I honestly don't care what the issue is that humans are causing but that we are causing it. Burning tonnes of extra Co2 in the atmosphere, deforestation, over fishing (one of my biggest issues), hunting animals to extinction for soups and medicines that do nothing. Much of the worlds natural problems aren't a natural cycle of the planet changing and biodiversity changing to adapt it's new environment. It's us doing it.

Humans can adapt but what of everything else? We took millions of years to be the dominant life on the planet and are now able to live anywhere through technology, a polar bear lives in the north pole and it's habitat is disappearing. Sure the planet might not be uninhabitable for us but that doesn't mean we should continue on like we have done.

I'm only replying to stuff from the first page, as some things need pulling straight away, and I'm yet to read the rest of the thread.

1) whislt yes we know that CO2 increases the temperature in a closed system, the Earth is NOT a closed system, so taking this and thinking that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the temperature is a false assumption, as it's not know how it works in an open system. 

2) Yes there is, but it's not CO2 preceeding the temperature increase, it's the temperature increase which happens first, followed by the CO2 increase.

3) Yes because the models are all a crock of shit, and all have a fudge factor because of the fact that we don't have a perfect knowledge of the earth system, yet all the modles predict, to some slight variance of severity, the same thing, does that not smell an awful like corruption and collusion? The models can't even acurately back predict the climate in the past, which is the very easiest sort of modeling you can do. 

4) Of course alarmism has risen, can't sell you shit if you don't feel like there's a need for said shit.

5) Of course it politics, or do you not realise which countries look to suffer the most due to the demonizing of fossil fuels, oh yes that's right, the developing world, and what does the developing world offer? Competition to the established, it's all away of reducing the competitive edge these developing countries have over the developed.

6) And this is the right way to think, thank you very much for this, of course CO2 doesn't have a drastic effect on the temperature, I mean ffs how on earth is a gass that makes up only 0.00004% of the atmosphere  supposed to have any real effect on the temperature when compared to the fact that we have a big massive open fussion reactor in the sky that fluctuates in output constantly. I mean FFS come on people.

And do you not think that ALL mining activity has an effect on earthquakes? So is that a reason to not mine anything from the ground? no don't be silly, so why is it disastrous for Fracking? And no fracking can't pollute ground water, because for a start there's an impermeable layer between the shale that's being fractured and the ground water about, and the chemicals used are less than 3% of the water pumped down there, sometimes less, almost never more. And just think about it, if it could pollute ground water, wouldn't the water companies be having a massive hissy fit about it all? Yet they're just sitting quiet not doing anything.

Can you explain to me how GMO crops can destroy biodiversity, I'm not particularily well researched in this areas, and what's the problem with factory farms?

You have to ask yourself the cost of doing nothing verses the cost of making a real effort, and the cost of doing nothing is an unkown, simply because we can't predict, at all, how the climate will change in the future, yet we do know that MILLIONS of people in the developing world will die unnessecarily if we put massive restrictions on fossil fuels. What pollutants have caused irrefutable damang to the environment? Not all organisms thrive in the environment we deem perfect, how do you know that this 'damage' hasn't actually increased the diversity in life on the planet due to the new environment being beneficial to new kinds of organisms? Also and increase in CO2 isn't necessairly damaging to the environment, it's well know that more CO2 leads to greater and stronger plant growth.

What complications that are undeniably related to manmade activities? If you're talking about oil spill and things of that nature fine, but what does that have to do with 'climate change'. There actually haven't been an increase in extreme weather, the number of storms each year is dropping. Sea levels are risin a miniscule ammount since we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, they rose far more rapidly at the end of the last ice age 10000 years ago. Deserts are spreading due to piss poor land use and deforistation, NOT due to 'climate change'. What if the preventitive measures cause more harm than doing nothing?

I went a bit beyond just climate change and talked abit about general environmental issues caused by man. I'm not gonna bother giving you specific examples, but I'll help you out a bit:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=environmental+issues+cause+by+humans

And there has been an increase in extreme weather events. Here's a graph for average extreme weather events per year in the named decade:

Not sure which universe that trend is going downwards, but whatever.

Sea levels have risen more in the past yes, that does not mean we should just ignore that it is rising now. Deserts are spreading both because of poor resource management, but also because of an increase in average temperature, which leads to a drier climate. Climate change isn't even a question. The only thing that is even up for debate is if it's manmade or not. If you choose to believe that warmer temperatures in desert areas doesn't contribute to deserts spreading, um, okay then.

