Isn't It Time We Recognised the Truth About Man-Made Global Warming?

[MasterOfNone]

A lot of new evidence, whistleblowers and dissenting voices from practising climatologists is showing just what every intelligent, discerning person suspected - the man-made global warming theory is non-scientific, politically motivated, and not scientifically sound...

VIDEO: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/453.html

[Viking Prince]

To get recognition -- you will first need to outline a plan for action. Part of the deal is laying down how to fix, what will the cost be, and who will pay. The developing world -- are they to be included or excluded. Agian the details matter.

[Bovril]

Attaking climatologists who say man influencees global temperatures as politcally motivated and bad scientists does more to discredit you than them. Disagree by all means, but when you start talking about 'political motivation' you start looking like a conspiracy nut.

[Plan C]

Ha! The evidence is not new.
In fact - we don't need scientific evidence to sense scam in "man made global warming". It's only a loose theory and yet seems to be enforced and defended more than catholicism in middle ages. All governments sensing quick buck here have rolled out the biggest guns and defend the theory with all ferocity.

Why? UK contribution to world's CO2 emissions is, frankly, laughable. Government findings tell you that UK's flight industry emits more than 15 poorest countries put together. Which are those? Read and weep: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Sierra Leone and Zambia. By the way, I challenge anybody to actually find reliable figures of UK's annual CO2 emissions compared to USA, China, Indonesia, Thailand or India.

Despite the fact that overwhelming majority of the public has no idea as to how much CO2 the UK actually produces they still follow whatever rubbish they're told. This year's car tax is scandalous and yet we pay it without question content that we've done "our bit".

Obviously, when it comes to real money, the government is not so keen to observe it's own environmental policies and thus has approved planned expansion of Heathrow and Stansted airports, despite staunch opposition from local residents and erstwhile-best-chums environmental groups. Talk about double flippin standards.

As for scientific stuff - IPCC has been proven to have bent facts when preparing it's initial findings in the form of the famous "hockey stick" graph.
It has been confirmed that if IPCC were a business enterprise, CEO would be behind bars for gross misconduct and fraud.
But what does that matter when political agenda is forcing another stance - recently the "hockey stick" has again been confirmed as accurate, despite crushing criticism from climatologists. Al Gore still won his Noble prize despite "Inconvenient Truth" being an obvious and even admitted manipulation.

Global warming phenomenon is like a speeding train and so many people rely on it these days to make a living or justify their positions, grants, transformation projects etc. that it's unlikely that it will be ultimately put to bed in the next decade.

People seem to be oblivious to the fact that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, in fact higher levels of CO2 positively affect agricultural output and that the warming of the climate is not in any shape or form as sinister as we're led to believe.

At the same time, Joe Bloggs the cretin, blissfully abandons REAL environmental issues - deforestation, shocking pollution of world's oceans and rivers, dwindling supplies of food and water in 3rd world etc.
And stills chucks empty plastic bottles in the street, why not.

I really wonder sometimes why we as societies are so narrow minded and selective in our concerns. What do you think the next big thing is going to be?

EDIT: Ha ha, just read your post Bovril and realised what you'll make of it but please do find a while and investigate, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

[MasterOfNone]

People believe what they want to believe and few seem to use any principles or look at actual evidence. They cannot even see their own internal contradictions because they so blindly follow the creed.

This is very sad.

[chamaeleo]

People believe what they want to believe and few seem to use any principles or look at actual evidence. They cannot even see their own internal contradictions because they so blindly follow the creed.

This is very sad.

So true...

Everything that you've said is contrary to what I've concluded from:

reading hundreds of scientific journal articles,
heard in ~100 climate-related Biology, Geology, and Physics talks,
and topical discussions debated in courses like: Global Systems, Evolutionary Ecology, Hydrogeochemistry, Waste Management, Environmental Legislation, Environmental Geography, etc...

The only faultlines within the scientific community, reflect politics and egos rather than actual data trends...the question of "if" has been dead for 10 years: we've all moved on to determining the implications, and mitigative actions.

Naysayers all have a personal interest, quite detached from the collective reality.

[Clouse123456]

So true...

Everything that you've said is contrary to what I've concluded from:

reading hundreds of scientific journal articles,
heard in ~100 climate-related Biology, Geology, and Physics talks,
and topical discussions debated in courses like: Global Systems, Evolutionary Ecology, Hydrogeochemistry, Waste Management, Environmental Legislation, Environmental Geography, etc...

The only faultlines within the scientific community, reflect politics and egos rather than actual data trends...the question of "if" has been dead for 10 years: we've all moved on to determining the implications, and mitigative actions.

Naysayers all have a personal interest, quite detached from the collective reality.

I think humans are soo arrogant to believe were going to be able to change the earth's warming and cooling periods.Think and adapt,that shuold be our strategy.Not shoot yourself in the foot and try to prevent the enevitable.Plus I could care less about the planet!

[DaVinci]

Ha! The evidence is not new.
In fact - we don't need scientific evidence to sense scam in "man made global warming". It's only a loose theory and yet seems to be enforced and defended more than catholicism in middle ages. All governments sensing quick buck here have rolled out the biggest guns and defend the theory with all ferocity.

Why? UK contribution to world's CO2 emissions is, frankly, laughable. Government findings tell you that UK's flight industry emits more than 15 poorest countries put together. Which are those? Read and weep: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Sierra Leone and Zambia. By the way, I challenge anybody to actually find reliable figures of UK's annual CO2 emissions compared to USA, China, Indonesia, Thailand or India.

Despite the fact that overwhelming majority of the public has no idea as to how much CO2 the UK actually produces they still follow whatever rubbish they're told. This year's car tax is scandalous and yet we pay it without question content that we've done "our bit".

Obviously, when it comes to real money, the government is not so keen to observe it's own environmental policies and thus has approved planned expansion of Heathrow and Stansted airports, despite staunch opposition from local residents and erstwhile-best-chums environmental groups. Talk about double flippin standards.

As for scientific stuff - IPCC has been proven to have bent facts when preparing it's initial findings in the form of the famous "hockey stick" graph.
It has been confirmed that if IPCC were a business enterprise, CEO would be behind bars for gross misconduct and fraud.
But what does that matter when political agenda is forcing another stance - recently the "hockey stick" has again been confirmed as accurate, despite crushing criticism from climatologists. Al Gore still won his Noble prize despite "Inconvenient Truth" being an obvious and even admitted manipulation.

Global warming phenomenon is like a speeding train and so many people rely on it these days to make a living or justify their positions, grants, transformation projects etc. that it's unlikely that it will be ultimately put to bed in the next decade.

People seem to be oblivious to the fact that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, in fact higher levels of CO2 positively affect agricultural output and that the warming of the climate is not in any shape or form as sinister as we're led to believe.

At the same time, Joe Bloggs the cretin, blissfully abandons REAL environmental issues - deforestation, shocking pollution of world's oceans and rivers, dwindling supplies of food and water in 3rd world etc.
And stills chucks empty plastic bottles in the street, why not.

I really wonder sometimes why we as societies are so narrow minded and selective in our concerns. What do you think the next big thing is going to be?

EDIT: Ha ha, just read your post Bovril and realised what you'll make of it but please do find a while and investigate, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

Bold part: Damn, i'm getting sick if i read such a trash ... please go and study at least for example physics.

And then, i hope you won't become a lobbyist of the electricity/oil/gas/automobile industry, because those scientists are (often) the ones who proclaim in pseudo-studies, that CO2 can't cause a global warming.

[Plan C]

Bold part: Damn, i'm getting sick if i read such a trash ... please go and study at least for example physics.

And then, i hope you won't become a lobbyist of the electricity/oil/gas/automobile industry, because those scientists are (often) the ones who proclaim in pseudo-studies, that CO2 can't cause a global warming.

Firstly, please, based on your obviously overwhelming knowledge of physics, explain to me how CO2 can be classed as a pollutant.
Admittedly my physics/chemistry might a be a little rusty but I know full well that carbon dioxide is NOT poisonous unless concentrated whereas it does cause blood acidosis due to lack of 02 (oxygen) in bloodstream. We're talking about concentration levels far beyond the typical 0.03% found in Earth's atmosphere.
If you wish to class CO2 as pollutant then please also concede that Earth's oceans and volcanic activity have been polluting Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Moreover, please understand that this "pollution" is what keeps plants alive.

Secondly - you seem to have closed the book on the whole subject and are plainly unwilling to discuss anything, instead you resort to patronising comments and are content in knowledge that you know it all. Sad.

