senseinobaka said: obieslut said: I am going to just type a couple of points like 1. the world is getting hotter. 2.Ice caps will melt 3. see level will rise because of land-ice melting but not sea ice melting. pluss sea-level will also rise because heat makes water expand. 4. Fresh ice water dilluting the Great Conveyor belt will make it stop. 5. if point 4 happens North America and Western europe will go into some kind of ice age thing. 6. possibly the rate of global warming would be counteracted by the rate of freezing in these regions so the effects may be minimal. 7. Iglobal warming may not be happening as quick as scientists are suggesting but for people to realise the seriousness off global warming, it needs to be exaggerated because many peple are to lazy to do anything about it else.   Hasn't this happened on Earth before?

 If you mean the Great Convetor belt stopping because of ice melting which caused an ice age then yes it did

I find that most people that have an opinion online about climate change refuse to read any of the actual research. Some people go off of Al Gore's slideshow, which has errors in it, and some go off of Exxons heavily promoted data, which comprises a very small part of the scientific community.

Scientists are, in many ways, just as at fault for people's perception about climate change as those that have turned it into a political issue and those that have deliberately confused the issue by spreading counter-information. The problem is that most scientists in educational institutions these days live and die by what they publish. The problem is that they take very little time to actually explain what they have researched to the general public. Schools all vie for prestige by having more published articles in peer review journals which most of the public can't access.

Now, this doesn't mean that the data on climate change is wrong. It just means that people are getting it through second hand sources that use the word "scientists" like it was a secret underground organization bent on world domination. Specials on the history channel regarding the future death of the man due to global warming are generally made for dramatic effect. If you want to know the answer, you need to start reading. Colleges also often times have free seminars that you can attend about the topic so you can actually ask questions of people that do research it to find out what "scientists" are really saying.

There is a lot of information out there. In this age, ignorance is voluntary.

^^ If pointed at me, in my forensics science course, one of the modules was about peer review, which i had to explain the necessity of peer review and analyse how the process is structured and if it is a successful process

When i was doing my Global warming i got to meet proper scientists in notingham and in birmingham. they was talking about lots of stuff that i am not going into because it goes a lil to deep.

With vehemently opposed you mean: "Do not believe in" correct?

I think there are multiple reasons:

1) "The World is ending syndrome": This statement has been pitched so many times at us: Our forests would die, our rivers would be poisoned, the ozone hole would kill us. Surprisingly forest area in Europe gets bigger, many rivers get close to drinking water quality again, the ozone hole is closing etc. pp.

The problem is that distasters sell even for scientists. So many people have learned to take statements with a grain of salt. I mean one idiot even mentioned Global Warming after the Tsunami and earthquakes really have nothing to do with the weather.

2) Climate is a complex system. While global warming seems to be true there will be cooler years in the future. A recent study said the next decade could get colder. Climate change and normal weather cycles are very difficult to separate. So the endless whining after each warm summer is really annoying.

3) While man seems to have an influence on climate nobody knows to what extent and what the results will be. Do we need to pay trillions of dollars to solve a problem if it could possibly result in 1-2° warmer weather and more rain (Not exactly a terrible combination)

And so on. The problem is that honest scientific work in this field got Gored. Now we have alarmist political whiners telling us again how we could save the planet.

Disclaimer: This doesn't mean that Global Warming isn't a serious problem and mankind should do things to mitigate its effects but these effects and possible solutions should be discussed on a scientific level and implemented by politicians who know what they are doing.

The fact is, the allegation of scientists don't reach an agreement.
There are some allegation.

1. Global Warming goes very high pace.
2. Global Warming goes slowly.
3. It is natural change of climate.

These differences caused by mainly two reason.
A. The effect of aerosols
In atmosphere, there are many aerosols like cloud. And they have the cooling effect for earth. But the strength of cooling effect of them isn't cleared and there is a disagreement about it among scientist.
B. The periodicity of climate
In our world, many things have periodicity. (ex. element, economy and so on)
Climate also has periodicity and it is said the world is in the warm age now and, within a few years, it changes into cooling age.

