Do you believe in global warming?

@BSw said:

@9cupsoftea said:

Fucking hell. Global warming is not something to 'believe'. It's something that's happening, it's a fact. This is like asking 'do you believe in oxygen?'.

There you go, discussion's over. How the hell you can even look at the subject as something to 'believe' in is beyond me. It's happening, it's man-made (by far most of what we've been experiencing during the last decades is, at least), and we need to be very thankful for the people that are researching, innovating, and investing heavily in the subject despite the vast army of idiots (fronted by some very rich Americans) actively yelling at the media that it's 'a hoax'. And the media just cover whatever topic is interesting without any responsibility, so that this looks like a 50-50 game to the uninformed public, which it isn't. As someone else in this topic already mentioned: if all of us would be like those idiots, we would indeed be a doomed race.

Perhaps it should have been asked as "solely man-made global warming". Most people believe that global climate change is occurring, but there is a lot of skepticism over the extent to which human beings are impacting that. So, whether they're the main driving force or just a contributing factor. And regardless of how they feel, most people do support more environmentally-friendly policies.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@runnah555

Man also thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Take that into consideration.

After 9/11, the earth warmed 2 degrees on average because those streams that planes leave behind are good reflectors. The earth is measurably warmer and that's not up for debate.

Not sure I understand the first sentence.

@TruthTellah said:

Significant global climate change is occurring. The extent to which that is guided by mankind's actions is questionable, but it's certainly a factor. And regardless of its true level of influence on what is occurring, we should be making more efforts to limit our negative impact on the environment.

Yeah, this is a silly question because global warming is actually happening. The controversy is whether humans have caused it or not. I had a chemistry prof. who wasn't convinced that humans were causing it because there wasn't much evidence at the time, but now ~7 years later, a lot more evidence has come out, and I'm willing to bet he's more on the side of humans causing it.

I can't believe that this issue is so highly politicized. First, let's be accurate: It's called climate change. When Some place receives record snowfall this winter, it will be easy to say "IN YO FACE GLOBULL WARMING!" But the truth is that the changes in Earth's climate will be different in different regions. Climate change is real, and is happening. Anyone who denies it does so for political reasons, or has been blinded by politics.

@CatsAkimbo said:

@TruthTellah said:

Significant global climate change is occurring. The extent to which that is guided by mankind's actions is questionable, but it's certainly a factor. And regardless of its true level of influence on what is occurring, we should be making more efforts to limit our negative impact on the environment.

Yeah, this is a silly question because global warming is actually happening. The controversy is whether humans have caused it or not. I had a chemistry prof. who wasn't convinced that humans were causing it because there wasn't much evidence at the time, but now ~7 years later, a lot more evidence has come out, and I'm willing to bet he's more on the side of humans causing it.

We also can't discount how other factors can take even minimal influence and make it into something worse, or a certain level of influence can push a bad situation to be even worse. So, even when discussing whether human beings are significantly or even minimally impacting global climate change, both possibilities could have a major impact. We see that it is happening, we know something is at least some kind of a factor, and that's enough to inspire us to try to change that. It's like seeing that someone is sick and detecting that they have a bad infection. Maybe that infection is or isn't the biggest cause of their symptoms, but you know it's a problem that must be addressed either way.

@TruthTellah said:

@BSw said:

@9cupsoftea said:

Fucking hell. Global warming is not something to 'believe'. It's something that's happening, it's a fact. This is like asking 'do you believe in oxygen?'.

There you go, discussion's over. How the hell you can even look at the subject as something to 'believe' in is beyond me. It's happening, it's man-made (by far most of what we've been experiencing during the last decades is, at least), and we need to be very thankful for the people that are researching, innovating, and investing heavily in the subject despite the vast army of idiots (fronted by some very rich Americans) actively yelling at the media that it's 'a hoax'. And the media just cover whatever topic is interesting without any responsibility, so that this looks like a 50-50 game to the uninformed public, which it isn't. As someone else in this topic already mentioned: if all of us would be like those idiots, we would indeed be a doomed race.

