Colder winter and cooler summer, the global warming theory sounds like junk. What do you think?

To look at all of the things we put into the ground, air, and water and say you do not believe that human activity can cause climate change would be the same thing as saying that you do not believe that what you put into your body can effect your overall health.

I am completely confused as to why people are so against conservation efforts. If climate change is bunk, conservation efforts that get people thinking about how they use our resources aren't a bad thing. If climate change is real and we treat it like it isn't, we all die. The only people advantaged by ignoring climate science are corporations fighting regulations.

I love how the republicans say, "we're not scientists, so don't ask us about global warming".... then say there is no global warming, although 97% of climate researchers agree there is. The global warming deniers are on par with the 9/11 truthers and the birthers as being about as anti-intellectual as you can get.

Why, oh why are we still having these discussions.

Here are some facts:
Between 1940-1975 the earth cooled about 1/3 of a degree. Pollution and volcanic activity cause this by limiting the amount of sunlight getting through.
This led to paranoia about global cooling.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for roughly a quarter of 'the greenhouse effect.' Human activity accounts for roughly a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor, on the other hand, accounts for over 2/3 of the greenhouse effect.
Without 'the greenhouse effect,' the earth would be inhospitably cold.
Alarmist predictions are almost always wrong. For instance, Al Gore predicted the virtual extinction of Arctic Ice by 2016. Instead, Polar sea ice is healthy and growing.

We know that CO2 warms. We know that it is created by a myriad of sources. We have NO IDEA what impact human activity has.
We know that planetary weather goes in cycles.

Calls for reductions are usually draconian. The Kyoto accords, for instance, would have destroyed the world economy if we all would have signed on.

We cannot make dangerous changes that we don't even know will help in response to something we don't completely understand.

And the chicken-littles in the MCGW camp do themselves a disservice with their fear-mongering.

1SG Larry Everly When dealing with the Pro-AGW crowd, I want to pull my hair out! They do not knowing what they are talking about anymore than most who purport to understand any major field of Science.

First there is so much crossover in meanings. Not least of which is the use Global Warming which then become Climate Change. A political expediency used to make the topic more palatable. Politicians to get votes and impose sanctions without any real sense of what is involved.

Secondly, pollution does exist and it CAN affect the environment and it MUST be addressed and corrected. If anything just to make our air quality better and protect our national resources.

But here is the rub and the real part of this 'debate'. Physicians are not experts in this area but they do see the effects of pollution. Increased respiratory issues and disease.

However as we discuss this stuff, politics creep in. Talking points that are replete with political attacks on people who differ. So what is the larger issue and what can be done?

People with an agenda will marginalize each other, in effect saying, that 'deniers' are uneducated. Trust me, they are just as ignorant as they profess to be informed.

From a Meteorologist for over 30 years, I do get it. The fields of climatology and weather overlap. Science models for climatology have been based on Meteorological Models like the NGM, LFM, etc. If we are as bad as people say we are, then how much more unreliable are forecasts projected out to 50-100 years?

That is the point here. Politicians want to spend TRILLIONS of dollars based on a lot of anecdotal and limited empirical data sets. This is kind of like designing a space vehicle with your only tools being Business Math. In terms of cost that is okay but not for engineering.

Immediate corrections to pollution are necessary and alternate forms be found with regard to fossilized fuels. There are answers but not presumptions based on specious data without proper due diligence and peer review. MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca SSgt John Bratton

If you think 97% of expert scientific consensus is incorrect... then I have a great deal on a bridge I'd like to sell you.

1SG, it is junk "science". It's not so much that warming and cooling don't exist but more so the simple fallacy that it's man made, which is false. The earth has warmed and cooled through various stages of its existence or the past thousands of years.

The really funny thing is some people don't understand that one volcanic eruption does more damage to the earth than everything humans can do combined in one year. SMH!!!

Since we only have "Scientific Consensus" (the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study), I'll wait until we have "Facts", "Proofs", "Evidence", etc to make a decision.

Science is rarely settled. People revisit hypothesis and conclusions and reevaluate the conclusions that have been made on previous observations. How many times have we heard that after further study certain facts have been reevaluated upon obtaining new data with better technology. You have to look at the subject away from the tainting that occurs when politicians use it to prove their point, use it to argue against a point, and then the media delivers a halfassed interpretation of the data that may be one minor point of the study that they're covering. The best thing I can say is to look up the specific studies that are being cited and question the data and the methodology yourself, and don't take anyone else's opinion of what it means and determine the truth for yourselves.

Global warming is a figment of Al Gore's imagination.

IMHO we are dealing with scientific questions that can't be answered within the scope of a human lifetime. Based on science's explanation of repeated ice ages followed by "global warming" which led to our development as a species and civilization, I believe that global warming is reality. Mankind has collective meteorological data for what, a few hundred years while earth, in its present life sustaining form has existed for a few billion years? If global warming truly is a cycle, then this is the first one that modern man is experiencing and as CPT (Join to see) alluded too, who's to say that what we're putting into our atmosphere - things that never existed before man - is not affecting our climate? I tend to stick with Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is generally the correct one.