So, there is a allegation that we should wait the measurement of these years.
Of cource, whatever the result is, it is true that greenhouse gas has the effect to warm the earth.

I spent years in university getting a degree in Pure Mathematics which is (essentially) a degree in logical problem solving, argument, and formal (mathematical) proof; this (to a certain extent) makes me an expert in understanding logical arguments which are the basis for all scientific knowledge.

From what I have seen, the argument surrounding global warming is heavily flawed ...

In many cases they hypothesis is assumed in an effort to demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct, and only the most corrupt or incompetent people in the world would allow such a weak argument to be published; in other cases the 'Scientists' use is less accurate and more questionable in validity than other data which is readily available, and one can suspect that this data is used because it is the only data that will support their hypothesis (look at ground based temperature readings vs. satellite temperature readings).

Above all else, the thing that bothers me is this constant discussion of a "Scientific Consensus" when no such consensus exists; and even if one did exist it doesn't mean anything because unpopular ideas can be (and often are) correct.

This doesn't mean that Global Warming isn't happening, or that man has no influence on the climate of the Earth, but I don't think the science is close to being settled; and I am a little concerned that the main 'solutions' seem to be more focused on wealth distribution rather than on actually reducing energy usage.

I think most people will agree that it makes sense to reduce the use of fossil fuels for social, economic, political and environmental reasons (and to switch to alternative fuel resources); but carbon trading (as has been suggested in the wake of Kyoto) will not have any long term impact on fossil fuel usage, and is really only a wealth distribution scheme from wealthy countries to poor (mostly corrupt) countries. 

Lets face it, people are jaded.

Every time environmental protection has been mentioned, it has been used as some sort of excuse to make us switch from a product that is cheaper and more effective to a more expensive, defective product that doesn't do the job we need it to do.
If not that, then it has been used to impose on us with no real reason for it (recycling can be mandatory, even if the trucks all end up going to the dump) or restrict us from something that actually has the inverse effect from what it is intended (people can't make controlled camp fires from gathered brush while camping in the woods, which has resulted in excessive underbrush resulting in uncontrollable forest fires)
Often times the same people who are promoting global warming and pushing out all these fines and restrictions are polluting even worse than the people getting the restrictions (Al Gore's private jet, houses found to be built on land that was taken away from public use to be "protected")

And Global Warming is even worse. Even less is clearly understood about it, less can be proven, less can be accurately observed and plotted. The theories about the cause of global warming have switched and change no less than half a dozen times in my own memory, being attributed to everything from factories to hair spray cans to automobiles, and just recently to discarded consoles(who the hell throws out their consoles? I still have my original NES from 20 years ago, god), and that's not even counting the fact that during my parent's time, scientists claimed that the earth was headed towards a global cooling period.
Now, I wouldn't have an issue with any of that alone. I mean, hell, it's the freaking EARTH we're talking about. You've got to push for one idea or the other or you won't be able to find out whether you're wrong or right about theories you have.

Except POLICIES are being made. LAWS are being made. Government sanctions are being handed out all on the basis of these, perhaps not "half baked" but definitely, not fully baked theories about what is going to happen to the world and what the cause is. This is WRONG, you cannot control people's lives based on speculation and hype.
Yet the people pushing for Global Warming and Environmental protection don't seem to care. Whether or not their theories are correct or the policies they implement are justified or will have any actual affect is apparently just as unimportant to them as the inconvenience caused. Even worse is the manner in which their restrictions are imposed, which often just place a complete ban on something entirely, rather than addressing the sub issue actually causing the problem.

Even if there is global warming, even if the cause really is "us horrible polluting humans" the methods being used are heavy handed and not enforced consistently from area to area, or even within their own group, and are using hype and disinformation in order to spread their influence. This doesn't come across as an honest attempt to solve a problem, but as an attempt, conscious or not, to get as much power for themselves as possible.