Perhaps it should have been asked as "solely man-made global warming". Most people believe that global climate change is occurring, but there is a lot of skepticism over the extent to which human beings are impacting that. So, whether they're the main driving force or just a contributing factor. And regardless of how they feel, most people do support more environmentally-friendly policies.

Well, in that case the answer would obviously be 'no', because it's not solely man-made. However, if we assume that you mean 'what we are currently talking about and worried about', then yes, it's man-made. What all the exact results will be is of course extremely hard to calculate (it can't be more than a prediction), but almost all scientists involved agree that it will be a problem if nothing happens. Thankfully, more and more things are happening, but given the seriousness of the issue, I find it ridiculous that there are people telling others that it doesn't exist just because they don't like the results of it.

@BoG said:

I can't believe that this issue is so highly politicized. First, let's be accurate: It's called climate change. When Some place receives record snowfall this winter, it will be easy to say "IN YO FACE GLOBULL WARMING!" But the truth is that the changes in Earth's climate will be different in different regions. Climate change is real, and is happening. Anyone who denies it does so for political reasons, or has been blinded by politics.

Climates are changing yes but the Earth as a whole is still getting hotter as a whole on average, so global warming is still accurate.

no cuz im 'merican. fuck al gore

@wewantsthering said:

I think the debate is more about what is causing it and whether humans or just natural events are causing it.

Except that's not under debate either, there's extensive evidence (and has been for several years) that humans are causing it. Nature is not farting out increasing levels of CO2, nature is not causing mass deforestation, nature is not causing exponential strains on vegetation and natural minerals due to overpopulation and consumption.

We're just going to make half-arsed excuses until the planet is inhospitable, aren't we?

Yes, because the evidence that it's real, begot by the scientific method, is strong.

@AlexanderSheen said:

I believe I can fly

I believe I can touch the sky

I think about it every night and day

Spread my wings and fly away.

I believe in a thing called love

Just listen to the rhythm of my heart

There's a chance we could make it now

We'll be rocking til the sun goes down

I believe in a thing called love

People are only questioning its existence because they'd rather be ignorant and continue you living their lives the same way rather than have to change it for the greater good of the planet.

The debate isn't if it actually exists, because it does. The debate is whether we humans are contributing to it or not (and to what degree....ect).

Believing in facts...lol

I voted yes, cuz science. Also, when scientists are telling me one thing and a bunch of politicians start telling me the opposite, then I know which side is lying.

@pyromagnestir said:

@AlexanderSheen said:

I believe I can fly

I believe I can touch the sky

I think about it every night and day

Spread my wings and fly away.

I believe in a thing called love

Just listen to the rhythm of my heart

There's a chance we could make it now

We'll be rocking til the sun goes down

I believe in a thing called love

You can try to smoke an ounce to this

While I pronounce this shit

Baby bounce them tits

Mama move them hips

Baby shake them cheeks

I got dick for days

You got ass for weeks

(Am I doing this right?)

Edit: on topic, there is no controversy for global warming other than those who think so that also happen to be blind to the scientific method.

@BSw said:

@TruthTellah said:

@BSw said:

@9cupsoftea said:

Fucking hell. Global warming is not something to 'believe'. It's something that's happening, it's a fact. This is like asking 'do you believe in oxygen?'.

There you go, discussion's over. How the hell you can even look at the subject as something to 'believe' in is beyond me. It's happening, it's man-made (by far most of what we've been experiencing during the last decades is, at least), and we need to be very thankful for the people that are researching, innovating, and investing heavily in the subject despite the vast army of idiots (fronted by some very rich Americans) actively yelling at the media that it's 'a hoax'. And the media just cover whatever topic is interesting without any responsibility, so that this looks like a 50-50 game to the uninformed public, which it isn't. As someone else in this topic already mentioned: if all of us would be like those idiots, we would indeed be a doomed race.

Perhaps it should have been asked as "solely man-made global warming". Most people believe that global climate change is occurring, but there is a lot of skepticism over the extent to which human beings are impacting that. So, whether they're the main driving force or just a contributing factor. And regardless of how they feel, most people do support more environmentally-friendly policies.

