Rock on! To everyone who denies climate change and global warming is due to human activities.
The information published by IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) is biased and is in vested interest of few politicians and businessmen who view the Climate change problem as a “BIG BUISNESS”. They want people to PANIC! And eventually make money out of it.

Today hundrends and thousands of jobs rely on it. It is a blooming business.

I am not the only one saying this, renowned Scientists and meteorologists also support this claim. If someone says that the climate change is due to man made carbon dioxide, he hasn’t look at the basic figures!

On one side you had a young computer hacker,statements taken out of context and a sensationalist press. On the other, scientists who’ve invested their careers in the study of climate science.

Unfortunately it seems that once some bright spark adds “gate” to the end of a word, that no matter how flimsy and unreliable the evidence,people will believe their claims. There is none whatsover in this particular case.

I’m sixteen years old. Until the people who run this world are mature enough to approach this issue in a grown-up way, I will continue to remain neutral.

Over-analyzing as a goal to convey a message is also counter productive.

I tend to trust scientists when they measure carefully, and tell me what is. I like it when they cautioning me about margins of error rather than tell me they’ve got it handled. So if you tell me there is solid evidence the world is generally warmer today than it was in 1910 or 1010, or 8990BC, I can buy that.

I also think these guys learn a lot, and have good insight into causes. However, I grew up when the experts saw plate techtonics as a crackpot theory, about the time transistor radios began to make quantum mechanics real. It takes time, and what would really scare me based on my knowledge of history would be to learn that all the scientists did agree about something. Appeals to authority are the weakest arguments in rhetoric, and I for one got more skeptical when someone claimed “most” of the experts endorse AGW.

The death knell for the climate argument came when people tried to label particular cures as “science” — especially untestable hypotheses. I work for an agency that has been trying to restore quail populations for decades. Even though there’s good science behind the plan, it never seems to be gaining ground. It’s not the science that’s failing, its the milieu of social, agricultural, economic and maybe even climate change that boogers up the results.

It does not take science to understand suspicion of proposed cures. (Yes us old fogeys may be the worst, and we probably like to do a lot of things more than worrying about death.) An international treaty seems like a good idea, although the devil is in the details. I think we’ve concluded several treaties to put an end to war, but the results monitoring is not very encouraging. We passed laws 40 years ago to assure clean water in this country, and they’ve done a lot of good — but don’t drink it and be careful where you swim.

Some climate change deniers are fools, but a lot are healthy skeptics. Some climate change proponents are fools too, especially those jump from decent data and plausible theory to arguing for some particular solution trajectory. Carbon is nice datum to monitor, but its not an engineering control like the little slider on my radio. No science supports saying people can push up and down, or that doing so would reliably produce desirable results.

What really needs to be done? Maybe it would help to spread iron over the ocean, or build more wind farms instead of oil wells, or plant trees in the Sahara. I think the basic science predates current research by thousands of years: live gently on the earth, be kind to people, honor the waters, learn from the wildlife, and look for a peaceful solution.

Believe it or not, lots of deniers are looking for a sensible cure. And a lot of those are things that are supposedly needed to address AGW have been worked on for other reasons than the East Anglia data set. I speak of traditional conservation activities, e.g. restore wetlands, plant trees, maintain biotic diversity, moderate development, decrease reliance on non-renewable energy, etc.

As a nation, we’ve done a lousy job of teaching the intent, logic or processes of math and science for generations. Most people who debate climate change with me have zero understanding of how the planet’s weather or atmosphere works, or how to evaluate the reliability of information they hear or see.

What’s sadder is that many don’t want to know how these (or other) systems work, either. Seeing science as “over their head,” they combat it with folklore and denial to feel better about both climate change and themselves. I’d probably be arguing with them, except that I was lucky as an adult to have interesting opportunities to make up for my deficient science/math public education.

As a nation, we need to develop more awareness and leadership in promoting scientific education and public understanding.

Wow! 65 years is truly long enough to understand everything! The fact is, our industrial society over the last 150-200 years has drastically changed the face of the world, almost entirely in negative ways. Up until the 19th century, humans didn’t have the ability to mess up the world’s ecosystem in any noticeable way – population, technology and available energy simply didn’t allow us to. But all of that has changed.

It’s not that the earth is in danger – it’s WE who are in danger, because we keep destroying our own nest.

If you repeat garbage and cite it in your article, then expect to be tasked with having said it yourself.

“Older people….”