Thirdly, I think everyone here understands that oil supplies are finite and that we MUST eventually become independent from fossil-based energy. This is a given. What I will never agree on is treating a theory as a fact. This is where we are. We have a theory, based on some evidence and on computer models. Scientific community is divided, however you slant it, there is also evidence contradicting the theory and yet you accept it and brand anyone not buying into it as a rotten lobbyst for oil industry. I mean come on, get a grip man. It's not a religion, we can and should discuss it before we spend billions which could be better spent.

On the side - don't be so bloody naiive, Tiberias. Scientific community is well know for it's radical nature. Whenever new theories are introduced, which overrule the previously established ones, death threats are routine. One archeologist even sent poisoned chocolates to a judge. Please remember that by now there are whole careeres and degrees based on global warming so don't expect scientists living off global warming to give up.

[DaVinci]

Marrow, you by all means wanna have a reply, ok, but only short ones: in red (no offence, but your tone is rather provoking (*marked words) to me, but i keep civil).

Firstly, please, based on your obviously overwhelming* knowledge of physics, explain to me how CO2 can be classed as a pollutant.
Admittedly my physics/chemistry might a be a little rusty but I know full well that carbon dioxide is NOT poisonous unless concentrated whereas it does cause blood acidosis due to lack of 02 (oxygen) in bloodstream. We're talking about concentration levels far beyond the typical 0.03% found in Earth's atmosphere. atmosphere: at least 0.04 % (Vol-% of our air!) means ca. 385 ppm (before the industry revolution 280 ppm), currently permanent in increasing ppm/year: "pollutant" of course especially in the definition as negative working greenhouse-gas! My former related comment was rather a fable, but in fact if CO2 wouldn't be a greenhouse-gas, then we would have a real problem in so-called sink-areas, and in fact there are (and existing) so-called CO2-seas possible, where no living is possible, imagine valleys. And, if the CO2 wouldn't be a greenhouse-gas (means of course also, provides our climate balance), it would be a theoretical scenario possible that in ie. well-isolated rooms (or just in every sink-areas, ie. the oceans), O2-dependent creatures would die immediately; see also coal industry accidents how fast it can happen that the relevant percentage increases and provides dead, as example. CO2 is deadly from on 8 % (Vol-%). So imagine, not the whole atmosphere air volumen, but ie. 2 meters up from earthground air-volumen is filled with all the available (because in fact heavier than air) CO2 of our atmosphere, so if CO2 wouldn't be a pollutant, then it would just lay on the ground air volumen and could be a for us/our creatures a threat -> my fable has been an exagerated picture, yes, therefor i've put the smiley, right. And do not think that plants/organisms can take all this CO2, there is a certain balance needed.
If you wish(?) to class CO2 as pollutant then please also concede that Earth's oceans and volcanic activity have been polluting Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Moreover, please understand that this "pollution" is what keeps plants alive. I don't "wish". ...read my posts again, all of them, mate. I explained that the CO2 is needed for our biological life, thus makes life first possible.

Secondly - you seem to have closed the book on the whole subject and are plainly* unwilling to discuss anything, instead you resort to patronising* comments and are content in knowledge that you know it all. Sad.
... because those GB "facts" are consenus by 90 % certainty regading the scenarios, based of the results of the most known experts in this departement, and based of models and measures, and neutrally triple-checked (and not influenced by lobbyists here). Again, there is no government anymore (even the most industries incl. oil/-related etc. don't deny that), that deny the results, and go longer with "burning fossil fuels is good for the environment" ... perhaps you are an american?, they are 10 years back compared to the EU consensus btw.. And yes, there is nothing really to discuss for me, because it is long time to act, and not to discuss here on TWC with anti-GB people, who no matter what aren't able to learn or/and understand physics or renew their reactionary thinking.