Well, in that case the answer would obviously be 'no', because it's not solely man-made. However, if we assume that you mean 'what we are currently talking about and worried about', then yes, it's man-made. What all the exact results will be is of course extremely hard to calculate (it can't be more than a prediction), but almost all scientists involved agree that it will be a problem if nothing happens. Thankfully, more and more things are happening, but given the seriousness of the issue, I find it ridiculous that there are people telling others that it doesn't exist just because they don't like the results of it.

Unfortunately, we also can't discount how it has been used politically for and against it. So, you have people using it as an excuse to expand government power, and then you have those using opposition to it to expand their own base. It's like the reality that terrorists are a problem, but how governments respond to the problem can either be legitimate or just used as an excuse to rile up their base(aka. vote for us or the world will end!) or to expand their authority(aka. We need to take over this industry to stop this problem). Politicians the world over abuse issues for their own end. Thus, you get situations where people of another Party might oppose a reasonable position just based on the other Party championing it, and global climate change has definitely been used as a political football like that.

And sometimes you get opposition because people promoting action on the issue may be extreme and sully the legitimacy of an issue. For example, I met a man who was very alarmist on global warming, and he advocated for sterilizing poor people and taking over all private business to save the planet. It was nuts, and it unfortunately made supporting reasonable action on lessening our negative impact on the environment more difficult to do when he was around. And that was a college professor I knew years ago. Plus, even a good friend of mine recently suggested that all criminals in the world should be killed so that we as a society don't waste resources on them. People have an odd extremism regarding something that should be pretty straightforward. And you have that on a larger scale, with politicians propping it up as a campaign issue with the suggestion that any opposition to their proposed ideas or Party means you want the world to end.

People commonly decry those who deny that mankind is having a direct impact on global climate change, but we must also seriously consider why that is. A lot of it has more to do with culture and politics than some people just being idiots, as is so commonly suggested. Extremely intelligent people are opposed to the idea, often based more on those who push for lessening our impact on the environment than them not being able to understand the science of it. People aren't just ignorant masses. There are bigger factors impacting their positions than just their understanding of science. As long as we simply marginalize others as fools, we miss out on the real opportunities to inform and gain common ground. If you ask people, "Do you believe in global warming?", you're going to get a lot of no's, as people have so many different interpretations of what that even means. If you ask people, "Do you believe human beings may be having a negative impact on the environment?", you're going to find scores more people willing to agree with that, and amongst those who agree with that, you can ask, "Do you think we should do more to lessen that impact and protect the environment?" To which most will generally agree.

People are rarely as dim as we make them out to be, and as long as we think it's an intelligence problem over a cultural and political problem, we're ignoring the real crux of why getting action on improved environmental policy is so difficult.

@Castermhief117:

All the things that you listed with numbers, except 1, are not facts that support as you say "warming is happening and is man-made" these are only facts that support that warming is happening not the man-made part. Pretty much everything you say later supports you statement better.

Also I think there is something missing from your simple explanation on the science behind global warming. You say Earth reflects infrared light which is later absorbed by the big gas molecules, shouldn't that infrared light by absorbed when is entering Earth? Is there something I'm missing?

I know global warming is real and I "believe" man has something to do with it, but I don't know it for sure because of details like the ones I just mentioned. Anyway like some guy said already I don't it would hurt if as humankind we try to lower our gas emissions and there are plenty of other more direct and simple effects that can be diminished by lowering CO2.

@Ben_H: You have to believe to make it work.

Global warming is real, but that doesnt mean its man made.

@Milkman said:

There's nothing to believe. Global warming is a fact.

This

Does anyone believe in.. the moon?

yes, i believe in it but think little bit of it being exaggerated. last year it snowed in october. it was terrible since we weren't ready for the snow. it never snows in october. it was warmer than usual in december and january. we barely had any snow.