None of us would be here except for the foresight of “Older people”.

It’s a prejudicial comment and if the author of this article wanted to site the study and disagree with the comment, he could have done so. He didn’t.

Read above. It’s a process. If you don’t follow the process, all you have is an opinion.

And you really lost me when you said:

“In private they probably just sit back and *laught* at how stupid you idiots are that *belive* all the garbage that they spew out every day. They do not have any evidence that there is no climate change and what they claim they have comes from so-called scientists that have religious based educations and backgrounds that are against evolution or any other teachings that disprove creationism.”

I always was told never to mispell two words in the same sentence where I decided to call millions of people idiots. Since I am one of the millions of people insulted, I figured it was okay to point it out to you. Nobody is perfect.

We’ll all do better. That’s my opinion.

Oh, and we don’t have to prove that climate change isn’t happening. In order for climate change to be more than an opinion, you all have to prove it. It’s a process.

The reason I didn’t ‘bring up Santa and fairies’ is because neither The North pole and Disneyland national political movements marginalized the people they disagreed with by use of ridiculing and lying about them to their subjects, until it was acceptable to their subjects to get rid of the abnormal.

The Nazis and Soviets did. What I said was, “You dismiss opposing argument as a sign of a mental abnormality. What’s next? Remove those who are abnormal? The Nazis and the Soviets would have welcomed such advanced thinking.”

The difference between the two was that the Nazis killed about 45 million people that disagreed with their thoughts and the Soviets killed about 50 million people that disagreed with their thoughts.

Santa and faeries? So far as I’ve heard from Churchs, and Hallmark and Disney, nobody killed by either. Except maybe Capt. Hook.

So, do you think that asking why I didn’t bring up ‘Santa and fairies’ wasn’t ridiculous? Do you think that being lied to by people that believe what you’ve been taught to believe is okay?

Why do you and the writer believe that your First Amendment rights extend to ridiculing people to ‘prove’ your argument is actually more than just your opinion?

This writer identified the abnormals, and villifed them. The next step, the Nazis and Soviets took after ridiculing and marginalizing the ‘abnormal’ is removing them. You’re on a slippery slope. Watch out or you’ll end up being on the same road the Nazis and Soviets trod and not even know it.

You want to prove something in a scientific manner? Make sure that the words, ‘we lied’ don’t appear in the revised edition. Make sure the result is based on data and not just opinion. Make sure that the data isn’t destroyed after the ‘conclusion’ is foisted.

It’s called a scientific process for a reason.

Question: Can we do this better.
Opinion: We can do this better this way.
Theory: I did it this way and I think it is better.
Practical Theory: It’s been done by many people independently and they think it is better.
Scientific Proof: It actually is a better way.

Live with it. The ‘scientific consensus’ is nothing more than an OPINION, based on fraudulent data, that was destroyed because if put to the practical theory test it would have been easily proven to be garbage in, garbage out.

There is no proof that there is a better way to reduce CO2. It’s impossible to move the opinion beyond an opinion to be a theory or practical theory. The cause or the solution cannot be proven on a global scale.

What we don’t know:

Perfect example: Krakatoa. When it exploded 1890ish, ash circled the globe for months. The global temperature dropped, crops failed, famine, etc. How much CO2, locked into the rock, was released at the same time? Why didn’t it counteract the temperature drop? What IF we hadn’t been releasing CO2? How severe would the drop in temperature have been then?

2nd Perfect example: If our planet is supposed to be marginally cooler than it is, how do you explain the last ice age that ended only 11 thousand years ago? It was a lot colder then. Meaning: How did man cause it? Or better yet, how could man have prevented it? Could we be preventing another ice age, right now? Could it be part of our genetic memory that if we do what we’re doing that we’ll prevent the death of half of our world’s population due to a planetary ice age reoccurence?

You want us to believe in climate change, prove it.

On a side note: This winter has been an average of around 10 degrees cooler and two to four times as wet as two years ago here. When that gets added to the climate average charts next year I really wouldn’t want to be selling carbon credits.

human caused global warming is upon us,,,
but fear not,,, i have a plan,,,
give all your money to third world corrupt leaders,,,
no,,, that won’t do anything to stop human caused global warming,,,
but you will feel better knowing those corrupt leaders are living in mansions outside their country with huge swiss bank accounts while their people starve and now so do you,,,

can i get a Halleluja!!!

it is just George Monbiot(pronounced moonbat) barking again,,, trying to get anybody to still listen to the barking,,,

poor little barking moonbat,,, he knows his propogandist career is over,,,

Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/monbiot-issues-an-unprecedented-apology/

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Just read Phil Jone’s interview with BBC. He basically states there is no significant change in the weather but Global Warming /Global Climate change whatever you wish to call it still exists and it is man made…..