Thirdly, I think everyone here understands that oil supplies are finite and that we MUST eventually become independent from fossil-based energy. This is a given. What I will never agree on is treating a theory as a fact. This is where we are correct, it's time to act, and not stay still. We have a theory, based on some evidence and on computer models. Scientific community is divided, however you slant* it, there is also evidence contradicting the theory and yet you accept it and brand anyone not buying into it as a rotten lobbyst for oil industry. I mean come on, get a grip* man. It's not a religion*, we can and should discuss it before we spend billions which could be better spent.
No, not a religion, but physics. ... (get a grip by yourself), mate, learn nature-science to discuss the things on a higher niveau

On the side - don't be so bloody naiive, Tiberias. Scientific community is well know for it's radical nature. Whenever new theories are introduced, which overrule the previously established ones, death threats are routine. One archeologist even sent poisoned chocolates to a judge. Please remember that by now there are whole careeres and degrees based on global warming so don't expect scientists living off global warming to give up.
"End is near-scientists" lol ... rather the (yellow) media take such threats on their sites ... and just laughable points to be honest, cheap arguments by the anti-GB movement, and dirty insulting by people who don't understand how science-work and following progess functions (or just seeing any kind of conspiracy? lol). Following your philosophy would mean eventually, that we should release CO2 no matter what (because ie. it serves plants to grow), and forbid the IPCC because they are a threat for the human race and overall life and better even forbid the UNO because they are all gangsters, plus probably all nature-scientists must proof their results to every citizen personally before it can get a public value and provokes anyway only evil hystery
Btw., those scientists you are speaking of are high paid professionals in their own real life in universities and other science institutions ... so you think, they live from GB ...lol. There are enough other science-themes aside to GB theme where they earn money from. The whole crap of "GB supported industries" doesn't work: Solar energy tech, heating tech and insular building/construction tech etc., incl. energy saving cars is based on the high and permanent increasing costs of the energy that we all use, thus to save energy = save money. The normal citizen gives a damn on the GB threat, this is even valid for the EU people. But he ("the man on the street") understands, that energy costs good money, and thus has indeed a high value which we shouldn't waste, more and more at least.

Here is a site: http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html
... linked to an essay about CO2, still from 2006. It might be worth for you to read it as first little appetizer?

Additional explanations to CO2 as so-called pollutant: ( rather young schoolkid niveau lol )

CO2 as atmospheric "pollutant":
For the full thing how CO2 functions as "pollutant" in its role as (also negative) greenhouse-gas, if the atmospheric natural balance is out of order, you can research after the science-reports of scientists, or after pure physics-sources about the greenhouse-effect.
Short: It has to do with the CO2 molecular-structure (ability) of absorbing certain parts of the earth heatradiation-household -> save this heat in the atmospheric greenhouse gas mixture -> keeps back higher percentages of the relevant parts of the earth heatradiation-amount in the atmosphere -> causes the unwished (antropogenic) greenhouse effect and thus the global warming.

Why CO2 is now a threat as "pollutant":
Because we have obviously increased the atmosphere-concentration by ca. a 1/3: the ca. normal earth atmosphere balance level 280 ppm -> now ca. 385 ppm ... and increasing volume-% with ca. 2 ppm/year, the release is still completely unstopped.

And once more here to make it clear: CO2 is roughly a 33% volumen-factor of the natural greenhouse effect within the atmosphere greenhouse effect gases, water vapor roughly 66 %.
Now ... still you think the little ppm's more cannot cause trouble for the natural balanced greenhouse effect?

Makeup your mind, could also say 'wakeup', the culprit is obvious (unless you come and say just plain: the whole basis of this is crap, and all these dates are nothing worth, because they are rough guesses, no evidence at all).


... as it is with every thing: too much is too much, and this happens with CO2 in the atmosphere in the same way as with every other thing, due to our human-society energy wasting behaviour, the atmospheric balance is disturbed. Thus it is called "antropogenic" greenhouse gas (what is far better than "pollutant"), and so it gets just the stigmata as "pollutant" in this role. Only in this role i see CO2 as pollutant, what should be rather self-explainable in the frame of this theme here. And you, you try to implicate within this theme, that CO2 is a "healer" for the plants, it seemed so in your by me commented post (this is, what makes me sick, or at least in reality provokes my "rude" re-comment).