@dennisthemennis said:

I voted yes, cuz science. Also, when scientists are telling me one thing and a bunch of politicians start telling me the opposite, then I know which side is lying.

Politicians (and business) have a reason to lie - self interest.

Scientists have no reason to lie, they only deal with fact without fear or favour.

So yes, I believe the scientists (hardly any of them disagree now). It is a no-brainer really.

Visit Houston during this time of year and tell me theres no global warming. Fuck this heat and humidity MAN.

@RandomHero666 said:

@Milkman said:

There's nothing to believe. Global warming is a fact.

This

Does anyone believe in.. the moon?

It may seem like a fact to you, but that depends on your definition of the term. How you see it may be a fact, but how others see it may not. Unfortunately, "global warming" means a lot of things to a lot of people. We can't assume that everyone thinks exactly like we do.

To some, global warming means a solely man-made heating of the Earth that will end all life as we know it. To others, it means a solely man-made heating of the Earth that will negatively affect the environment in the long term. It can also mean a natural process made worse by human influence that could destroy the Earth. Or a mostly man-made environmental crisis wherein we may all boil to death. Or just a general idea that human beings have a negative impact on the environment. Or the general observation that the earth's oceans are heating up for whatever reason.

People wrongfully assume every single person understands the concept exactly as they do, and that simply isn't reality. "Global warming" is horribly segmented in its meaning no matter how clear we personally think it is. So, when asked straight out, many will agree and disagree with "Do you believe in global warming?" when they may actually believe the opposite of what people interpret their answer to be. When the question is changed to "Do you believe the world's climate is changing?", most will agree. When you ask "Do you believe human beings are having a negative impact on the environment?", most will agree. Yet, when you ask them about "global warming", they'll give you all kinds of answers.

People aren't just idiots who don't "believe" in a scientific observation. They're people disagreeing on a rather abused and awkward term that means different things to many different people. More people agree on the actual reality of global climate change and the need for improved environmental policies than disagree, but how we discuss the issue is often chaotic and counter-intuitive, undermining a very important topic.

...because there's more evidence supporting that it's happening than there is saying it's not.

@Ben_H said:

@pyromagnestir said:

@AlexanderSheen said:

I believe I can fly

I believe I can touch the sky

I think about it every night and day

Spread my wings and fly away.

I believe in a thing called love

Just listen to the rhythm of my heart

There's a chance we could make it now

We'll be rocking til the sun goes down

I believe in a thing called love

You can try to smoke an ounce to this

While I pronounce this shit

Baby bounce them tits

Mama move them hips

Baby shake them cheeks

I got dick for days

You got ass for weeks

(Am I doing this right?)

Edit: on topic, there is no controversy for global warming other than those who think so that also happen to be blind to the scientific method.

Workin hard to get my fill

Everybody wants a thrill

Playin' anything to roll the dice

Just one more time.

Yeah, pretty much the same thing others have said. Anyone who thinks it isn't happening despite the evidence is kidding themselves.

I study physics and if you were to go up to any of my lecturers and tell them you didn't believe in man-made climate change then they would probably laugh at your face. Most of the people who seem to not believe don't have any scientific understanding of the issue and are motivated by political beliefs rather than facts.

I believe in global warming but I still think that gravity is a myth.

@mracoon said:

I study physics and if you were to go up to any of my lecturers and tell them you didn't believe in man-made climate change then they would probably laugh at your face. Most of the people who seem to not believe don't have any scientific understanding of the issue and are motivated by political beliefs rather than facts.

Would they laugh at someone for questioning the extent to which climate change is man-made? Thus, they accept man-influenced climate change but think there might be more to it than just human interference?

@Begilerath said:

@Castermhief117:

All the things that you listed with numbers, except 1, are not facts that support as you say "warming is happening and is man-made" these are only facts that support that warming is happening not the man-made part. Pretty much everything you say later supports you statement better.

Also I think there is something missing from your simple explanation on the science behind global warming. You say Earth reflects infrared light which is later absorbed by the big gas molecules, shouldn't that infrared light by absorbed when is entering Earth? Is there something I'm missing?