What preventative measures could lead to more harm (by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we emit) than continuing the way we are doing right now?

I say "minimized damage" and people take it as "massive restrictions that will kill millions of people"?  This is why I hate this topic.  People pick a side and then they defend that side with everything they can find while discarding and throwing away everything that even hints at being not supportive of their agenda.  It's a waste of time.  I mean, you're really telling me that there are no pollutants that have not damaged the environment?  That acid rain has been a positive?  That the DDT pesticides that were wiping out birds were a good thing?  Okay, man.

I agree there's a lots of unknow but your argumentation is just based on misinformation and discrediting all argument that does not fit your agenda. You cannot prove your point, nor prove the argument you try to discredit wrong.

1) So it's false because we do not know if this apply to an open system??? Yet we do not have any indication that it will act differently than in an enclosed test system. So you're saying it's a false claim because we don't know??? How does this prove it has a false claim.

2)That's made me laugh, both CO2 and temperature increase simultaneously there's is no way you could say that the temperature is the cause. it's not like one year the temperature increase and the next the co2 rise followed by a year where both are stable. But hey maybe you're right, have you any source backing up this claim?

3)Model and estimation are what they are. They're imperfect, and prompt to reajustement and that's true in any field for any models that have been made since the beginning of civilization. It's not like they are windows to directly witness the future.

4) Well alarmist are alarmist and negationist are negationist I guess. But in doubts your better safe than sorry.

5) That's exactly why action against climate change must contains measures to helps develloping country like they will in the future. 

6) So because number are small in relative perspective they should be discredited. Do you know how much cyanide it take to kill someone and the % it represent vs the human body? And by the way Co2 concentration in atmosphere is about 390 ppm (2010) which is 0.04% not 0.00004%

Edit: I recommend watching this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

2015 hottest year on record say NOAA and NASA

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/us-2015-was-hottest-on-earth-by-a-wide-margin/ar-BBotNal?ocid=ansmsnweather11

Yes, I conceeded that you might be talking about thing outside of climate change/global warming/whatever, but what relavance does that have to climate change? The climate can't be 'destroyed' to the point it's unfixable, other than killing ourselves, but in the future it will either facilitate life at this new level, and the future life will help keep the climate that this level, or it will change again, most likely towards what has been 'common' on the planet before, and life will go on. But yes, we have caused environmental catastrophes towards the standards WE need to live, but that doesn't mean that the standards aren't good if not great to other organisms. A perfect example is radiation and Chernobyl, Mushrooms are thriving in and around the reactor core due to the higher radiation which these organisms feed off of. Also the exclusion zone has allowed animals to live in this area, now whether or not they're thriving, or the area is acting like a black hole for animals, is yet to be determined, but people are reasurching this stuff, so there you go, what's bad for us, isn't necessarily bad for other organisms. Having said this I am, somewhat, a Humanists, and technology massively improved our standard of living, and when technology goes wrong, technology makes it massively easier to correct these problems. So I don't really see what you problem is with man causing 'environmental issues' as those issues can be resolved by man, and we then have a better understanding so that the environment is improved for us.

First of, source for this graph, second, how do you define 'extreme weather event'. Finally is it not possible, at ALL, that maybe, just maybe, we've become far far better at detecting global extreme weather events? Now for some actual sourced graphs, would you agree that catagory 3 and stronger hurricanes are a pretty major 'extreme weather' event? IF so then surely in the past 60 years, during which the majority of the CO2 which has been released has been released in this period, IF 'climate change' and 'global warming' leads to an increase in 'extreme weather events' then surely the total number, and the number of major hurricanes in the atlantic basin will have gone up right?

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hurricane-climatology.html

I'm sorry but not even the best statisticion could massage this set of data to show an increase in either the number of total hurricanes or the Major hurricanes. So no I highly doubt that extreme weather events have increased.

Does a warmer climate REALLY lead to a drier climate? Come on, even a primary school kid could tell you that a warmer planet will lead to more evaporation, leading to a WETTER climate. I mean FFS nobody thinks that a warmer planet will be drier. And you know, that even contradicts what you think about the climate change, if the climate is drier, there's less capacity for extreme weather events (outside of if you consider droughts extreme weather events, but with modern technology they really aren't an issue, almost nobody in the developed world dies of drought any more, and people in the developing world, surprisingly, find drought easier to cope with as compared to extreme cold events). And how on earth do you even try and combat the idea of if the temperature is warmer, deserts will spread, as deserts are formed due to warm air which has already lost its moisture at the equator is falling on a land, hense why deserts (by the traditional thinking, as in the Sahara and Khalahari, you do get some deserts simply due to geograpy, such as the Gobi desert, which is due to the Himalayas) allways occur around the tropics. Now once you know this information then surely for the deserts to spread, the wet zones north and south need to decrease? But if we have a warmer, wetter climate isn't it a possibility that these wet zones will widen, reducing the deserts?