The CO2 itself isn't guilty/responsible as "pollutant", but we are (industry nations), so we could also call our selves: pollutants ... humans = pollutants

Link to the function greenhouse effect + carbon cycle with explaining graphics:
http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...items/2903.php



--
As usual "pollutant" in our life, examples: ( added, perhaps some people don't know that )
In burning houses, people die of the high CO/CO2 smoke/air-content mainly (besides other gases of course) quickly, in the moment if the needed O2 isn't available, and do not die because they burn.
In rooms without enough air-refreshing, people get the so-called 'sick-building-syndrom', mainly a too high concentration of CO2 is then the cause = too less O2 (ie. a heartache is a first sign for this).
In certain deeper laying rooms (ie. especially wine-lager), people can die immediatly of the absence of enough O2 due to CO2.
Deep carves can be deadly due to the absence of O2 caused by CO2.

[Nouvelle Vague]

By saying the model I just mean the set of fundamental calculations. I'm generalising a bit here obviously. If any one of these calculations is even so much as slightly out, it can skew the results massively. Thing is, every different model will likely be based on these calculations, so if that's flawed (even in one tiny miniscule way), the results will likely be wrong.

Thing with sunspots is no-one can completely explain them or their consequences. Sure you can look at a graph and say theres no correlation, but that doesn't mean they're not linked. Basic intiution tells me that a big flaming mass of hydrogen effects our planet more than adding a few parts per million CO2, and since we don't completely understand that big flaming mass of hydrogen, we can't rule it out.

Thing is, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. We've both seen the evidence and made up our own minds, as it comes down to an opinion rather than something clear cut. You may think i'm just trying to wriggle out of the debate, but it's just that we'll just sling our views back at each other and not get anywhere, because the fundamental difference is I think we can't predict the climate, and you beileve we can, and that won't change.

I understand your point. There is a substantial amount of further research needed and underway into the effects of sunspots. But a lot of that research is looking at how they have affected the climate and global warming in the past. Eg the transitions between ice ages ect. The main conciseness is that sunspot or high levels of UV warming coupled with the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by volcanoes or natural deposits (triggered by the warming) have caused such increased heating effect. This said with the technology available, it’s been noted the present time no such higher or higher than normal activity has occurred, if anything possibly less. Thus it brings into the question the effects and amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere while we don’t have any massive volcanoes active contently. As it was the case during times between the ice ages.

You underline the fact that it’s very difficult to predict the weather and its relation to chaos theory. This is very true but I’d say with my own forecast they generally get it right in terms of Sun’s impact and UV levels each day. Human have been forecasting the weather for some 600 years, I would like to think we’ve become relatively proficient at it.

So my own opinion is if we have the resources available why not limit our own footprint on the environment? When it’s been fundamentally proven that our earth is warming at unnatural levels given our current CO2 output compared to what we have seen just 150 years ago. Taking the amount of natural global warming affects into consideration, compared to the man made portion it’s easy to see how unnaturally the earth has warmed. I think there is a interesting David Attenborough short doco with some recognized British scientists. I’ll see if I can dig up.

Firstly, please, based on your obviously overwhelming knowledge of physics, explain to me how CO2 can be classed as a pollutant.
Admittedly my physics/chemistry might a be a little rusty but I know full well that carbon dioxide is NOT poisonous unless concentrated whereas it does cause blood acidosis due to lack of 02 (oxygen) in bloodstream. We're talking about concentration levels far beyond the typical 0.03% found in Earth's atmosphere.
If you wish to class CO2 as pollutant then please also concede that Earth's oceans and volcanic activity have been polluting Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Moreover, please understand that this "pollution" is what keeps plants alive.

Very true, but such human actions on the environment have only just been seen in the last hundred years or so. We don’t have volcanoes erupting everywhere so why add to the natural level of CO2 when it’s been shown that temperatures rise to abnormal rates and level because of our own actions?

Plus the fact that we're cutting down something like 4 stadium sized blocks of forest from the Amazon daily and not planting too much more, doesn’t really help either.

On the side - don't be so bloody naiive, Tiberias. Scientific community is well know for it's radical nature. Whenever new theories are introduced, which overrule the previously established ones, death threats are routine. One archeologist even sent poisoned chocolates to a judge. Please remember that by now there are whole careeres and degrees based on global warming so don't expect scientists living off global warming to give up.

I don’t, I just question those who quietly take money from ExxonMobil and still consider themselves credible. If anything because of the reason that there has been such a consensus lately that those who put themselves on the opposite scale are instantly thrust into the public spotlight, put on documentaries and right wing sites glorifying their own opinions just on the fact that they oppose the common view. A lot of such views and theories are flawed anyways, if you simpley read what the argument is.

