If man made Global warming is true??

Couldn't agree with you more. Yes global warming is happening; that's undeniable but it has little or nothing to do with human intervention. History has shown that we have a global warming (and of course, cooling) cycle lasting approximately 200 hundred years.

Independent scientists have shown this to be the case. Naturally, those with their hands in some politicians pocket will strut out a different story altogether but the facts speak out for themselves.

>> Why when the Head of NASA speaks out against it, is he pressured into silence?

Michael Griffin (who is not the "head" of NASA) did not speak out against global warming. In fact, he conceded in that interview (linked below) that it is happening and it is man-made. What he said that was controversial was that he doesn't think humans will be able to do much to control the climate of our planet. He questioned philosophically whether we even should. He was pressured into silence and apology because he works for an organization that STUDIES climate change, and it's not his place to make policy decisions on what to do with that data.

Personally, I respect his right to free speech, but the dangerous thing that happens is that people take his comments out of context, like you have.

>> Why if it is so true won't any one ever debate it openly?

The debate has been going on in scientific journals since the 70's. The public has not been interested or educated enough to follow it. At least now, a larger percentage of the population is interested, but the real problem today, as quoted by Newsweek "is not ignorance of the fact that Earth revolves around the sun once a year (something 25 percent of adult Americans do not know). 'It's that people don't understand what is and isn't science' [Alan Leshner, American Association for the Advancement of Science]."

The senate has hearings on this every year, and those hearings, which are rife with the open debate you so desire, were started, in part, thanks to your pal Al Gore.

<<Why when a leading climate scientist speaks out only to say they should not spread panic, is he forced into a retraction?>>simply not true. This is the typical cop-out for people who have nothing really to say, or have been so discredited by past work, that no one want to hear from them anyway.

<<Why when the Head of NASA speaks out against it, is he pressured into silence.>>

simply not true, he never spoke out against it, he merely stated it wasn't NASA's concern. and it isn't really the function of NASA anayway.

<<<Why when the Head of the non political Magazine the New Scientist begs for open debate on the subject, no one will step forward?>>>

because in an open debate would simply go like this...

skeptics would bring up something which has absolutely nothing to do with our current situation, and the proponents would spend all day explaining to them how it is is completel unrelated.

Personally I am a skeptic on global warming, and I am Appalled at these other so called skeptics who calim to be professionals on the matter can't bring up a decent argument without overlooking critical facts in their own fields.

<<Why when the public asks where all the 100's of billions possibly trillions of $'s £'s €'s and Yen of taxes stealth taxes and new government measures is being spent the room suddenly falls silent?>>.

because you would have to write a book to explain such nonsense. you do understand the concept of time, and how long it would take each and everyone to explain such a nonsense question correct? If they want to kow how the money was spent on the research, the government can request an audit of the funds.

<<Why if it is so true won't any one ever debate it openly?>>

So you have a clue what it would take to debate scientific ideas openly? Even when i Do so, with friends, I have to resort many times to digging through boxes and cracking open a book to prove to them they are wrong. Could you possibly imagine how long it would take to prove each and every skeptic wrong on their opinion based arguments?? No one want to waste their time on such nonsense!

Properly written scientific reports, are the most feasible way of debating any scientific data.

Debating on scientific matters isn't as easy as debating on opinion, because of the volumes of info involved.

you can debate whether or not global warming is occuring, and caused by man, but you cannot dispute that the same pollution attributed to global warming is causing environmental damage.

one other thing i you may want to realize, are the so-called skeptics, many of them where the ones claiming the earth was cooling decades ago, or that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

These so-called skeptics always crawl out of the woodworks, when change is iniviteble. industries, don't really see research as threatening, only when it suggests a change needs to occur. When they start making those suggestions, is when the skeptics start crying. Why do you suppose that is?

they have been debating this for decades, look in journals dating from the 70s till present day and you will see hundreds of arguments for both sides. The problem is not the scientists it is the media, they have decided to listen to one side of the argument and concentrate on that. the anthropogenic global warming scenario is the most media friendly as it makes good headlines.