I know global warming is real and I "believe" man has something to do with it, but I don't know it for sure because of details like the ones I just mentioned. Anyway like some guy said already I don't it would hurt if as humankind we try to lower our gas emissions and there are plenty of other more direct and simple effects that can be diminished by lowering CO2.

No. We see all of those things happening within the last 100 years, post-industrial age - so it is man-made. The sea level hasn't risen all that much for the past thousands of years, but all of the sudden within the last 100, its rate of rising has rapidly increased. Also you are missing something, the ground absorbs light and reflects it back as both heat and infrared radiation. Light gets past our atmosphere just fine.

When infrared radiation hits certain organic compounds or certain molecular functional groups, it forces the bonds to move and vibrate - which unless I'm mistaken can also give off heat.

Do you believe in sand?

@TruthTellah: I'm going to keep it short, since I'm not too keen on discussing these kind topics on a forum because of the tedious work it is to type everything out. But I agree with what you say. However, I never said anything about abusing information. Of course that happens, and that's a shame. But it wasn't the topic of the question. Neither was it the extremism of people's opinion, which I start to notice more in my surroundings as well. Again, I agree with you, but it wasn't the subject at hand.

Regarding people's dimness, I don't agree with you there. People are a lot easier to influence than is generally believed. For instance, just showing a certain image to people often enough will likely increase affection towards this picture (to give a very simple example). Extrapolating on that, showing people messages about things being true or not will influence their opinion on the matter, even if they don't really know any important details. Furthermore, some things are just more convenient to believe, which also influences opinion. All of this before even going into the subject matter at all.

Again, I'm keeping it short because it don't like forum discussions, but in general I agree with what you said regarding global warming (or, more interestingly and importantly, environmental sustainability). If you still want to discuss it any further, just send me a PM and I'll respond to it later!

Yes because it is caused by the Sun and its activities!!!!! Now that it is cause by human hand entirely nope , that is bullocks but that does not mean that we as human shouldn´t change our energy consumption pollution output etc. I mean a city filled with smogg more than oxygen is not good no matter how you twist it. Nor is it good to have so much trash generated.

@9cupsoftea said:

Fucking hell. Global warming is not something to 'believe'. It's something that's happening, it's a fact. This is like asking 'do you believe in oxygen?'.

@AsperGamer said:

@dennisthemennis said:

I voted yes, cuz science. Also, when scientists are telling me one thing and a bunch of politicians start telling me the opposite, then I know which side is lying.

Politicians (and business) have a reason to lie - self interest.

Scientists have no reason to lie, they only deal with fact without fear or favour.

So yes, I believe the scientists (hardly any of them disagree now). It is a no-brainer really.

Would you say that no scientists have ever lied? Or that scientists have really never had reasons to slant their findings in certain ways? And have scientists ever been wrong?

I think they're right here, and I think most are quite honest about it. But I cannot agree with defending global climate change based simply on the notion that scientists are somehow honest, pure saints who only ever speak the 100% accurate truth. Scientists make mistakes, scientists can and have been corrupt, and scientists have had different motivations for favoring certain conclusions, especially when they have been directly funded by people wanting certain conclusions. We must be skeptics, even of scientists.

Favor scientific conclusions based on the merits of their evidence, not on the credibility of scientists.

@TruthTellah said:

@mracoon said:

I study physics and if you were to go up to any of my lecturers and tell them you didn't believe in man-made climate change then they would probably laugh at your face. Most of the people who seem to not believe don't have any scientific understanding of the issue and are motivated by political beliefs rather than facts.

Would they laugh at someone for questioning the extent to which climate change is man-made? Thus, they accept man-influenced climate change but think there might be more to it than just human interference?

If of the total current climate change 98% is man-made and 2% isn't (I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass here for example's sake), is it interesting or intelligent to overemphasize the 2%? Yes, there is non-made-made climate change (as well as all sorts of pollution unrelated to climate change), but it's really not the issue we should be worried about.