A lot of the worry is that this is going to cost an immense amount of money, certainly not true. Just look at emissions trading schemes already employed in Europe and soon to be Australia. This misunderstanding has fueled such a debate of those who completely refuse for an economy to suffer because of it. But the fact is without proper action the economy with see far more damaged than if we don't take action for a far far smaller price tag, if one at all.

For so long human have unconscientiously raped Earths natural resources, I think it’s about time we gave something back.

[Richard]

Ha! The evidence is not new.
In fact - we don't need scientific evidence to sense scam in "man made global warming". It's only a loose theory and yet seems to be enforced and defended more than catholicism in middle ages. All governments sensing quick buck here have rolled out the biggest guns and defend the theory with all ferocity.

Why? UK contribution to world's CO2 emissions is, frankly, laughable. Government findings tell you that UK's flight industry emits more than 15 poorest countries put together. Which are those? Read and weep: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Sierra Leone and Zambia. By the way, I challenge anybody to actually find reliable figures of UK's annual CO2 emissions compared to USA, China, Indonesia, Thailand or India.

Despite the fact that overwhelming majority of the public has no idea as to how much CO2 the UK actually produces they still follow whatever rubbish they're told. This year's car tax is scandalous and yet we pay it without question content that we've done "our bit".

Obviously, when it comes to real money, the government is not so keen to observe it's own environmental policies and thus has approved planned expansion of Heathrow and Stansted airports, despite staunch opposition from local residents and erstwhile-best-chums environmental groups. Talk about double flippin standards.

As for scientific stuff - IPCC has been proven to have bent facts when preparing it's initial findings in the form of the famous "hockey stick" graph.
It has been confirmed that if IPCC were a business enterprise, CEO would be behind bars for gross misconduct and fraud.
But what does that matter when political agenda is forcing another stance - recently the "hockey stick" has again been confirmed as accurate, despite crushing criticism from climatologists. Al Gore still won his Noble prize despite "Inconvenient Truth" being an obvious and even admitted manipulation.

Global warming phenomenon is like a speeding train and so many people rely on it these days to make a living or justify their positions, grants, transformation projects etc. that it's unlikely that it will be ultimately put to bed in the next decade.

People seem to be oblivious to the fact that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, in fact higher levels of CO2 positively affect agricultural output and that the warming of the climate is not in any shape or form as sinister as we're led to believe.

At the same time, Joe Bloggs the cretin, blissfully abandons REAL environmental issues - deforestation, shocking pollution of world's oceans and rivers, dwindling supplies of food and water in 3rd world etc.
And stills chucks empty plastic bottles in the street, why not.

I really wonder sometimes why we as societies are so narrow minded and selective in our concerns. What do you think the next big thing is going to be?

EDIT: Ha ha, just read your post Bovril and realised what you'll make of it but please do find a while and investigate, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

Pretty much agree with this. Sure, err on the side of caution with the global warming thing, but there's probably not a whole lot we can do about it now that it's started, whether it's man-made or not. The concerns you mentioned have a much higher 'action-to-good outcome' ratio.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALAALA all you want, when the Atlantic ocean is on your doorstep you'll stop all this crap

[HansDuet]

keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALAALA all you want, when the Atlantic ocean is on your doorstep you'll stop all this crap

Reduce the co2 as much as you want. You aint gonna do a difference.

[Каие]

NO, Sarah Palin [along with 1/4 of the US population and all the fools who follow her] says so.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

If I remember correctly, the vast majority of scientific institutions worldwide back man-made global warming. I think I'll go with them, thxbai.

[JP226]

NO, Sarah Palin [along with 1/4 of the US population and all the fools who follow her] says so.

your country aint too hot on the idea either. About 60% aren't convinced it's man made.

[Каие]

your country aint too hot on the idea either. About 60% aren't convinced it's man made.

Well. No, that's not quite right.

Guardian

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change'

They agreed [wrongly] that many scientists still contest it. They did not agree with their view.

Also this is significant.

Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.

This one contradicts it though, and shows the vast majority of the world agrees with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7010522.stm

[Ummon]

Global warming = obvious consequence of pollution

It makes so much sense and there is so much evidence that if I wasn't overly cautious with every assertion, I would say it is a pure fact.

[JP226]

Well. No, that's not quite right.

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'.