A bit of a hot topic I know but it is something I have been trying to get a grasp on recently. I started off generally believing almost everything they said about global warming being related to human activities from watching and reading various sources, including but not limited to things like the movie an Inconvenient Truth. Then I started learning about the "climate change deniers" and thought maybe there is something to this. I saw how the inconvenient truth movie had some errors in it and listened to the arguments made by those suggesting it was part of a natural cycle. I was reasonably convinced that maybe humans really aren't causing global warming.

But as I listened to the arguments more and more I became increasingly suspicious that my new found skepticism was misplaced. I recently watched a documentary called "The Merchants of Doubt" which confirmed a lot of the suspicions I had. I am now leaning back towards the side that humans are significantly contributing to global warming. I still have some skepticism and I still am interested in some of the theories about how solar activity could affect the climate but I would say I am now tending to trust 80-90% of what they say about man contributing to global warming/climate change. And for a disclaimer, I am not a climate scientist and I have not read the studies in any depth. I lack the time and somewhat the scientific understanding to really digest hundreds of climate studies. But when it comes to an issue in contention, it is impossible for us to do an in depth study of everything related to the topic so we defer to what experts and journalists report. So I am now trying to better grasp the issue and trying to develop the most responsible position I can as someone who is not an expert in the matter.

So where do you guys stand on global warming? Has your position evolved at all?

I don't know but I want my free plastic grocery bags and free cans and bottles back.

A bit of a hot topic I know but it is something I have been trying to get a grasp on recently. I started off generally believing almost everything they said about global warming being related to human activities from watching and reading various sources, including but not limited to things like the movie an Inconvenient Truth. Then I started learning about the "climate change deniers" and thought maybe there is something to this. I saw how the inconvenient truth movie had some errors in it and listened to the arguments made by those suggesting it was part of a natural cycle. I was reasonably convinced that maybe humans really aren't causing global warming.

But as I listened to the arguments more and more I became increasingly suspicious that my new found skepticism was misplaced. I recently watched a documentary called "The Merchants of Doubt" which confirmed a lot of the suspicions I had. I am now leaning back towards the side that humans are significantly contributing to global warming. I still have some skepticism and I still am interested in some of the theories about how solar activity could affect the climate but I would say I am now tending to trust 80-90% of what they say about man contributing to global warming/climate change. And for a disclaimer, I am not a climate scientist and I have not read the studies in any depth. I lack the time and somewhat the scientific understanding to really digest hundreds of climate studies. But when it comes to an issue in contention, it is impossible for us to do an in depth study of everything related to the topic so we defer to what experts and journalists report. So I am now trying to better grasp the issue and trying to develop the most responsible position I can as someone who is not an expert in the matter.

So where do you guys stand on global warming? Has your position evolved at all?

While I have not found any solid scientific evidence of humans affecting climate change on the Internet. I believe that it would be silly to think that we can't. So my thoughts have changed from we have not affected climate change to it is possible we have. But if we have I believe it is such a minuscule amount and how and how much we have affected it cannot be measured for another 100 years or so since changes in the climate can only be compared in minimal 100 year increments. That is the standard of the science of climate studies. Otherwise it is like comparing yesterdays weather to todays weather. It makes no sense and it is totally meaningless. So there is no way we can tell yet, if we have affected any change in the climate nor can we tell how much for quite a few more years.

If I may suggest a few videos on the subject from my favorite columnist Dennis Prager:

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/

They are all just 5 minutes long. If you only watch one I will suggest the one that is called "What they have not told you about climate change".

Obama, Gore, and all the others saying Global Warming is a crisis fly the world in jumbo jets, ride in convoys of armored SUVs and limos, live in massive homes that take lots of energy to cool and heat and illuminate.

When the people telling me there is a Global Climate Change Crisis start ACTING like there is a Global Climate Change Crisis, then maybe I'll start to believe there is a Global Climate Change Crisis!!


"Quasi-global Recorded Temperature" started about 1850.  That represents about 165 years of readings.  There is no way to define a long term trend using that small a slice of time.  Most people don't understand when they hear "hottest temperature on record" it's a microscopic period of readings relative to the life of the Earth which is about 4.5 BILLION YEARS.

The sun has the greatest effect on our temperatures than any other factor, since 99% of all surface heat on Earth comes from the sun.  Man represents only about 3-7% of the total of all factors on weather.

Climate is a year-round cycle of weather.  Weather is what the media keeps trying to use anecdotally the support the climate change argument.

