There is not one scientific agency or body that dispute AGW, the facts are there and only denier try to dispute them with an absurd array of pretend science, conspiracy theories and personal attacks on the scientists and science and of course Al Gore.

All of which pretty much shows what their game is and it's mis-information and using the internet to spread that information to the uninformed, who lap it up as many of these theories are keyed to attract other fringe groups like those who hate government or scientists or communists etc etc.

Many of the basics are covered by this

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...

The science is covered pretty much by this

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Now watch deniers fall over themselves trying to claim this or that, but amid all the claims there will be links to no science sites (just blogs) because, simply put, they have nothing.

Co2 is a strong greenhouse gas, it is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, we are currently emitting 100x the Co2 of volcanoes, the Sun has shown no sign of activity that would explain the current warming.

The entire point of denial (at the top level) is to confuse, to delay action for as long as possible, some some oil companies can retain their profits, much the same was seen in the tobacco debate (in a pre-internet age) fake reports and a few experts claiming tobacco was not harmful, that delayed action on tobacco for years, they were trying to delay what has now happened acceptance of the health effects of tobacco that would lead to a drastic decline in it's use, which is now what has happened in the west. A number of the 'experts' involved in the current denial of AGW are the same experts who were involved in the tobacco debate as well.

The tactics are pretty much the same dispute the real science, muddy the water to confuse people and delay action, this has of course been made a lot easier by the internet were hundred of blogs and phony websites pushing this rubbish have been set up and the campaign is certainly funded to a great degree by the very companies that would lose out if action of fossil fuels were taken.

The easiest way to show the nonsense of denial is to simply look at all the divergent theories denier have tried to peddle over the last several years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

This leaves out many of the more absurd ones, but at 170+ shows these no real logic to denial.

Comments like Nathans just prove my point

"Most of the proponents of global warming wouldn't know science if it slapped them in the face"

Interesting as the rest of his comment show he in fact know little about what he is talking about.

Antarctic did have ferns millions of years ago (when the entire planet was warmer) but it was still dark for months of the year and as for ferns being tropical, really, I live in Tasmania which was one of the last landmasses to separate from Antarctic and have temperate rainforest's with many types of ferns that happily grow there, some like the Man-fern are enormous yet these forest get down to 0c and below in winter, not really tropical, even a tree, the Antarctic Birch which is a descendant of a tree that grew in Antarctica.

Go back more than 40 million years and Antarctica was not at the South pole and it has in fact been at the equator at times in it's geological history, unless of course they are now denying continental drift as well (it would not surprise me)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Positi...

sadly, the ones who actually know little about science are all to easy to see.

Global warming is one side of the argument but even events required for global warming in their argument are not happening and in fact are happening to the reverse of their predictions.

An equal number of scientists say global warming is not true and tha an ice age is more likely. A little bit of credibility here as some oceans and seas are actually getting colder and it is not from melt water.

Most scientists, politicians and the media hedge their bets and now call it "Climate Change".

The earth has gone through far greater changes many times.

The world started with no ice, lots of sea and a supercontinent. The continent split up and moved to the places the individual continents positions now. Whilst there has been upthrust this has been mainly in inland areas. Due to erosion there is slightly less landmass around sea level but even if all the ice melted the majority of the landmass would be above water. So you can put that life jacket away and forget about building that ark!

Global warming is a farce because the earth is cooling.. Climate Change on the other hand is not necessarily a farce, but it has also not been proven to be man made. There is a fair amount of scientific research that indicates that we are not helping the situation. We might be causing it, we might not be. Most of the proponents of global warming wouldn't know science if it slapped them in the face. Scientists have found frozen palm tree leaves in Antarctica. Palm trees only live in a tropical environment. So how can this be? Well.. It's a good indication that more research needs to be done, because this would appear to indicate that the earth is on a climate change cycle. If there are tropical plants frozen in Antarctica, then there must have been a time when it was not covered in ice but was a tropical environment. that would have had to have been hundreds of thousands of years or more in the past. There were no humans burning fossil fuels 100,000 years ago. There is a vast amount of geologic evidence indicating that the earth has had drastic temperature swings over the course if the past couple hundred million years. There were no humans burning fossil fuels 1,000,000 - 100,000,000 years ago. Soo, in my opinion we need to throw the lobbyists out of the room... Yes that means the Green ones too... Let the scientists do their research without special interests bribing them to skew their results. More research needs to happen. This is not a cut and dry topic.

@antarcticice: lol that's funny.. It really is. I'm not saying that global warmists do not have a point. I simply added a satirical comment describing the fact that the majority of the noise we hear on both sides of the issue is not coming from scientists. Eg. Al Gore, Green Peace, oil company Lobbyists, Green Energy Lobbyists, political parties, superpacs. The second that the scientific discussion got infused by money coming from political groups on both sides, the research became less trustworthy. You are right, there are a lot of websites out there that are spewing false information, but, said, sites are not only deniers they are warmest sites also. What I am saying is that, we in the scientific community would benefit greatly from a reduction in the political rhetoric and a reduction in the money funding skewed research. There is an argument to be made for global warming/climate change, but there is also a strong point to be made for inconsistent scientific research on this topic. Specifically, Russian scientists insist that Russian climate temps are not rising. This should not be dismissed to fit a conclusion. We need to have a serious debate and drop the demagoguery.

Yes I understand science, no I am not a climate denier, but I will keep an open mind for all scientific studies as they come forward. Don't forget that Einstein took the whole scientific community back to school when he published his theory in relativity. My point: just because the scientific community says something doesn't make it right. And no Pangea wasn't at the equator 40 million years ago. There is ample geological analysis showing large shifts in global temp change. An honest study needs to happen with an honest debate.

I don't know, I heard on videos that said global warming is scam. I had a question if global warming is real or a scam. My theory is when scientists think a meteor smashed into earth and wiped out the dinosaurs and the Ice Age started, but then, the climate might get warmer until the weather is like how the dinosaurs existed. I know that people might have caused global warming by burning coal, fossil fuels or other, the climate might be caused by nature. If you don't understand, maybe you can click on me and look at my question: Is global warming real or is it a scam. Then, you might understand.

Here is what top scientists have concluded based on a century of massive research:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...

Fossil Fuel companies have often denied this science and Republican politicians in the U.S. have been adamant lately in espousing such anti-science denial. A range of pseudo science liars, pretending to be the "other side" of a scientific "debate" on whether anthropogenic climate change is a serious long term issue, are prevalent on-line. Here is the scientific basis rebutting their deluge of contradictory myths and disinformation: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

Two simple examples exploding some typical illogic of the anti-science deniers: