Bravo. Let's get off the argument of climate change and just address the real problem. Reduce smog and pollution.

Well said.

I think this whole thing is beginning to look like more distraction from the real problems and is merely paralyzing us, preventing us from taking action we should be taking with or without the question of warming or cooling or anything else.

Our air is poison, our water is poison, our food is poison...our seas are poisoned...jesus, it's just time to stop poisoning everything and a pretty good way to start is to get rid of polluting energy sources that just so happen to release Co2 and all sorts of other sh*it.

"We'll know that our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is FALSE" - William Casey, CIA Director, 1981.

I wonder how much of that we have in this global warming / non-global warming.

"I think this whole thing is beginning to look like more distraction from the real problems" ... I always get confused when people speak like this. Is the environment not an essential issue? Is environmental policy not a real problem?

Sorry, i wasn't quite clear.
I totally agree that the damage we are causing to the environment is a real problem, and i think the rest of my post will give credibility to me saying so now. What i meant is that the problem is not whether or not global warming is human-related, the real problem is that we ARE damaging our environment in a way that we must just STOP. It doesn't matter whether or not the planet is warming up because of us or not, we know it is and we know that blowing co2 into the air won't help and that it's bad for us & everything else anyway.
In that sense i think that this whole debate is a load of bollocks and intended to distract us into debate over action.
I wonder whether or not Al Gore is not an active knowing part of this too, actually.
The end result is that people are told this and the opposite and don't know what to believe, and so we end up doing nothing, or chosing to believe the option we prefer to believe. For me, it's a smoke-screen debate, just as the Republican-Democrat 'opposition' is a smokescreen designed to fool people into believing they have democracy and choice and that the problems are being debated for the better of everyone. That we ARE addressing the problems, fiercely, and that people ARE fighting, truly fighting, to solve them, that convictions matter & have a way & a voice. In fact anyone who cares to learn a bit about history will see that the Republicans & Democrats are two branches of the same original party and that in 1892 the elite bankers admitted themselves in their internal manifesto that these two parties were to be used to deceive the Americans into believing they had choice & democracy but that in fact they would carry out their own agenda, the bankers' agenda. This wouldn't be surprising to me when you consider that these politicians are financed by these same bankers and never make it to the Presidency unless they receive fundings from these bankers.

For me, it's the same principle being applied here and probably by the same interests. The bankers own the oil & other polluting things such as weapons manufacturers & Monsanto. They have every interest to let people squabble over details instead of agreeing on the obvious: we would ALL benefit (except them) from putting an end to the destruction of the environment.
But doing so means ending the oil supremacy, and that's just one example. Well, who owned the oil companies that started it all (Standard Oil, which then became the "7 sisters" after the anti-trust laws came into effect)...guess who...? Mr Rockefeller. Well, he is one of the main bankers behind the US Federal Reserve. Coincidence, surely.

Anyway, what i am saying is that anything that in practice makes us squabble and not act is most probably intended by the people who benefit from it.

Oh, and guess what? Who owns the media? Bingo.
Virtually ALL the newspapers & TV channels of influence are either owned by these same bankers or members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), which is controlled by who...? Bingo. The Rockefellers.

Any debate that keeps us away from the central problem just serves this dominating elite. Global warming is one of them.
And the central problem in America and in Europe is the fact that biggest source of power is not in the hands of the people but in the hands of a few families of bankers: the issuing of MONEY.
Take away the money supply from these people and suddenly you have an edge over them. But as long as we have no control of our currency, we will have no means of pressure on them. They will do whatever they like to keep their supremacy through the oil companies & other things they own.

Sorry if this seems far fetched or off-topic...but it's just plain verifiable fact: all these issues are linked to the same interests & the same people.

"information provided by our own government."

So you're saying this information cannot be trusted? or...?

The only thing that is scary are people who always use the "it is colder here this week" line to try to disprove the reality of what scientists are stating is a global trend.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
This is not about weather, but climate.

Rick...good point. Maybe I shouldn't been so confident with government information.

