Who's right? Climate change proponents or climate change skeptics?

>>Who's right? Climate change proponents or climate change skeptics?<<

That's a vague question. Overall, the "proponents" are right. Humans have pumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and caused the planet to warm and the climate to change. "Skeptics" tend to not be that at all, but instead deny any evidence that is contrary to what they have decided to believe.

>>Which one has gotten the most stuff right?<<

As a group, it's really painfully obvious that the "skeptics" arguments are so full of holes and contradictions that there is really not a realistic chance that they could have even 1/10th of what they claim be correct.

>>Answer with as many scientific points as possible, as I want scientific debate, not political exchange (like in Green Swindle).<<

I'm sorry, but your question isn't about the science, it's about who is right and who is wrong, and every "skeptic" out there will say as much (since all climate scientists are evil, greedy, leftist, NWO conspirators). See below for some links anyway.

>>I saw Meet the Climate Skeptics and the start said we could lose our freedoms. Although have skeptics ever published a book with his scientific findings?<<

No they haven't. They also haven't mentioned a single freedom that is in jeopardy... It's just a propaganda sound-byte used to rile up other "skeptics".

The best that I can do for evidence that those who wrongly call themselves "skeptics" are in fact sadly misinformed is to point you to these resources, though they should looked at with skepticism and followed up by checking out the scientific literature that they indicate backs up what they are trying to say. This is of course unlike "skeptics" who will tell you how to interpret what the scientific literature says as if they know better than the authors, or you for that matter.

"Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says"

~> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

"Climate Denier Crock of the Week" -by greenman3610's YouTube Channel

~> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610#g...

Potholer54's YouTube Channel

~> http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#g/u

_

Climate change is real. however, there has been a deliberate obfuscation of terminology between climate change and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by the AGW faithful. The two are not necessarily interchangeable. Similarly, as a skeptic, I d have to say the answer to your question isn t as concrete as the AGW faithful would have you believe.

True scientific endeavors are not won by consensus. 40 years ago, they were warning about the impending ice age. 15 years ago, Al Gore said the polar ice would be gone in 10 years. The political muddling does not help the field of endeavor. Much of the money for climate research comes from governments therefore climate scientists are motivated to find proof of AGW. This shouldn t taint the work of good and honest climatologists however, governments stand ready to tax to force behavioral change in their constituents for their contributions to atmospheric CO2. They do this without making the sacrifices they demand of you. That is not political leadership; it s more closely an attempt to dictate how you should live your life. And, btw, you exhale CO2, therefore you become an object of taxation simply by existing. You should ask what if you cannot pay that tax?

Skepticism isn t apostasy but it is being treated as such. If the science is sound and certain as advertised, there would be no need to resort to derision of the skeptics with such religious fervor. To the skeptic, this points to a glossing over of potential holes in the current proffered theory of AGW in favor of the political favorite. The science isn t settled as more research is needed. In the Dark Ages, Religion and Politics combined to compel science. On this subject, the Dark Ages seem to have returned.

I don't think it's a matter of who gets the most right or what freedoms are lost. There are new things being discovered by both sides like recently the glaciers in greenland which have been found to be more resilient to warming. People find Climate change forced at them, with only facts that support the worst of the data being made headlines, whilst other less supporting data being 'hidden'. More research is need and scientist and governments need to be more open and more realistic, what use if fining countries when there are others out there releasing more harmful toxins but are left untouched? People see it as a money making opportunity and an excuse to tax. The second article raises some really good points about the media's role in climate change and how they use data and misinform and how data is used by some to fit their political agenda. Climate change is real and we are accelerating a natural process but is not fully understood and being misinterpreted by media etc so people are weary of what to believe.

Well considering the so called Skeptics will not, and cannot present any logical explanation for why our current warming trend started at the industrial revolution at a rate way beyond natures natural rate.

The side thats right is the one that can explain it logically without dancing around the subject every time you ask them. The proponents of the scientific evidence of CC.

I've heard of one guy that attempted to right a book of fake science on the side of the skeptics. Lord Monckton former Science Advisor in the UK. He was proven to be a joke and just making money off of the books.

@Tulip little anomalies here and there are expected. The whole trend must be looked at. Why would the people on the side of science be opposed to more research?

That's the problem. Climate change isn't a completely scientific debate. Politics and money are deeply involved through the carbon trading idea that people like Al Gore Jr came up with. I hear the one in chicago has gone belly up. Then you have the EPA which is supposed to be the referee in this "game" acting as a player? Isn't the person who runs the EPA a political appointee? I notice you call one side "proponents" but the other side "skeptics"?

You will notice that every single alarmists that answered before me is a radical leftist. They believe in AGW because it fits there political thinking that humans are bad and particularly free markets, capitalism, and Big Oil. Most of them don't even hide their political beliefs and if you doubt me click on their avatar and see how they answered other questions. They believe their politics rises to the level of science. It doesn't and it is a naive way of thinking IMO. Socialism has been tried and tried in the past and it failed every time. After a while you have to see that your good intentions are causing harm. Just about every socialists country in the past has ended in loss of freedom and wealth for its people. I don't doubt that most of the lefties posting here have good intentions but IMO they are politically naive and also scientifically naive. When you believe that a big central government can more effectively rule its people you are also more inclined to believe we have enough knowledge to accurately predict the future climate. In fact, in both cases the knowledge doesn't exist.

The data, including many measurements of several different trends, all points to the same conclusion. The world is getting warmer.

Reduced Arctic Sea Ice extent:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

Reduced Arctic Sea Ice Volume:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/i...

Reduced ice mass in the Antarctic:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/nge...

Global reductions in Glaciers:

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

Local reductions in Glaciers

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/download_inf...

Reduced Greenland Glacier Mass:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=g...

Global surface temperature increases:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp201...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr...

Practically all scientific evidence supports the climate change proponents:

Surface temperatures are increasing:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.pd...

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_et...

The ocean is warming in a manner that can't be explained by natural climate forcings:

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Rob...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/284.abs...

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.pa...

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa:

http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb11/preliminaryMB_2009_fi...

The Antarctic ice sheet is melting:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~broeke/home_files/MB_pubs_p...

The Greenland ice sheet is also melting:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222...

Sea level is rising. (Sea level rise is caused by the thermal expansion of sea water due to climate warming and widespread melting of glaciers and ice sheets.)

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15....

<<I saw Meet the Climate Skeptics and the start said we could lose our freedoms.>>

That claim is ridiculous!

Both can be right. Carbon dioxide is a cause but not the only cause for the extreme climate. Natural and Human may both contribute to the extreme weather.

Nowadays, the cause is no longer important but action must be taken in order to protect our food supplies and employment.

There is a book called Power Grab about the Global Warming movement and their true

agenda . Its not about CO2 . Its about redistribution of Wealth . John Holdren admitted it

at the UN . He works for Obama .