Scientists are not perfect.  Plenty of Global Warming and Global Cooling warnings in the last 40-50 years never materialized.  It now carries the name "Climate Change" because they can't seem to get it right!

If you say it's going to rain often enough, eventually you'll be right, just like a stopped analog clock is right twice a day.

Weren't all the ice caps supposed to be melted by now and all that other b.s.   No, I don't believe in global warmi...err, climate change.  It's the weather.  There will be years of drought, years of rain and everything in between.  And guess what?  All the water that's ever been on the planet is still here.

If I may suggest a few videos on the subject from my favorite columnist Dennis Prager:

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/

They are all just 5 minutes long. If you only watch one I will suggest the one that is called "What they have not told you about climate change".

I had watched those videos and thought they were well made. The arguments seemed more up to date and didn't have the obvious flaws I have seen in others. But then I went and looked at the person in the video, Patrick Moore, and his background brings his credibility into question. He has been a paid consultant to a lot of companies whose industries have been accused of being harmful in some way. I really like the Prager University video series but these ones are making me wonder. One one famous incident Moore claimed Glycophosphate, a pesticide, was so safe humans could drink a quart of it with no ill effects, however when the interviewer offered a glass for him to drink he refused and cut the interview. I kind of want the arguments he made to be true and it may be that at least some of his arguments are true but his history brings into question his credibility.

Obama, Gore, and all the others saying Global Warming is a crisis fly the world in jumbo jets, ride in convoys of armored SUVs and limos, live in massive homes that take lots of energy to cool and heat and illuminate.

When the people telling me there is a Global Climate Change Crisis start ACTING like there is a Global Climate Change Crisis, then maybe I'll start to believe there is a Global Climate Change Crisis!!

I will have to watch the video a little later but I find a problem with your bolded argument. Sure they fail to practice what they preach but that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. For example you might have an overweight doctor who tells you that you need to exercise more. Sure he isn't practicing what he is preaching but what he says is still true.

I will have to watch the video a little later but I find a problem with your bolded argument. Sure they fail to practice what they preach but that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. For example you might have an overweight doctor who tells you that you need to exercise more. Sure he isn't practicing what he is preaching but what he says is still true.

There's a BIG difference between not practicing what they preach and warning the world that climate change is the greatest threat to our future we face. 

I'm not about to change my ways based solely on the evidence available now when those living 1000X larger than I do don't react to their own dire warnings of doom and disaster.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33764762

And you are basically making the argument the Climate Change Extremists use.  Saying they are not "necessarily wrong" is the same as saying, "we might be wrong, but what if we aren't?"  A weak, weak argument.

I had watched those videos and thought they were well made. The arguments seemed more up to date and didn't have the obvious flaws I have seen in others. But then I went and looked at the person in the video, Patrick Moore, and his background brings his credibility into question. He has been a paid consultant to a lot of companies whose industries have been accused of being harmful in some way. I really like the Prager University video series but these ones are making me wonder. One one famous incident Moore claimed Glycophosphate, a pesticide, was so safe humans could drink a quart of it with no ill effects, however when the interviewer offered a glass for him to drink he refused and cut the interview. I kind of want the arguments he made to be true and it may be that at least some of his arguments are true but his history brings into question his credibility.

Really? You thought Moore's credibility is in question? I see his credibility to be quite good considering he a founder of Greenpeace. And he left because Greenpeace started using lies and scare tactics to try and push their political agenda to making people believe that humans are affecting the climate to the extent that we have to stop or we are all going to die. Personally, I find that his credibility is about as good as anyone who has some real expertise on the subject.

BTW, the lies that Greenpeace throws out there is the basis of the lefts stand on climate change. JMHO

The entire "Global Warming" argument is ignorance on a "Global" scale.

Of course the planet is getting warmer. It has been since the last ice age, and will continue to get warmer still, until the NEXT ice age.

To think that we control or affect anything regarding the climate is like fleas arguing over who's steering the dog.

So where do you guys stand on global warming? Has your position evolved at all?

Your side (and yes., I said YOUR side) has screwed the pooch by allowing the issue to be made political.  Left wing political, in case the inference escapes you.

Were it not screwed left, some attention might have been paid.  Hunters have been the the  most vocal of those for protection of wildlife and habitat, but they are politically incorrect, especially by they pushers of AGW.

So, even in Hawaii, we see the leftist whackos killed off the SuperFerry.  That would have moved hundreds of people inter-island for far less environmental impact.   But, oh no,  we cannot allow that......

