Over the past 100 years, the temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees. That little bit of change is not a problem. BUT, if we were to go to 5 degrees or higher change, then we may have some serious problems occur.

Now here is where the problem lies. There is a LOT we do not know about the climate. AS you can image, if it is hard to predict the weather more than 10 days from now, it might also be difficult to predict the global climate 100 years from now.

So our climate scientists have developed models to try to model the climate and make predictions about the future. These models are ALL OVER THE PLACE. They are going from 1 degree of warming in the next 100 years to 10 degrees. Further, 95% of the models are currently overestimating. So the science is extremely uncertain and seems biased towards warming with 95% of models overestimating.

Now you add to this the politics. Democrats have been calling for more government intervention to deal with the problem. Republican generally think the problem has been overstated.

This is where the media kicks in. So you have the democrat-swaying media that pull out the most extreme and also most unlikely models and proclaim that the world is ending and those evil repubs will not do anything about it and block all actions.

At the other side you have the Fox news types that are claiming that there is absolutely no warming going on and the democrat are lying and trying to tax you.

Unfortunately neither side is completely lying or completely telling the truth. There is some warming and there is reason to believe there will be some more. BUT, the scary models of huge warming have already shown to be faulty and unreliable.

And the methods of dealing with the problem? They range from regressive taxes to increasing research funding for things like solar power. Some are good, some are horrid.

To declare my bias, I generally side with the repubs on this. NOT because I don't think we should do something. BUT I hate the scare-mongering crap, especially when they are claiming certianty that is simply non-existent.

Further, we have policies in place that have gotten the US CO2 output to leveling off and even starting to decline. A few more things, like support nuclear (something dems do NOT support, but repubs DO) and we can kick this probelm without having to tax ourselves more.

Now that being said, the repubs would like to get rid of some of the good policies we have in place like R&D funding. I would disagree with them on this point, but they are so busy fighting the tax idea, that they don't have time to make those points.

Perhaps instead of paying attention to answers from random strangers on Yahoo!, and what "people are saying", you should actually read some of the scientific literature and science-based reports in legitimate, reputable publications, and make up your own mind.

I think you will find that the people who speak out against "Global Warming" or Climate Change, are long on conspiracy theories, calling it a hoax, a political ploy, or an attempt for world domination by the UN or other ridiculous ideas. They are generally short on real information and science, and usually their opposition to the idea of global warming is not because they actually have any real information on their side, but because they are opposed to the kinds of public policy decisions they think acceptance of it will lead to.

To be fair, there IS some actual, real, scientific disagreement on the subject. After all only about 90% of scientists agree that climate change is actually occurring. So yes, there are some actual, real scientists on the fringes who disagree. There is even more disagreement about what may actually be causing the phenomenon of climate change, with a slightly larger number of scientists dissenting from the mainstream view that human activity is part of what is influencing our climate.

In my opinion, I feel we should listen to scientific consensus on the topic. It's pretty clear to me that climate change is a "real thing". The next step is, what, if anything, should be done about it. This is a much more difficult question to answer. There are cost/benefit analyses to make, and risk assessments to develop. But I don't think sticking one's head in the sand, covering your ears, and saying "no,no,no, it's not happening" is the best response.

I would encourage you to do some real research of your own and form an educated opinion, rather than listen to what "people are saying".

Well... In the first place, the term "Global Warming" is not the most accurate description so scientists refer to it as climate change.

Science is not a democracy but the vast majority of scientists around the world accept that climate change is happening at a faster rate then it is has been happening before, that the rate of change is accelerating and that human activity is very probably contributing to the acceleration.

Yes, earth's climate has always changed. There have been periods of time when earth's climate was MUCH different than it is now. There have also been times when earth's climate changed so much in a relatively "short" time that about 99.99% of all the species living on earth at the time (including whatever species of plants, fungi, insects, fish, worms, clams, snails, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, what ever life forms were living at the time) went extinct.

It is also true that we do not fully understand earth's climate system so our ability to predict exactly what is going to happen is limited. It is also true that, if the things that are beginning to happen now actually continue happening and if the climate changes in the near future as much as some of the predictions suggest, human society will be changed in very significant ways, and for the worse.

So... if you like living the way you do, if you care about your children and your children's children and want them to enjoy something reasonably like the life that you live (or a better life than you live) then... there are some very good reasons for you to be worried and for you to want to change the trajectory we are on.

Go with Hay Dook and Alph. Start with Wikipedia. See the references. See Skeptical science.

The Earth is warming.

The Sun is less bright.

At least half of the recent warming is man made. The future will match the ICPP lower projections, unless methane and CO@ from the tundra cook up.