I have personally read loads of the differeing arguments from my uni course and personally believe that we are affecting the climate but don't believe it is as drastic as the media like to make out. In the past the climate has changed more dramatically than now (although due to different reasons) and the earths natural systems have reacted and changed to them. We are not about to bring an end to the world but it would be good none-the-less to try and alter our climate as little as possible.

So i agree that we should have a more open debate in the public not just amongst scientific communities so that people can decide what they wish to believe based on the facts put forward to them

I am not sure what you are talking about, but I will try to answer.

Leading scientist do discuss,study, debate, publish, argue and critique climate change every day in journals and at scientific meetings.

The concept of climate change has been around for decades. Scientist have and are studying it, that are not funded by corporations. they are funded by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, seaGrant etc.

Most of the anti-global warming people are funded by for profit corporations...not the other way around.

Al gore is N0T a scientist and did not invent global warming. he just finally made it accessible to the masses who were too bust watching American Idol or some other crap on TV to take the time to read and learn something.

So now that you know about climate change science (you are only 20 years or so behind) Take the time to read the actual science, go to some meetings, hit the books and criticize the actual science..and don't just repeat what you heard.

then we really can have a debate.

the science is solid. But don't take my word for it. Read it!

If Man Made Global Warming Isn't True...

Why is that virtually every single climate scientist and major scientific institution =on the planet= agrees that it is both real and human caused? Why is it that the only people who do not accept it are one or two fringe scientists, mostly paid by oil companies, and political pundits who haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about? (1)

Why have no leading climate scientists ever spoken out against it (I challenge you to find one)?

Why did the head of NASA explicitly state that "I'm aware that global warming exists... and I am aware that much of that [warming] is man made"? (2)

Why when climate scientists challenge skeptics to an honest scientific debate on global warming, they remain silent? (3)

Why if it is so false will no skeptic debate it openly and honestly (trust me, I've tried hundreds of times)?

For one, it's difficult to debate the matter with scientists when almost every one of them agrees that global warming is being influenced by human activities. There are scarcely any skeptics who are educated in the field of global warming.

Secondly, skeptics have a tendency of distorting the facts. They say things like the Head of NASA speaks out against global warming when the reality is that the head administrator says he thinks there is little humans can do to prevent it - two completely different things. They also state that hundreds of billions, possibly trillions have been raised through stealth taxes when again the reality is very different - billions have been raised through increased taxes but then billions have been paid out through tax breaks for cutting pollution and other financial incentives.

It's difficult to have an open debate when on one side you have experience, knowledge, facts and evidence and on the other you have no evidence, little knowledge, and a bunch of lies, propoganda and distortions.

By the way, there is genuine scientific debate - I'm involved in it pretty much every working day.

It is very unlikely that man has any influence on the climate. The AGW groups say things like polar bears are becoming extinct and that malaria will spread as scare tactics (similar to what Hitler and Stalin used to control people in their own way), anyone who looks at the evidence will know that these are completely false. In the 1940s there were many cases of malaria in the USSR with some inside the arctic circle. The polar bear population is currently increasing and wouldn't be affected anyway as we know from the fact that they are around that they can survive in warmer climates. Global warming is happening but it is very unlikely that has anything to do with man, the climate is always changing.

I don't know what to believe either, because the way it's being sold you need faith.

There is bound to be some upper limit where if pollutants are continuously pumped into the atmosphere it will do something. Nobody seems to know what that level is?

Climate quite possibly is changing but is it related to what we do? I wouldn't like to think the work the government is making us do to save the planet is no more than swabbing the decks, to keep idle hands busy and force us to blame ourselves if climate change sends things pear shaped.

There are plenty of "actual" scientists who believe global warming to be a problem. The New Scientist regularly runs articles - or have you only heard of the New Scientist and never read it? I have no interest in proving you wrong or anyone else right. You seem quite angry and angry people don't listen.