@Jams said:

I don't believe in "global warming" in a political sense, but I believe that the earth changes and there's nothing we can do about it. If the earth needs to purge itself of us or cleanse itself then it probably will. There's nothing we can really do to help the situation other than not exist or only have a limited existence. The only thing we could do is be able to be so self sustaining that we can live in ships in space. That's about the only way I can imagine no longer hurting the earth. Otherwise our population will keep growing and more and more people will consume and hold water for longer periods causing less water to be replenished fast enough. Mother Earth will probably wipe 80% of the population out while at the same time fixing whatever we did to the earth.

I think you misunderstand the situation here. While there are various political views on what we should do about global warming, there's no "global warming in a political sense", it's a scientific concept. It's also not a case of the Earth being one big hivemind that's trying to purge humanity as though we're an anti-body so it can "fix itself". The Earth is not a living organism, it's not sapient, and thus it can't have any concept of what "fixed" is, let alone have tools to "repair" itself. Additionally, thinking about trying to fix the climate issue by us not existing doesn't seem to make sense. The primary goal here isn't fixing the climate, it's making sure human beings still have a sustainable place to live and way to live, fixing the planet is simply a means to that end. Perhaps you know more about parts of this than I do, but I also don't think a real contributor to us making this planet uninhabitable is us withholding water. Certainly, there are portions of humanity that desperately need water for various reasons, but that's a rather different issue. I also have no idea where you're pulling the 80% figure from.

Personally, yes, I do believe in global warming, and climate change as a whole. I also wish all these years down the line we could get away from calling climate change global warming. I believe that man is significantly contributing to the problem and find it sad that there are still people in educated parts of the world that deny climate change and the idea that man is contributing to it, especially when they're obviously ignorant of the information regarding it, or doing so because it's in their own personal interests. Even for the people who are aware humanity is responsible and to some degree in control here, I wish there were more people trying to solve this problem and actually giving a damn. You'd think people would be a lot more worried about the fact that we're destroying our only planet, but I guess not.

Down here in Australia it's been a lot colder since all this global warming stuff which I find humorous, that's why we call it climate change ;). I'm not exactly convinced how much our industrial actions influence the weather, as things like volcanoes can emit magnitudes more CO2 then we ever could. That said everything thing we do has a negative impact on the environment, how many species of animal have we wiped off the earth? I think we as a human race suck no doubt, but I want more evidence that all these extra global warming taxes are actually helping something and not just going into politicians pockets.

I believe in global warming I just don't believe all politicians are using global warming for completely altruistic reasons.

Its probably happening but the next time I hear someone say, "Its HOT, must be global warming" or "It's COLD, where's that global warming" I will throw up puke on the ground.

Haven't you noticed it over the last few years?

Wow if Americans actually don't believe in it since it's a fact, I guess it's a religious/Republican majority over there?

@TruthTellah said:

@AsperGamer said:

@dennisthemennis said:

I voted yes, cuz science. Also, when scientists are telling me one thing and a bunch of politicians start telling me the opposite, then I know which side is lying.

Politicians (and business) have a reason to lie - self interest.

Scientists have no reason to lie, they only deal with fact without fear or favour.

So yes, I believe the scientists (hardly any of them disagree now). It is a no-brainer really.

Would you say that no scientists have ever lied? Or that scientists have really never had reasons to slant their findings in certain ways? And have scientists ever been wrong?

I think they're right here, and I think most are quite honest about it. But I cannot agree with defending global climate change based simply on the notion that scientists are somehow honest, pure saints who only ever speak the 100% accurate truth. Scientists make mistakes, scientists can and have been corrupt, and scientists have had different motivations for favoring certain conclusions, especially when they have been directly funded by people wanting certain conclusions. We must be skeptics, even of scientists.

Favor scientific conclusions based on the merits of their evidence, not on the credibility of scientists.

Scientists are people who find out the truth - no matter what it is or how our feelings may or may not be hurt by it. If you come into science with preconceived notions and beliefs and refuse to let them go, you're not a scientist.