The issue is not the modest warming to date, but the warming 100 years from now.

It's about money and power. Taxpayers are forced to shell out $Billions for worthless "studies" that are geared to show that Man's CO2 emissions are cooking the planet. Politicians are more than willing to use greedy, grant-grubbing scientists as pawns to develop taxing schemes and control of society.

If the money gets turned off.....the Global Warming religion will disappear......guaranteed.

When you hear contradictory claims, your best bet is to be properly skeptical. I have been around long enough to see lots of shrill claims come and go. Human caused significant or harmful global warming is just the most recent. As a geologist, we know that climates always change and the recent change that they are talking about is so miniscule that it isn't worth worrying about and as a conservative it is easy for me to see through their snake oil salesmanship with their solutions always pushing a far leftist agenda. That in fact summarizes AGW. It is all about exaggerating the effects of our CO2 emissions so that it can be used for politics.

Naturally you will hear a lot of clamor from both directions. One has to be the truth and one has to be false. Which one is it? It might be hard to tell since liars use coordinated tactics which make it seem that the lie is the truth. Liars have made a living and confused many people over generations. Let us look at one professional liar and what he has to say. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

So you can see that the lie, if orchestrated enough, can seem to be the truth. However, in a scientific world the truth will eventually come out when there is enough scrutiny. Conversely, in a political world the truth may never come out until it is too late, such as in Germany's case under Hitler. So politically, to find the truth, one must find the roots of an idea. Whether an idea is based in fact or manipulative propaganda. Let us explore what the environmentalists, or greenies, have to say on this subject since it is well known that emotions sometimes are stronger than logic in the outcome of thought.

“It’s easier to dominate a people by exciting their passions than by looking after their interests.” ―Gustave Le Bon

Although this was not necessarily an environmentalist who said this it well describes the actions of the environmentalist movement and they readily admit it.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ― and hence clamorous to be led to safety ― by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

Notice the 'endless series of hobgoblins'. Back in the 1960s and 1970s we were told that an imminent Ice Age would be upon us if we didn't control our CO2. Thus it became apparent that we should submit to laws governing this on a global level and individual state's sovereignty would necessarily have to become secondary.

Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

H-m-m. That doesn't seem like what we hear today. And when it was scientifically proven that the earth was going through a warming trend, coming out of a Mini-Ice Age starting at around 1650 the environmentalists quickly did an about face and started a Global Warming campaign. And the cause, why CO2 naturally. It didn't make any scientific sense that CO2 could be the cause of Global Warming and an Ice Age but that didn't stop our modern day Goebbels. Immediately, they started to push for strict law and tax enactment so as to control the world and eventually wound up with Kyoto, which is nothing more than a tax collecting method based upon CO2 output and usage.

This is so stated in the United Nations' Conferences of Parties (COP). Page 39, #32

"Funds will be under the control of the COP as the supreme authority of the Convention."

Now what are these funds going to accomplish? Page 87, #77

"A separate pool of funding to finance national coordinating bodies through a direct line item in the secretariat’s budget shall be established. Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification."

Absolutely nothing to save the world and, in fact, it presently provides funds for party time for the elites of the world. Notice, "Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification." They can do anything they want with money given to them and no power on earth can make them accountable for it. Wow! What a deal.

Now comes the caveat that maybe the earth would sometime cool, then what. So the UN quickly came up with Climate Change and left no definition for it. The formed the UN-IPCC and now we are all subservient to an undefined Climate Change. So now we give our unaccountable money to an undefined bogey-man. Don't you just see an inkling of a scam here?

Scientifically, the earth has been cooling for the last decade plus and yet the CO2 level has increased. So than anyone with half a brain can figure out that CO2 is not causing an increase in temperature. That is why COP states: Page 29, (q)

"Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone or scale down action on adaptation];"

That is why Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister says “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Justice and equality are code words for Communism.

So as far as your question, Global Warming caused by man is not a scientific fact but is a political scam to tax and dominate.

If you want to see if this is real, just ask the simple question, "Will it be warmer or colder in the future, and can you show how you came to your conclusion?" Since science is objective, anyone should be able to provide this answer to you. However what you'll see is that they will say you need to believe and accept it like they do. That isn't science, it's religion.

The short answer is that man-made Global Warming is a SCAM designed to raise our taxes and destroy our liberties. But you should watch the videos I've posted below, top climate scientists appear and explain exactly why we know there is no man-made Global Warming.

There is NO **man-made** Global Warming and there has never been any.

It's been cooling for at least 12 years according to HadCrut3 & HadCrut4 is nearly flat. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

According to RSS Satellite data there has been no warming for almost 18 years.