There's a vast difference between being able to cite the same three global cooling / global warming debunking websites, and understanding the scientific concensus.

How many of the above people have ever even accessed scientific journals? Why does our media cover these stories about small numbers of scientists who don't even submit peer-reviewed papers?

... Also, why is this Article from *April* making the rounds again? it refuses to die.

Note the entire Wikipedia article is about the 70's predictions, with almost no current data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I'm sure that all of these organizations are just in it for the grant money, right?

How pathetic, sir or madam! You STILL don't realize that human-generated global WARMING is nothing but a "fringe theory."

It is not NUMBERS (of scientists, etc.) that take a theory out of the "fringe." Rather, it is the quality of the EVIDENCE -- and, in the case of human-generated global warming, the hard evidence was never there to begin with!!! It was all a money-making and power-seeking scam by charlatans, such as the monstrous hypocrite, Albert Arnold Gore.

It goes from ice-age to mass-floods (due to global warming melting the ice-caps, and also stagnating water due to the disruption of the global current) and back again over thousands upon thousands of years. So, we are always in a phase of 'global warming' or 'global cooling'.

The fact we are producing emitions has an effect we don't know of yet, it may speed things up, may slow things down, may make an ice-age 'iceier', or a period of great heat 'hotter'.

In truth, we don't really know much about why Earth does this, and it's not very easy to predict since we have only been this technologically advanced for such a short period in the history of humans, let alone the history of Earth.

If it wasn't for this, however, it would be very unlikely we would be here today as homosapiens, and be able to be as 'advanced' as we are, because these events help push evolution.

We need to not prevent it, but, try to learn more about what is happening as we are doing, and then, when it comes to it, find a way to survive, but I can't see it causing global concern until it does happen.

The major problem is though, is what happens in areas that are unsuitable for us to inhabit? With the world as it is today, trying to get the whole of the northern and southern parts of Earth to move towards the equator, or coastal regions moving inland, is the major problem, because of the relations of governments and countries with each other.

THIS is the first problem we will face. And a very likely cause of war, and starting a war during a global catastraphie instead of simply 'surviving' is what could cause the extinction of humans.

We are more than capable of surving a global catastrophy if we know it is coming, we can use technology to help us survive. It's just that really, this needs to happen on a global scale, and I really cannot see everyone on Earth coming together.

It's not 'global warming' or 'global warming' that would make us extinct, it's our ability to not be able to come together as one.

Now, I am an earth conscious guy, but I do not see how more taxes, nor the money changers at the Carbon Exchange, could possibly help even if global warming was largely man-made.

Its all a scam to separate the poor and middle-class from money that will end up in the pockets of the rich.

Wow; never thought I'd see the day.

"Of course, this is by no means accepted by most scientists in the world," but then again, neither is the whole global warming/change business. Many give lip service to it only because their livelihood depends on playing the game. I've never once seen a situation where so-called "consensus" on a semi-scientific theory equals "right".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.h tml

Wow, that's some serious understatement. If it /was/ 5 degrees already, the results would be catastrophic. The amount of extra water melted would have flooded many cities.

Yes, the numbers involved are small - but only because that's how we measure them. No, that does not make them insignificant.

I don't believe or disbelieve global warming. What I do believe is there are a great deal of people making a great deal of money from taking one side of the argument or the other. Until the whoring stops, there will be no truly 100% honest answers as everyone is trying to make a buck off the thing.

Though the prospect of an ice age appeals to me. I would take some small amount of amusement if, after all the "We're all going to burn to death! GLOBAL WARMING" stuff, we actually all froze to death instead. (Of course I'd be too busy freezing to death to do any actual laughing.)

they tracked the number os sun spots in 1790?

I don't care anyway, I'm still trying to deal with the millenium bug that demagnetised all my tapes and caused the huge zombie infestation right outside my front door...

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits."

What a great idea! I mean, what else are we going to do with all those extra nukes?

If he's wrong, though, we will have made our environment that much dirtier with carbon emissions from the bulldozers and radioactivity from the fallout.

He sounds like a putz to me.

There are 2 factors at play:
1. Global Warming / Climate Change is HUGE business for government-funded scientists. If there isn't a problem, there isn't any research money. They are well-motivated to keep saying there is a problem.
2. Many Third World governments, although not rich in greedy researchers, join the fray because any restrictions on growth in the developed world amount to a subsidy for them.

I'm not saying the climate isn't changing now, but it ALWAYS has moved in cycles and at no time in the world's history has it been stagnant. Long before man's presence, the Sahara was a lush verdant area. The climate changed and now it isn't ... people had nothing to do with that; it well predated them! Myriad other examples abound. There is hugely insufficient evidence for any honest critical thinker to establish man's presence as the cause of the current swing. The logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causality is at hand here. And if man is to blame, who or what is to blame for all the other swings over time? It's never been steady, folks... deal with it.

Staright talk from Sid.