But, if they use this climate issue to push Global Carbon Tax, and sequester the worlds natural resources under the Guise of “management” by a one world governmental body… This will be a scam of VAST proportions. Make Barry Madoff look like a purse snatcher in comparison. We all need to be cognizant of propaganda and general public views and opinion manipulation.

My only question is how many of these people have it in their best interests (ie: they’re on the payroll) for saying what they’re saying. Surely we can get THOSE statistics too…now if only they could scare us into paying taxes on having the sun rise and set each day… THAT would be an even better SCAM.

I am no scientist and I believe it is just a question of common sense. Just look around or spend some time in a garden and observe.
We need bio-diversity, we need to respect what surround us and I of course include humans. We need to eat what make our body and brain feel good and be strong.
By taking care of the nature with respect you just respect yourself. And the same goes with humans.

Diversity is the essence of enjoyable and long life. Why can we not realize how lucky we are to be on this planet?
If you travel a bit you will meet fantastic people whatever their origins and social class, you will see amazing landscape. You will also see that luckily lot of people are doing great job on a human level, on a nature level, on an artistic level etc…
Unfortunately all those positive actions are never shown on tv. Open your newspaper and what do you see? Switch on the tv and what do you see?
Only negative information and of course stupid programs to make sure you do not use your brain. Fear is the best way to manipulate people and make sure you designate an enemy to keep people busy so governments can just take actions while we are just transforming ourselves in ships.

The big difference now is internet, if you want to have information you can, no excuses anymore. Of course as you all said you need to check out your sources.
We are all different and have different opinions, thanks god this is democracy!

So my advises are, switch off your tv, meet your neighbors, socialize, follow your path, your dreams, take care of you and others, check what you eat, what you buy, be conscious, develop yourself, keep on asking questions, have opinions and develop them, improve yourself, do not take things as granted, make sure the freedom of speech is respected and be happy. Enjoy life and be responsible and smart.

Please smile!!! and never forgot that at the end of the day the most important is what you do and not what you say.

My apologies if there are any typo error, I am not a native English speaker so please be indulgent. Thanks!

I am flattered that you deemed my short (in comparison!) post above worthy of such lengthy lecture on the truth behind the global warming drama. I think you should write a book on this important topic yourself, humanity will be at a great loss if you don’t.

I regret to have to point out a few misjudgments (not that important really, but still…) your, otherwise very sharp, mind has made. The first one seems to be a reading omission, probably unintentional – with so much stuff in your head how could I blame you for not reading carefully every sentence of the post you are about to be critical about – that I actually expressed my modest opinion that humans certainly have an impact on the planet and its equilibrium. Well, we all make mistakes, don’t worry, I won’t hold it against you. Another thing, your brilliance assumed, without verifying the assumption with relevant sources (me in this case) (ts, ts, ts, very unscientific my dear…) is that where I live there is Barnes & Noble. Nope, sorry, but I’m sure I saw a bookstore somewhere in my village, I’ll try to go and visit it, never entered it before, it’s a good time as ever to do it. I only sincerely hope that you don’t make your scientific conclusions in the same manner, i.e. on the basis of wild assumptions… I would be very disappointed…

Let’s begin from the end.

The link you provided in your last post (40) to what “real honest to goodness scientific skeptics have to say” was mind-blowing, really! Thank you so much for introducing me to this notion, new to me, that skepticism actually means supporting the idea one is skeptical about. I was absolutely brought to my knees (sorry, did I forget to mention “from laughter”?)

IPCC: you claim they are not a political puppet? Ok, then it can only mean they are incompetent. So then, why are they sitting in what is supposed to be an inter-governmental body at the highest level in this field? You read about the IPCC’s “scientific” predictions about the sea-level rise, about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, generalizations they made from papers researching specific items in specific areas presenting them without shame as applicable on much larger areas without any additional research or evidence, and many other blunders they later had to withdraw under pressure from the ‘rest’ of the ‘scientific’ community (those pitiful 3%, or 64 quasi-scientists who wrote those books you talk about and who are, by the way, all paid by the big industries)?

Contrary to what you have been told, much of what is presented in their reports has not been peer-reviewed. Or, let me rephrase that – most of the science they take into consideration is reviewed by influential scientists, yes, those who found themselves in the public focus relatively recently in an affair popularly dubbed “Climategate”. You heard about how those serious scientists you believe in sort of engaged into ‘harmless fixing’ of the data? A bit of a ‘hockey-stick’ tactic here, a bit of ‘hockey-stick’ tactic there… and, voila!

But China! Of course she is developing the technologies of the future (including those related to generating clean energy) at a high-speed rate! She is preparing herself to be able to compete with the most developed countries when the fossils are depleted. But in the meantime, she is reminding the western developed countries that theirs is the greatest responsibility for today’s ‘dire’ situation and telling them that they ‘should take the lead in cutting green-gas emissions, giving developing countries room to develop and expand emissions in the near future’. Huh! By the way, China is one of the latter, I mean the developing ones… for your information. And while she’s developing the technologies of the future, she will go on burning fossil fuels until she considers she needs to. And coming back to my original post – who is to tell her she should not? (By the way, what was the point of your contradicting me on this one? Just curious.).

On the ice age issue and the 44 vs 7 scientific papers and the carbon tax, I think I would be too disrespectful to myself to comment…

To conclude, dear Sailrick, your confidence in what you think is going on around you is admirable. However, I always get an allergic reaction to rudeness. Had you had some wit to transform your rudeness, with a bit of elegance, into humor, I would congratulate you. But you don’t, so next time before you tell someone they don’t have a clue what they are talking about, go to a bookstore and read a few more books…. actually, a lot more. But, one important warning – use your brain while you do the reading, it may be difficult at first…

P.S. Here is a good link for you:

“http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html”

If you’re interested in what real honest to goodness scientific skeptics have to say, read this from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. The author is Mark Boslough, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories

http://goo.gl/AGp1

from the above link

Denialists have attempted to call the science into question by writing articles that include fabricated data. They’ve improperly graphed data using tricks to hide evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They chronically misrepresent the careful published work of scientists, distorting all logic and meaning in an organized misinformation campaign. To an uncritical media and gullible non-scientists, this ongoing conflict has had the intended effect: it gives the appearance of a scientific controversy and seems to contradict climate researchers who have stated that the scientific debate over the reality of human-caused climate change is over (statements that have been distorted by denialists to imply the ridiculous claim that in all respects the science is settled).

Just last year (2009-2010) the oil industry spent over $175 million lobbying against climate change legislation. Compare that with the $24 million that environmental groups could afford to lobby for climate legislation.

The tobacco industry set the precedent and the method for raising doubts about the scientific evidence, in order to delay or stop effective legislation to protect peoples health. What they all learned from big Tobacco, was that you don’t have to disprove the science. All that is necessary is to make claims that the science isn’t 100% certain. (never mind that nothing in science is ever 100% certain)
They have been imitated by all those other industries, including today’s fossil fuel industry and their climate change denial PR.