It is good that they now have their feet to the fire, because the proposals put forth at the recent Copenhagen Summit are asking the taxpayers of the developed countries to pony up incredible sums of money for a plan that no one can say with any credible degree of certainty will prove effective. Do not get me wrong, I happen to believe in climate change. I just believe that I, as an American taxpayer, should bear no financial responsibility to the effected island nations or the developing world. It is called Darwinism, natural selection, survival of the fittest. The only true way to reduce carbon emmissions, as well as declining resources, is to reduce the total population of a virus that infects the planet earth – MANKIND. By the way, I am 33.

This desire to feel good about oneself drives reason out of the discussion. Many victims of such feelings say absolutely stupid things like “follow the money”, as if the money leads to the scientists they hate. They ask how humans could change the world, ignoring that there are 6 billion of us releasing amazing quantities of resources that took millions of years to accumulate. They claim that global warming and global dimming cannot possibly occur simultaneously, even though both are easily explainable even to a child.

In the end, here’s what matters: In all age groups, there are more people who refuse to feel bad about themselves than people willing to be brutally honest. Therefore, for all practical political purposes, anthropogenic climate change is not happening.

Websites like ClimateDepot.com link to a massive networks of blog sites that in turn link to one another and their primary tactic is personal attacks, rather than really overturning scientific conclusions. Here’s a couple of trademark strategies that posters will use on message boards:

- Link to a blog (rather than a paper or journal) as evidence of something (if you’ve got facts, put them in your post)
- make personal attacks (attack the messenger, not the message)
- make a joke about Al Gore (I don’t really care what people say about him, but the seething hatred of him is evidence ones ability to get worked up emotionally disproportionate to reason)
- exaggerate the relevance of scientific errors (The Himalayan glacier retreat estimate was revised by a few decades, it is still likely those water sources will be gone by the end of the century, etc.)
- accuse scientists of ulterior motives and those who acknowledge AGW as religious zealots.(Of course, it’s the well funded science and environment lobby versus the meek little ol’ oil, gas and coal lobbies)

These Denier sites will also link to articles that support evidence of climate change with a counter argument below the link. If you follow those links and read the comments in the linked article, you will often see that counter argument paraphrased.

All this being said, the AGW camp has it’s loudmouths and hypocrites too, but I don’t think that reason will triumph by matching tactics. I also use the word Denier consciously, since I am myself a skeptic about how much Climate Change will affect us and how much we affect it, but it’s foolish denial to claim with certainty that the scientists of the world are fabricating the issue.

My observation: scientific data doesn’t lie but you can lie (or misslead) with scientific data. Opinion will be maneuvered in the direction that will result in the highest profit. This isn’t always in the direction of “what’s best for humanity”. Right now, the concept of Global warming is VERY profitable. Just adding “Green” to your advertising slogans increases sales. Adding “Green” or “Organic” to your product allows you to add a few more percent to your bottom line. Even when you haven’t changed a thing. Cynical? Certainly. (It’s how us old farts are) True? YES.

My opinion (entirely lacking in scientific data):
Does Global warming exist or is Global warming really happening? YES, without question.
Are we the sole cause of this Global warming? NO, well, not entirely. We certainly not helping.
Can we stop it? It’s pretty hubris of us to presume so.
What’s the most effective thing we can do to STOP this Global warming? Stop all production (commerce), vehicle emissions, everything. This isn’t likely to receive any support because we would become very uncomfortable, likely starve (also resulting in an improvement in Global warming) and probably the biggest item, there’s no profit in it.

I’m a member of a cynical generation. Day in and day out all I hear is spin. I hear opposing points of view presented while citing the same scientific data. It’s simply the “Half full/Half empty” scenario. Even scientific theories begin with “gut feelings”. The problem with “gut feelings” is, no matter how hard we try or how honest we want to be, we tend to find evidence that supports those feelings.

All discussions have their radical elements. The black and white hardliners are pretty easy to spot. We are all looking for evidence that supports our “Gut feelings”. Those of us in the middle are simply looking data that is to the point and undeniable. But then our cynicism pops up and gets in the way.