No climate change isn't a question, never said it was (and IF I did, I appologise as the post was written in spurts between bits of work, and it would have been a faux par for me to write that), the climate always changes, it did so before us, and will do so forever after us, I don't think we even have a debate that we don't contribute to the climate, as we clearly do locally with all our big cities becoming heat islands, the debate is whether or no we are the driving force behind the current warming, and I simply don't beleive we are, then the question is do we contribute, maybe? but the system is so complex we don't know, at all, and if we DO, how much?

Reducing CO2 emmissions globally will only happen if the developing world agrees to follow suit with the west, if the developing world does this people WILL die as would otherwise, this is inevatable, as without plentiful access to the cheapest forms of energy, which are currently the fossil fuels, which emmit CO2 when burnt, their economies can't develop as much as otherwise, so these countries are more at risk to all extreme events, as they don't have as much economic might to cope with these things. There's a reason that climate related deaths have dramatically fallen since we've started emmitting CO2, as this cheap form of dense energy gives us far more capacity to do work that other wise, and this capacity helps protect people from the effects of disasters

1) No, it's a false assumption, not a false claim, there's a difference, we simply do know know enough about how CO2 acts in an open system to claim that and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere leads to an increase in temperatures, there are simply too many other factors. It's what is assumed DUE to the closed system tests. This is critical thinking, something science prides itself on, well science minus all the environmentallist climate scientists that rabbit on about CO2. Personally I think it's LIKELY, but not certain, that CO2 does indeed lead to warmer temperatures, all I'm trying to say is that because one thing does XYZ in one system, it's not certain to do XYZ in the other system.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

Whilst this doesn't dispute the claimed effects of CO2 on the atmosphere, it does show that the use of fossil fuels as a driver of climate change due to CO2 emissions isn't a cut and dried as you thing, as that are lots and lots of different factors at play.

2) No they don't, in case you're wondering, I have got a degree in Environmental Science, and all the data shows that a temperature increase PRECEEDS an increase in CO2, I'm NOT saying that the increase in temperature causes the increase in CO2, I'm simply stating that temp increases preceed CO2 increases. There is nothing wrong in saying that.

Callion et al. 2003 (This is the first study showing this, there has been plenty since.

3) No, and that's fine, but you at least hope that the models can have some accuracy in back testing, yet they simply have none, and constantly overpredict everything that happens. You simply can't trust the climate models, and I really don't want to discredit the scientists who made them, as it's an awfully difficult job and they're horrendously complicated, but they're really really shit.

4) But what if doing something to be 'better safe than sorry' causes MORE harm than doing nothing

5) OK that's fine, but do you think, especially with all the negativity surrounding the current levels of foreign aid given, that the populaces of the developed world are going to vote for people who want to give more money to the developing world. Though I do agree we need to help the developing world in general, but they have to help themselves, we can only suggest what to do, but eliminating trade tarrifs would be a great start.

6) No what I'm trying to say, is that is CO2 REALLY the primary driver of climate change, when it's not even a particualrily big componant of not just greenhouse gasses (water vapour is the biggest at 97% IIRC, though that number could be wrong, it's been a while since I looked at it), let alone all the other aspects of what makes the climate the temperature it is.

This comes with GISS input into how the end points and methodologies are done. Yet if you use different ones you get a completely different set of data.

UAH

Hadcrut

People really need to stop taking GISS massaged data as gospel.

You do realise that all climate data is inherintly massaged due to the end points for the data they use and, more importantly, the methodology....right? That's what I mean by massaged data.

EDIT: @TheSpokenTruth, there is no denial here, I'm just showing evidence and being critical of the data. I've never once denied that the data shows that the planet is warming (despite the inherant difficulties with even measuring this), and as such the planet is warming. It's just really not a big issue IMO, and it's not just as situation where not doing anything is disastrous, but doing something is not so. It's a super wicked problem, there is no real answer to what's right or wrong here, nor is there an answere, assuming it's a problem, on how we deal with this.