I read a chemical engineering trade magazine the other week.

Really was quite interesting they broke down the evidence for global warming... and all the actual conflicting evidence otherwise and came to the conclusion that there really isn't enough evidence to support it...

Yet they might as well go for it since chemical engineers tend to make a lot more by coming up with new ways to go about things.

Also Gold Nanites will probably be the new treatment for cancer.

It was the June issue i believe.  I'd guess it's not the same magazine though it did mention the ACS.

I mean... these are chemical engineer scientists.  These guys want stuff to research. 

1) Well people are being lied to on a giant scale...

2) A number of the solutions wouldn't be beneficial to the world... the renewable energies and solar energy and the like is good.  However the short term massive conservation, taxes and raised energy prices will be a giant problem for people.

Increasing energy costs dramatically will increase food costs dramatically... and the REAL biggest problem that nobody is talking about is the global food crisis... numbers were bad before the global economic crisis... i can only imagine how bad they are now.

Additionally an international cap and trade program will encourage third world dictators to deprive there people even more since they'll be able to sell their extra cap to America and Europe to get their "fix".

3)  If global climate change isn't man made that would indicate it was natural.  That doesn't make things better.  That actually makes things worse since it means there isn't anything we can do about it currently.  Which means we'd need to figure out exterior methods of climate control or come up with ways to adapt.

Both which are venues of research being completly ignored currently.

@Kasz216:

Increasing energy costs are not necessarily a bad thing, in fact the earlier they increase the better, to smooth out the bad consequences of the inevitably high prices in the future. Too much energy is wasted today, high prices early can spark conservation.

Your other points make sense though.

Uh.... no.

The ACS is mostly research based.

If anything they'd rather beleive global warming because it'd give them plenty more stuff to research.

That's the thing.  We can't afford high prices now due to the global food crisis.

Infact the UN has called on the US and EU to stop there ethanol programs because it's greatly inflating the global prices for food... both by depriving farmland of food and energy costs by certain regulations that a certain amount of ethanol be used.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_26616.shtml

Seriously... it's already... just horrible.  We need to find a way to get a handle on that before we intentionally inact measures that will make the problem worse.   The world food bank is at like half power.

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1023723

Not to mention everyone is getting more protectionist which hurts farmers that aren't part of the US, EU and China making them able to grow less...  the whole thing is just nasty and getting worse but nobody wants to hear about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502293.html

The food crisis is worrying, but you know what... it's inevitable, so maybe the earlier it happens, the better. As long as it puts a lid on overpopulation which is the real cause of much of the world's problems.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if everyone was well fed, but the fact that we humans breed like yeast means a catastrophe is coming anyway, maybe it will be smaller if it comes earlier.

Just maybe.

A few things here.

1) People only "breed like yeast" in developing nations.   The more developed and "smart" a nation is the more people decide to not have children.  If the world were developed this likely wouldn't be an issue.  So really it may be something that isn't needed at all as we move foward.

2) It's not like there isn't enough food... the problem is energy costs, transportation and speculation mostly.  We could be supporting way more people.

1) Is it reasonably possible to get the whole world to a standard where the population is maintained or decreasing, on a reasonable timeframe?

2) Energy costs will be increasing for quite a while no matter what. According to most studies on peak oil, the peak is coming in the next 10 years (though the recession could delay this somewhat...).

It will take a long time to replace oil with other energy sources (see the Hirsch report), I worry about what will happen in the meantime. Food is very energy intensive to produce, and the infrastructure to do it without oil simply doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure a "benevolent dictator" of the world could solve quite a lot of these problems if he/she had the power to do things in the most efficient and rational way possible, but realistically speaking I think the momentum to go in the wrong direction is (and has been) way too high. Humans in general are too short/medium-term oriented, and the political class which has most of the power even more so.

I believe the 21st century will be an exciting time to live in... just not necessarily in a good way.

I agree.

In all honestly I believe the best option is to heavily research alternative fuels... however do little currently to implement them until the research is done and the costs are low enough to implement.

While telling the people "This is needed for these reasons" and tell people you know.  The reasonable fear mongering of stuff that is going to happen.  Like peak oil.

Not something that doesn't have enough research done on it.  With a "consensus" being pushed partly for other means, and partly "just in case."

I mean the truth is... there isn't any great way to measure average global tempeture.  We've finally come up with a halfway decent one using Sattelites but the problem is... we just started getting reliable data in that from like... 1990.

Nowhere near enough time to have reliable data.

Please, speak for yourself.  Just because you have not and will not put the effort into learning about these things does not mean that others feel the same way. As for what we can do here and now - at the very least the best you and I can do is avoid ad hominem as it is a poor method of arguing ones point - and that is putting it rather nicely.

You did not "just point out the source of the protest", you also declared a man who has made contributions to this field to be a kook without so much as a shred of support for the statement.  Something that is considered to be extremely poor form and counterproductive to open and honest discussion and debate.  Hence my strong reply.

As for your last paragraph, I would agree that this has nothing to do with Science for the politicians but it should have everything to do with science for those who actually care about a legitimate result and not progressing an ideology regardless of validity. 

Science is (and should), by its very nature be accessible for everyone willing to put forth the effort to understand - an example of this for me is theoretical physics.  I have put tremendous effort into reading about that subject as well and have gained a tremendous insight into modern theories from the works and books of people like Penrose, Greene, Witten, Laughlin, etc.... This complex study and its vast information are available to those who wish to pursue it. Most of this knowledge demands a deathgrip command of mathematics that most never even attempt to learn.... And yet I know enough to hold down my end of a conversation quite well with profressors and students who are studying this information.  The fact that your argument amounts to "I do not understand it and therefor neither do you." is telling of your level of knowledge but it is extremely presumptious of mine. 

By your own argument how would you even know whether I know enough to be able to comment with any weight?  If you know so little then who are you to tell others they also fail to meet the standards?  Does Al Gore meet these standards or is his movie also to be ignored simply because he does not have a degree? 

I have an idea to resolve this...how about we let everyone who wishes to say something make their points and let the debate sort out who knows their stuff and who is talking out of their ass?  This is what is known as a scientific debate - there is no restriction on who is aloud to speak beyond each person knowing that by choosing to speak you should know your stuff or you will find yourself being torn to shreds rather quickly.  To treat uncredentialed opinions with an additional dose of scrutiny and skepticism is perfectly acceptable...but to silence opposition completely is not science.  It is "Shut up because we are doing this my way!".  You might support such arguments but I most certainly do not.