Yes, scientists can be corrupt, insane, stupid, or whatever the case is. There are tons of biblical "scientists" who got PhD's and somehow think that warrants them to preach that the world is 6,000 years old.

But think about it this way, science works on trial and error, experiments, and consensus. There are tons of scientists who don't care about political happenings and devote their lives to their projects. Scientists stand on the shoulders of other scientists. There needs to be massive cooperation between everyone. This means that every time someone makes an extraordinary claim, a wide network of scientists go through various tests to make sure the claim is valid. The bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence is needed to support it. You claim that evolution is not real? Science tests your claim and finds evidence against you in the fossil evidence, mitochondrial DNA, plate tectonics, viruses, bacteria and so on. Just because one scientist believes something is true, no matter how smart he/she is, doesn't make the claim valid at all. But the world of science works on consensus, and a network of scientists check your claims.

In this sense, science is pure and is always striving to find the truth. Because proving someone wrong can win you a Nobel prize.

It's funny because we live in a world that is entirely dependent on science and technology. Every child that is born today in America has a much greater chance of living because of science. Every convenience you have, drinkable water, transportation, anti-biotics, your phone, your restroom, everything - was engineered and made by scientists. We depend on science so much yet when science makes a claim that we don't find comfortable with, we disagree and distrust scientists.

And global warming isn't the first. Every "inconvenient truth" was met with extreme skepticism, rightly so.

From proving that we are not at the center of the universe, that the Earth revolves around the sun, the sun is one of 200 billion or so stars, that the sun itself revolves around a galaxy core, and that the are hundreds of billions of other galaxies, to proving that we evolved from animals. Every single one of these claims was met with great skepticism - and skepticism is good. It's only bad when you refuse to let go of your preconceived notions and don't look at where the facts are pointing you.

@TruthTellah said:

@AsperGamer said:

@dennisthemennis said:

I voted yes, cuz science. Also, when scientists are telling me one thing and a bunch of politicians start telling me the opposite, then I know which side is lying.

Politicians (and business) have a reason to lie - self interest.

Scientists have no reason to lie, they only deal with fact without fear or favour.

So yes, I believe the scientists (hardly any of them disagree now). It is a no-brainer really.

Would you say that no scientists have ever lied? Or that scientists have really never had reasons to slant their findings in certain ways? And have scientists ever been wrong?

I think they're right here, and I think most are quite honest about it. But I cannot agree with defending global climate change based simply on the notion that scientists are somehow honest, pure saints who only ever speak the 100% accurate truth. Scientists make mistakes, scientists can and have been corrupt, and scientists have had different motivations for favoring certain conclusions, especially when they have been directly funded by people wanting certain conclusions. We must be skeptics, even of scientists.

Favor scientific conclusions based on the merits of their evidence, not on the credibility of scientists.

Yes of course, but never in the numbers or with the flair and willingness to fly in the face of facts like politicians or businessmen. The scientist who actively work against facts are often in the pockets of the other group. Obviously I was being glib, but I defer to people who have spent their lives studying these things and know much more than I ever will about them. It's arrogant to assume I know better. That doesn't mean I don't question or inquire. I said "I know which side is lying," not "I know which side is 100% accurate."

only idiots can say there is no global warming. the only thing debatable is how much of an effect humans have on it.

Sure, global warming exists. But the people saying the world's going to end unless I buy a hybrid car are perhaps the worst people ever.

The summer this year was pretty cold, so obivously it's all a lie!

No, but seriously.....it's happening. Not "believing" in it is rather.....stupid. I voted for C but only because I have heard an absurd amount of nonsense concerning the scale of this, leading up one person suggesting, that the earth may turn into a second sun (yes.....that happened)

This shouldn't even be a question, it's so dumb. I say yes, it is happening.

Yes but it occurs naturally. Killing the O-zone layer is bad but not the lead cause. It's actually a cycle cause by shifting sunspots. In a few hundred years we should start to freeze again, so enjoy the warmth while it lasts. Anyone who disagrees should do research on the original scientists that "discovered" it.

@Castermhief117: Well said.