You brought this on yourselves from your own intolerance and polarizing the issue..............

We've been treating our atmosphere like a sewer. The 400ppm threshold is something they can measure historically and it hasn't been even close for at least a million years. We also happen to be in a mass-extinction event (Holocene), the oceans are increasingly acidified (killing all the coral), sea levels are rising dramatically, glaciers are disappearing altogether and there is a race to drill the oil underneath the rapidly melting Arctic ice. Now some dishonest/ignorant people have been ranting about the record level of Anarctic ice, but there's a big difference between sea ice and land ice. Let's just say if someone tries to make a point about climate change being a hoax because of record sea ice then you know you can instantly write off their opinion because they have no clue what they are talking about.

The evidence is everywhere. Ask ice climbers. Ask fishermen. Ask people who actually study the atmosphere for a living. We're living on the precipice of disaster and the government is powerless to do anything about it. As soon as we make any real changes the economy goes "poof" because it requires taking externalized costs into consideration. It's cheap to dump chemicals in the river but when you count the costs of cleaning up then your profits quickly become a loss.

There was a brief window in the 1970's where we could have made the transition in a way that would have let us keep much of our quality of life, but that went out the window in the Reagan years when we decided to start pumping cheap middle eastern oil after our domestic stuff dried up. Since 2008 we have been in a state of decline as all the externalized costs started catching up. There will never be a return to "normal". The party is over. That's the price of confusing Bubble Economics for Real Economics. An infinite-growth model does not survive very long on a planet with finite resources.

I tend to believe the Earth, Mother Nature, Physics, whatever tends to be able to balance itself. 

Overpopulation is balanced by natural disaster, disease, and predators.   

Living organisms adapt and evolve or become extinct to make room for those that do. 

Drought is replaced with flowing rivers from extra snow and ice in the Spring. 

The entire world revolves around the sun as it is spins on it's axis at an approximate 14 degree angle.  That angle actually has changed over time as has the speed of rotation.  The angle is what causes seasons.  Think about that and how it could affect climates globally.

"These changes in Earth's rotation are perfectly natural and happen all the time," he said. "People shouldn't worry about them."

To use the climate change method of "what if" ... "What if NASA is wrong, and the axis changes are compounding on one another?"

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html

Really? You thought Moore's credibility is in question? I see his credibility to be quite good considering he a founder of Greenpeace. And he left because Greenpeace started using lies and scare tactics to try and push their political agenda to making people believe that humans are affecting the climate to the extent that we have to stop or we are all going to die. Personally, I find that his credibility is about as good as anyone who has some real expertise on the subject.

BTW, the lies that Greenpeace throws out there is the basis of the lefts stand on climate change. JMHO

I looked into that. The claims of him being a founder of Greenpeace seem to be in dispute, though there isn dispute that he was a senior member. I am sure the politics are in dispute and I remain skeptical of things Greenpeace says.

I must say that at least this guy has an actual climate science related degree. A lot of the other talking heads that deny man made climate change on TV interviews had little to no expertise in the subject matter, which is part of the reason I became skeptical of those denying climate change. But his record as working as a consultant/public relations person for companies/industries suspect in pollution bring into doubt whether we can trust him. If I work for a company of course I am going to tell you our product is good.

Your side (and yes., I said YOUR side) has screwed the pooch by allowing the issue to be made political.  Left wing political, in case the inference escapes you.

Were it not screwed left, some attention might have been paid.  Hunters have been the the  most vocal of those for protection of wildlife and habitat, but they are politically incorrect, especially by they pushers of AGW.

So, even in Hawaii, we see the leftist whackos killed off the SuperFerry.  That would have moved hundreds of people inter-island for far less environmental impact.   But, oh no,  we cannot allow that......

You brought this on yourselves from your own intolerance and polarizing the issue..............

My side? You mean people just trying to find the truth in the haze?

If you are claiming me to be on the "left" then you are quite mistaken.

It is funny that when someone tries to be objective and the truth leads them a certain direction, those who disagree want to label it a political thing so they can ignore something. When you don't take a political side both sides claim you are on the other side and the person just trying to find the truth just gets swept aside.

For me, politics is not a concern in this matter, the truth doesn't always follow political lines and I am not going to chant the conservative mantra on the subject just because I am a conservative. That is the problem. Some climate scientist just reports the data he/she find but it doesn't coincide with the conservative stance and they get shouted down for reporting the truth by individuals who have no scientific background whatsoever. Some of the more famous scientists have gotten death threats over the data they publish! Great, way to go idiots, lets represent the conservative party by threatening to kill someone who publishes data we don't like.

