A few people in the thread about the 2008 US presidential election mentioned this might be a good debate and I agree.  So I'm curious to know:

1. Do you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (from here on labelled as AGW)?
2. What are you reasons for believing/disbelieving?
3. How do you feel about the IPCC?
4. How do you feel about proponents/opponents to the theory?
5. What proof can you show one way or the other (Links would be good here)

Just for clarification purposes, for those of you who are not native english speakers or do not know much about the debate, Anthropogenic Global Warning refers to the increase in average global tempurature that can be attributed to humans, and NOT global warming or climate change in general.  Whether the world is actually getting warmer or not is an entirely different debate.

Please be polite in this thread.  I realize this is a heated debate and people feel very strongly about both sides, but calling people "skeptics" or "brain washed tree-huggers" in a derogatory fashion serves no purpose.   Also, please try and keep an open mind about both sides of the debate.  Contrary to popular belief, AGW is still a scientific THEORY, not FACT.  There are scientists on both sides of the debate.  I hope this means we can have a debate without people simply stating things like "Anyone who doesn't believe is stupid, or gets money from big oil".

 I'll reserve the right to keep my personal beliefs private for the moment.  Happy debating!

*Looks up definition of "Anthropogenic"*


1. I think it's likely we've at least contributed to it. So, yes.

2. I read a New Scientist article about it. They seem like a reliable source (they do have the scientist in their name). Other than that, not much. I'm hoping some people post some more information in this topic.

3. I hadn't heard of it before reading this topic. After a quick wikipedia search, I think Anthropogenic Global Warming is an important issue and requires some big name looking into. It says they don't do their own research though, so it seems more like a group of people just sharing their opinions.

4. I think a lot of people who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, like me, don't know that much about the issue, and are basing their opinions on big headlines they saw and not on research and facts. Obviously not all supporters are in this catagory, but I think most (or at least many) are.

5. The New Scientist article I read.

1/ Definitely, 100%. Have so for years (about 15), and will literally laugh/ignore anyone who doesn't.

2/ I believe in science, rather than fantasy (non-science).

3/ Who are they?

4/ I think they are dangerous fools. Just about everyone I know/have met recently believes in AGW as well. The last person (on the radio) I heard that didn't believe, quoted something along the lines of "Noah survived the great flood, and God is causing this" or something like that (not exact).

5/ Not going to show links, but the fact that virtually every related scientist is united on the existance of AGW - is proof enough for me.

I'm pretty passionate about this topic :P. I think this is one of the most (if not the most) important challenges for our species, AND the planet. I believe this is nothing short of a "slow-effect/rate extinction level event" (or close to a ELE). 

the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/), which is the research group responsible for almost all research promoting human induced climate change. Pretty much everything you read in the news probably originates from the IPCC or is related in some fashion.

The IPCC has released 4 assessment reports, the most recent one being in 2007, which each include the widely publicized Summary for Policy makers. What you must understand however is that the actual assessment reports are written by scientists, however the summary for policy makers is written by beaurocrats and only signed off by certain scientists.

The majority of people never see the actual report and the information is not always accurately summarized. For example, there was a rather large outcry when the summary released in the 3rd assessment was changed to make the predictions more dire than the actual report could support.

Shams, I am very interested in why you believe in AGW.  What proof have you been shown and what research into the issue have you done?  What specific piece of information made you believe so strongly?

Why won't you show any links?  Your statement about virtually every scientist being in accord is in my opinion false.  There is a very large debate still raging about what the actual cause of climate change is.  For example, two websites often quoted in the debate include http://www.climateaudit.org/ and http://www.realclimate.org/, both sites include contributors with scientific backgrounds, including climatologists, and yet the two sites hold opposing views.

I think one of the problems with this debate is exemplified with your answer to question 1.  You admit you would ignore and laugh at anyone who disagrees with the idea of AGW, and yet how can there be a scientific process if anyone disagreeing is ignored?

1. yeah

2. steady supply of journal articles 

3. obviously need american support

4. see below

5. see below

While it's important to gather evidence of AGW, it's much, much, much more important to realize the following.

Even if there's a 10% chance that AGW is real, actions should be taken because the downside is unseemly large.  Sadly, politicians seems to glance over this and this kind of logic, though unassailable, is something the general populace seem not to be capable of reasoning.  More likely, they're just ignorant.

 Now I'd put the chances at closer to 99%.  Some commision came up with the figure 90%. I'm disappointed with the 90%.  99% might as well be the threshold where theory becomes fact.

Now I respond to 4 and 5.

It's impossible to "prove" or "disprove" something like this.  There are just too many variables, period.  This is why there's debate--it's the scientific method, you need to turn every stone.  But outside of this realm, you just need to make a leap of faith.  I'm sure that REPUTABLE scientists on both sides of the debate will tell you whether or not it's human caused, action should be taken because of the potential downside.

I hope more people can take my view.  It's like smoking--by the time sufficient quantities of research has been done to show very strong links with cancer, many people are dead.

 And even now there's studies once in a while that show no correlation, and somehow, those articles will make it in the headlines.  On the other hand, sometimes there's one article that show that a certain type of food is carcinogenic and the public immediately eschews that item... and then that article turns out to be not trustworthy.  The public mind works in mysterious ways.  Sigh. 

That's actually true, there are scientiest, that does not accept the fact, that there is a global warming or that it's caused by humans. But as far as I know, no scientist who works on the field of climatology is in this group. So can you name a scientist, who is researching climate, that does not support the theorty of AGW?

By the way, it's pointless to provide links.  If it's something a link or two would convince someone, we would have decided on it one way or another.  ANY LINK can be argued to be biased, in this matter.  So it just leads to more pointless squabble.  Something like this you just need to read lots and lots and make a judgment yourself until the evidence is so strong that you can't refute it.

But again, I stress that it's more important to realize the DOWNSIDE to the possibility of 

AGW.

S. Fred Singer is an Atmospheric Physicist who is against the theory of AGW.  You can google his name if you'd like information on him.  He has a PhD in physics from Princeton.  This is just a quick example I already knew about.  I know there are others, but its late and I don't have time to give you more.  My point is that there are in fact scientists, in the field of climatology (or a related field) that do not agree with the "scientific concensus" lead by the IPCC reports.

1. Yes

2. All (to my knowledge) credible (and even not-so-credible) climate scientists believe it to be happening.

3. They're a bit too politicized, and, as will be explained below, they suffer from some of the same delusions that many other environmentalists labor under.

4. Proponents: In general, I think they're horribly misguided. The vast majority of people who believe in AGW also believe that we ought to be doing something (within our current capabilities) to stop it, which, we are informed by almost all projections, would take a hell of a lot more than anything that's been proposed so far. Even Kyoto was essentially worthless as climate policy, and nobody was able to accept the economic damages associated with it. We need new technologies and novel solutions to the problem (see the south pole carbon elevator in the latest Economist).

Opponents: Wrong, but not dangerously so. In my experience, they generally just attack the idea as a way of interfering with current climate policy, which is a worthwhile goal, as I see it (see above). If no one were saying that we need to sacrifice mind-bogglingly huge portions of GDP in order to stop AGW, then almost no one would be actively opposing the theory.