Jan...this article IS about warming. Read the first line and the last paragraph. And I agree with you about the "it is colder here this week" argument. In the millions of years of earth's existence, one week holds no weight in the argument of climate change one way or the other. But that also goes for the hundred or so years of actual climate data we have available. The entire argument is based on such a small sliver of the overall history of the global climate, that is is hard to decipher what is natural from what is not.

"Everyone involved has such strong feelings about this one way or the other, that they only research points that support their beliefs, not what is actually fact." I really doubt that the majority of scientists let their emotional side overcome their quest for truth. Scientists expect their research to be questioned and reviewed.

My point is scientists studying this issue have most likely formed opinions on climate change prior to doing their own research either from their colleagues' research, personal observations, political ties, etc., and therefore set out to prove their ideas...rather than make non-biased observations and report ALL the facts.

It works both ways. There are some scientists who believe the current climate trend is a natural occurrance...therefore they seek to prove only their theory. Others believe it is man-made and seek to prove theirs. I'm not saying one side is right or wrong...just saying it's hard to understand what is 100% fact.

So when a story like this is printed...do we know it's completely true and includes all known facts, or is it an attempt to sway public opinion?

"most Americans understand what is real and what is made up."

:-D

Scientists have opinions on everything; they are people, after all. Why do you think that scientists working on this issue are biased, where have you experienced this?

Why can one scientist provide only data that strongly supports climate change is man-made...and another scientist can provide a whole new sat of data that strongly suggests it natural? It's because they want to prove their own theories. They want to prove what they feel is occurring.

I disagree. Climate change IS natural in the way that the earth is always changing, but the rate at which it is happening is greatly accelerated due to human activity. No one is trying to prove that the climate wouldn't change without us, but I have seen more evidence that human activity and pollution are having a dramatic effect on the environment than not. Is this not the same for you?

Scientists may start with a "feeling", but evidence is evidence. In cases like this one there is usually a dominant scientific consensus- in regard to climate change, most scientists in relevant fields have come to the conclusion that human activity is in fact damaging the environment. Frankly I think it would be insulting to most scientists to insinuate that they would be so emotional to deny evidence presented to them even if it means their theory is wrong. Like I said, that is the nature of science itself, to be questioned and have your theories either proven wrong or changed and improved upon with time.

Delia,

Even the rate at which it is happening has been shown to be normal for earths cycles. Maybe every 500 years or something but it has still happened. Most scientists show that it is not caused by humans but by the sun.

It seems that different scientists have evidence for both sides of it.

I completely disagree that "most" scientists think it's the sun. In fact, I've read many scientific articles recently disputing that very idea. (If you have some articles saying otherwise, I would like to see them though!)

Yes, different scientists have different evidence for things- hell, there are scientists who are creationists- that doesn't mean that the evidence is 50/50 for these cases. In most cases, as I mentioned, the scientific consensus falls on one side or the other.

Delia...it all depends on where you get your information. Reading climate change articles posted on Current will have a majority of the articles pointing towards man-caused. Go to globalwarminghoax.com and a majority of research there will be on the other side.

I don't disagree with you saying most articles you've read support man-caused climate change, but when you spend more time reading left leaning media, you'll obviously find those types of articles.

I'm not just talking about articles on Current or in the media, I'm talking about peer reviewed, scientific research papers and scholarly articles (Google has a great Google Scholar section that's great for the public!) I can give you some links to peer reviewed research if you want it (I warn you though that they are LONG as hell!)

I am not saying that there are not scientists who dispute human caused climate change, what I am saying is that there is a general scientific consensus in this country AND others that humans are damaging our environment in a variety of ways- Frankly, America is far behind other countries when it comes to alternative and sustainable energy, and one of the reasons for this (among corporate interests and greed) is the public's misunderstanding of climate change research. It doesn't matter if you can find research on either side of the coin, that doesn't mean all of the evidence is equally valid or compelling.

What policy? To allow corporations as long as THEY need to do something? The Arctic is going to wait for them.