What is there to believe in? Scientific evidence shows that temperature has always shifted in the past, but it never has happened anywhere as rapid as it does now and have done since the takeoff of the industrial revolution. That is a scientific fact. What has not been directly scientific proven is that it is human made polution that creates it, but it is a fact that the curve of global warming excactly matches the curve of the industrial revolution. So you just have to connect the dots.

99.9% of scientists that says otherwise are on the payroll of big american (and international) coorperations who has an interrest in supressing this fact.

But what the hell, I refuse to believe in global warming. By the way, I also do not believe that nicotin is addictive and that smoking kills. After all, "I live under a rock."

or so organisations such as the IPCC would have you believe. i think you'll find that all this talk of "consensus" is pure twaddle. i bet you don't know how they arrived at claiming there is a "consensus", do you? there was a claimed consensus in the 1970's that "all the worlds climatolgists are agreed that we must prepare for the coming ice age". in reality, few scientists did. the ice age movement was a political movement, as is the current "global warming is due to mans activities" movement.
do some research as i have done, and you will see. don't believe everything you read and hear.

There's no one saying that Ice Ages never happened without human influence. You all are right saying that there's been an Ice Age some time before but that doesn't have anything to do with what is being proclaimed by the UN, for example.
The problem is not that the temperature is rising. The problem is the enormous speed at which this is happening. Of course, no one knows if all of these so called scientific proofs are right or if they are just a very big mistake which we can't yet find. But what if they are right and if there are ways to stop or slow down global warming?

Caused by man or not, it would benefit the progression of technology and society in general to develop energy sources not dependent on a finite supply fossil fuels.

I voted for live outside of the US and believe in Global Warming, its a doube-thought to believe that millions of tonnes of heat trapping gas can be released without making a different to the Earth's climate.

the temperature rose faster during the medieval warm period than it has in the 20th/21st century. thats one of the reasons why they had to get rid of the medieval warm period from the discredited michael mann graph.

also, the problem is that all the predictions of doom and gloom are ALL based on faulty computer models. computer models are like statistics in that they can be made to show exactly what the author of them wants them to show.
another problem with them is that much of the variability in climate science is still unknown. so what these scientists are saying is that because we can't explain the temperature rise, it must be man causing them. thats really really unscientific and really poor logic.

Graphs:

i get this graph:



also, conisider the fact that co2 increases lags temperature increases by about 800-1400 years. whats the time difference between the medieval warm period and the 20th century?

Hear, hear. Too many assumptions and too much propaganda. I resent people trying to get me all worked up about impending doom.

Make a bet, and after 50 years see who wins the bet

Extreme Coder

I think global warming is caused by humans although I believe it is possible that other factors such as the precession of the Earth are responsible as well.

I remember I first heard about global warming in 1966 or 1967 when I was in sixth grade, though the term I remember used was "greenhouse effect".

question: what made the temperatures goes down between 1942-1976 at a time when man made pollution was at its greatest?

The temperature fluctuates naturally. There was a mini ice age in Europe a few centuries ago. That is why I mentioned that in addition to man-made causes, there might be other causes of global warming such as the precession of the Earth. The Earth is not a sphere, it has a slight ellipse, so that as it precesses along its orbit around the sun, the cross section that is exposed to sunlight changes. I am no expert, but I think that could change the climate.

Thanks for that. I knew I wasn't smart enough to have been the first person to think of it

Now I know it has a name and someone already thought of it.

Just FYI pollution wasn't at its greatest during this time. During the 1970s we saw a huge increase in CO2 pollution much higher then during the 1950s and 60s.

But to answer your question you must first understand that CO2 isn't the only factor in the climate. CO2 has the effect that it makes the Earth warmer but other forms of pollution can cool down the earth. These forms of pollution are sulfur and particulates (aerosol). During this time period industry was very dirty and we actually saw a lot of sulfur and particulate pollution which temporarily caused a decrease in temperature. During the 70s new laws were passed (eg aerosol cans had to remove cfgs) and sulfur/particulate emissions were reduced, coupled with an increase in CO2 emissions, and temperatures have been rising at .2C/decade ever sense.



Btw it's pretty startling how many people "don't believe in global warming." Do people not realize that consensus on the level that we're talking about with climate science is only paralleled by evolution and only surpassed by the physical sciences? More scientists agree with global warming then just about any other issue, ever. Of course even more startling is the number of people who "don't believe in evolution." I guess education in the United States has been getting worse and people don't trust scientists as much anymore. Global warming and evolution are not matters of opinion, they are solid scientific facts. You cant just disagree because you don't like it.

It seems that many people trust politicians more than they trust science.
If a politician soothes their mind with the stuff they want to hear, people seem very willing to buy into what they are saying without proof.

Like Al Gore?

Oh, and consensus <> (evidence OR proof). And I am skeptical of the existence of "consensus" as well.

Yes, like Al and "W"