oh, i can see the benefits.

that is particle pollution. like i have mentioned. co2 isnt visible to the eye, the supposed cause of global warming. thank you for agreeing with me.

edit: i'll add that if china is ok with that amount of pollution that they can literally see and breath, what makes you thnk they will care at all about co2 emissions which can't be seen, and are not harmful?

So which story will they push in 20 years? Global cooling or global warming?

Sure all forms of mining can cause pollution or potentially earthquakes.  Probably the worst for water pollution would be mountain top removal.  I believe the jury is still out on what kind of damage fracking really causes.  Sure in some instances it probably affects very little.  However, I'm sure in other areas they have suffered from leaching chemicals and other problems. 

GMO crops destroy biodiversity because the company that is selling the crop only sells one type of seed.  Farmers used to save their best seeds but now companies like Monsanto would rather sell you their seed every year.   This is what happens when you industrialize farming though.  We only grow one type of banana even though there used to be several types of bananas.  There is great concern of tree fungus that could take out the entire banana crop ("In the 1950s, Panama disease, a wilt caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum, wiped out vast tracts of ‘Gros Michel’ plantations in South America and Africa, but the cultivar survived in Thailand.  By 1960, the major importers of Gros Michel bananas were nearly bankrupt, and had waited to deal with the financial and environmental crisis. The Cavendish was cultivated so consumers would still be able to obtain bananas.") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana

If you have different types of bananas then at least one type would not be susceptible to the fungus.  There is danger in only growing one type of apple, banana, corn, etc...  Monsanto has over 90% market share of corn right now in USA.  If there was a bug (that adapted to round up), fungus, parasite, etc that started going after their corn then most the corn crop could be wiped out.  I also don't believe in over use of pesticides and don't believe in the overall increased yields of GMOs because over time your soil turns to crap if you constantly use pesticides. 

The world is starting to wake up to GMOs.  Japan and Europe banned a huge shipment of wheat because they don't want any GMOs ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/global/japan-and-south-korea-bar-us-wheat-imports.html?_r=0 ).  "Although none of the wheat, developed by Monsanto Company, was found in any grain shipments — and the Department of Agriculture said there would be no health risk if any was shipped — governments in Asia and Europe acted quickly to limit their risk."  So the shipment supposedly didn't even have Monsanto GMO wheat but they decided to limit all risks.  Soon U.S. farmers might not have that much of a market to sell to because the rest of the world doesn't want our crops.  Even farmers that aren't growing GMOs suffer due to other countries thinking that the shipment could still be contaminated with GMOs.

Factory farms have cattle, chickens, pigs etc in close spaces or stuck standing up all day long.  Would you rather eat something that has been standing around doing nothing all day pumped full of antibiotics and eating food that really isn't in their diet (cows are supposed to eat grass not corn)?  You know there is a reason why deer, buffalo or any other game meat taste better than factory farmed animals?  Because they actually move around and eat what they are supposed to eat.  Sure the companies want to save space and drive down costs.  However, animals that are allowed to graze in a field will always produce better meat than ones stuffed into a pin and forced fed questionable food.

Actually, the Chinese population are starting to get a little restless when it comes to pollution.  Hell, it has gotten so bad over there that a Canadian guy is making money selling Rocky Mountain air in a bottle to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/asia/china-canadian-company-selling-clean-air/

Yea I have seen that. I would by now they would be in full rebellion with that kind of smog and air pollution.  looks like the first industrialized cities still burning coal at every home. crazy!

just because they were ok with the amount of pollution until now, doesn't mean they will be ok with it forever. particle pollution or co2, you can contribute to solving both problems by limiting burning oil and coal.

Who's this 'they' you're referring to? The scientists? Read your copy-paste job again:

"This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, press reports did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, [scientific climate literature] showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions"

40+ years ago, a greater degree of literature was predicting global warming than global cooling and it was correct: the average global climate has exhibited an upward trend. This seems to suggest we should stop listening to the press and start listening to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Even more reason to stop listening to the media and false science.

If by 'they' you mean the popular press, I'd argue one should stop listening to what they have to say with regards to scientific matters. The popular press is not peer-reviewed.

If by 'they' you mean the scientists, as it turns out, the scientific literature was predicting global warming over the past 40 years and as the numbers have shown (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature), they were correct. Global averages have been going up.

Hind sight is 20/20 and the victors write the history. Like i said in 20 years the same will be said of global warming. Have you not noticed that it has already begun. With the new term being climate change.

If the science behind global warming/climate change is so sound why are the predictions so off? If they know what they are talking about, if the science is true, why can they not accuratly predict global temperature trends?

The media, but more o politics, have made global warming science a farce. its now a business and industry and its self serving itself. Of course climate "scientist" will support it, their jobs depend on it.

When we have only one agency that takes the info and it can't be trusted to give correct info it hard to take the science behind it seriously