The entire "Global Warming" argument is ignorance on a "Global" scale.

Of course the planet is getting warmer. It has been since the last ice age, and will continue to get warmer still, until the NEXT ice age.

To think that we control or affect anything regarding the climate is like fleas arguing over who's steering the dog.

Bad analogy. A house on fire will continue to burn with or without us but if we pour gasoline on it then it is going to burn faster and hotter.

And your flea analogy really ignores reality. It is a sound good argument that has no scientific basis. Just because a flea cannot drive a dog has no bearing on whether out actions can affect weather, one does not follow the other.

Your side (and yes., I said YOUR side) has screwed the pooch by allowing the issue to be made political.  Left wing political, in case the inference escapes you.

Were it not screwed left, some attention might have been paid.  Hunters have been the the  most vocal of those for protection of wildlife and habitat, but they are politically incorrect, especially by they pushers of AGW.

So, even in Hawaii, we see the leftist whackos killed off the SuperFerry.  That would have moved hundreds of people inter-island for far less environmental impact.   But, oh no,  we cannot allow that......

You brought this on yourselves from your own intolerance and polarizing the issue..............

I don't agree with the simplistic evaluation or the blame-game tactics, but I understand why you feel that way. The liberal class did, in fact, sell out and let us all down. Now all they have to show for it is Elon Musk government-subsidized greenwashing nonsense and well-stocked election funds from their Wall Street financiers. There is no room for a progressive agenda in the Democratic party. Now it's all about gay marriage and taking people's guns away because that's all they have solutions for.

So far the only "solutions" for Global Warming are to (1) use carbon exchanges to offset energy hogs (Gore, Clinton, Obama) with responsible energy users (Save the Planet types living in "green" homes and using way less energy than the government deems "acceptable"), and (2) giving BILLIONS of US DOLLARS to "less fortunate" countries to pay for their adoption and development of more Earth-friendly practices.

The carbon exchange thing was a scam for Gore to cash in on the exchanges.  He owned the carbon exchange "banks" and was making money on the concept without ever having saved on single molecule of CO2!  How could it when it was designed to "tax" those with larger "carbon footprints".  If they can afford the lifestyle, they can afford the carbon exchanges to make themselves feel more environmentally aware.

I don't believe in the global warming agenda.  I believe the sun and the amount of it's activity is the dominant factor in earth's climate.  We had cycles of warming millions of years ago.  Where were the SUVs and coal/steel plants which caused this?
This is a scam to have industrialized nations citizens pay and support 3rd world countries many of which believe in religions like Islam that purposely keep the majority poor and discontented.   When Gore visited here for his speech, I wondered about what sailing ship he came on to prevent a greater carbon footprint.   Why doesn't Obama insist on having Prius armored vehicles instead of gas guzzling Suburbans?   Why do all the global warming activists use computers and cellphones?   Why do most of them drive a car and why do most of them live in cities instead of places like Puna or rural Nebraska?   Because they are HYPOCRITS.   Someone once commented that Zuckerberg wouldn't have bought a multi million dollar vacation home on an island if the tides were really rising.
The U.N. is one the biggest supporters of this lie.   The next POTUS needs to force the U.N. headquarters out of America.   They would be welcome in Zimbabwe or Somalia for sure with their tremendous urban life.

There's a BIG difference between not practicing what they preach and warning the world that climate change is the greatest threat to our future we face. 

I'm not about to change my ways based solely on the evidence available now when those living 1000X larger than I do don't react to their own dire warnings of doom and disaster.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33764762

And you are basically making the argument the Climate Change Extremists use.  Saying they are not "necessarily wrong" is the same as saying, "we might be wrong, but what if we aren't?"  A weak, weak argument.

Oh, they are hypocrites, without a doubt, no disagreement there.

When I said not necessarily I didn't mean a what if type argument. To be more specific it would probably best be said as "it does not automatically follow that..." Meaning that one might infer that their actions show they don't believe what they say however it does not prove what they say is wrong. Another possible explanation would be that they are addicted to their luxuries and thus don't change their lifestyle. Thus, it cannot be automatically concluded that their hypocritical actions show the claims are false.

Anyway, Obama, Gore and the like are not climate scientists, their luxurious lifestyles are not really relevant. Most climate scientists who are doing the actual work giving us the data are not flying around on private jets driving massive SUVs etc. Gore's luxurious lifestyle doesn't disprove some other scientist's work.