What is your opinion on global warming?

I consider myself - "In the process of consideration but not statistically or logically convinced."

I hate the term denier, just as such as I hate alarmist. I offer to calling people who "deny" or "alarm" AGW as idiots, etc, simply does not help anyone’s cause. Do you really expect people to suddenly agree based on such a strong argument?

But on the subject of accepting the theory of AGW, I always ask – “What was your litmus test, the evidence that led you to decide that human influence is the main factor causing a global warming?” I’m truly not being sarcastic – I want to know…I have been looking for the deciding evidence.

I am not a scientist in the way that most refer to them as such farcical arguments (“Uh dude, unless you are a climate scientist you shouldn’t comment”). Instead, I have been trained and developed an analytical skill and knowledge base that I have been able to work with many specialized scientists and Phd levels in many areas. This has never precluded me from the ability to analyze cause and effect. As an engineer that has been tasked with determining root cause of failure/performance variation of mechanisms over many years there are certain rules that need to be in effect - no matter what you are analyzing. Rule 1: Develop an accurate, repeatable, and statistically sound measurement method. Rule 2: Be wary of those (people, standards, etc) that assign one main cause based on prior experience and always legitimize (validate statistically) cause and effect. Rule 3: The more complex the system or mechanism the more likely the root cause of variation is not one factor, but an interaction of multiple factors.

I have studied so called global warming using many different sources over the last few years, looking at both sides of the argument, and allowing for the null hypothesis. I realize that we cannot repeat the experiment of earth temperature measurements and results, but it has been made clear to me that the measurement of global surface temperatures has varied too much in methodology, location, and ripe with inaccuracies due to other factors to arrive at the small resolution of increases that have been proposed. It is also clear that the device in which this theory is staged (our planet) has obviously been shown to vary in temperature year-to-year, place-to-place, time-to-time, etc. in magnitudes well beyond the cited statistical values used to qualify the argued significant factor (ie those used to signify the AGW).

Prior to 2005 I pretty much accepted so called AGW on face value. I really had not studied the subject. But a few issues led me to believe that something conclusion was lacking in significantly proper evidence. 1. When I read the IPCC reports, it is obviously biased toward promoting a solution direct to governments, as opposed to determining if it is actually exist and if it were to exist is it a controllable function. 2. The graph of CO2 levels and temperature data over the millennium proposed by Al Gore and others , was presented as clear cause (CO2) and effect (temperature) relationship. This immediately struck a chord with me as a near impossibility for what is known as a trace gas and what is the primary food for plant life. It clearly did not align with my rules #2 and #3. At no time did anyone propose that these are possibly effect-cause or both effects of another root cause. 3. The constant reference to global temperature increase. What is a global temperature? How is it averaged and where is it at? Is every data point measured the same way? Have they always been? Are we concerned with polar increases, tropical increases?, etc,. 4. To be honest, the constant claim by politicians that “the debate is over something needs to be done” and the need for "scientific concensus" just simply gave me a gut uneasy suspicion.

These factors combined with my analytical ability and in-depth study of human history, government practice, has led me not necessarily to be a vehement AGW climate denier, just simply not convinced. I simply cannot conclude that human factors (whether they be CO2, methane, urbanization, etc) are a significant root cause of a global temperature increase.

If my approach makes me an idiot, then I am comforted that I have been associated over the years with some very productive idiots that have promoted solutions to man kind in the areas product development, problem resolution, manufacturing, and research in many fields, across many industries, as well as cultures and countries. And in many cases we were not like minded.

And by the way, I am politically neutral on most issues. I don’t follow the tea partiers, but respect what they are doing (if you understand our founding fathers, especially Jefferson, you would also – doesn’t mean you have to agree with them).

ya it does exist

it happens both naturally and by humans

global warming is actually a somewhat bad term because even though the world gets warmer, weather also gets more extreme so it gets colder, warmer, wetter, or drier over time.The average world temperature has gone up over the last few years and has really spiked in the last 20. Dont let people who say all this snow this winter proves global warming wrong, because, well their dumb and uneducated about global warming, this should be happening, im sure theres also some place in the world that should be getting tons of snow thats not getting any. Overall though yes global warming is true and theworld is getting warmer.

Yes Global Warming / Climate change is real and happening as we type. It is caused by humans and the evidence is indisputable. Just ask someone if there was a natural event that could have caused global temperatures and CO2 concentration to rise at an unnatural rate, faster then what happened after the bottom of the little ice age, and just after the industrial revolution? They can't answer it and you can watch them do the moonwalk around the question.

Global warming is a conclusion of what is happening to the earth based on scientific study. It is no more a matter of "opinion" than whether cigarettes cause cancer. You need a different homework topic, or a different class, or a different teacher who understands the difference between fact and opinion.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&...

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

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.htm...

“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.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=...

“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.”

The global warmers don't have any science apart from computer models this and computer models that. Garbage in equals garbage out. How do they observe "climate" being as climate is supposed to be the average weather over a long period of time? How does anybody seriously study climate with no raw data, or haven’t they heard the historical climate data appears to be missing. In its place is a bunch of homogenized crap made up by a guy we should all trust because he like them only has our best interest at heart and honest he got it all right the first time and didn’t need it any more so he deleted it?

How do they calculate man made carbon dioxide when 72% of the planet is under oceans and nobody has the slightest clue how many undersea volcanoes that are active? There could be 300% or more unknown CO2 spewing sources under our oceans. When the main greenhouse gas, water is 99.9 % more prevalent than Carbon dioxide why has the climate never run away as they all claim a couple parts per million of CO2 is supposed to do. What happened to the 4500 missing weather stations that we used up until 1970s. How do they compare the temperature of a planet over time when they are not even using the same data sources? Why are 300 weather stations in Canada’s Arctic ignored and only one used? It’s situated on an Island known as the garden spot of the Arctic.

Every time a new story is printed by a supposed green source all we ever see for evidence is observation and convenient assumptions by people whose reputations seem to precede them. Has their science been so debunked that nobody is willing to print it any more or does the thought of a real scientist looking over their work and showing the world that they just make the stuff up as they go along scare the hell out of them? (Real scientists being sceptical scientists).

Science is not gossip about "done science" that nobody seems to know where to find or when they do it turns out to be a hundred years old and based on a none finite atmosphere. Science is prove it or move on, not if you can't prove it call them names or change the subject and talk about sustainability or windmills, or changes your name from global warmists to climate change proponents and hope nobody notices. If that doesn’t work try fear mongering.

They remind me of the people who use to walk the streets of Berkley in robes carrying placards reading “Repent the end is near”. Is there nothing in their lives that doesn’t cause doomsday? The question comes to mind: Do any of them have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. Climate has changed since the beginning of time. We are either going into or coming out of an ice age thus we are either getting warmer or getting colder. The only doomsday in the horizon is the one they are trying really hard to create. Sharing unsubstantiated gossip does not constitute science. I see them for what they really are .... Zealots ...They are willing to destroy billions of peoples lives for their religious beliefs, because that is what it is.

The consensus that they speak of incessantly is not science. Science does not use consensus. Consensus is the last hope of a bad theory and people who have too much invested in the outcome to look at the world with a clear rational head. Smart people would have investigated the science before they spent their lives being “useful idiots” to those who would subvert them and their best intentions. Did they really think that the wealthy elitists would just give them all the money if they could just convince them of their faith? The meek will not inherit the earth they will just continue to serve those that will; however, as long as their wishes serve their purpose they will allow them their fantasy.

global warming is more than just climate change. climate change is hard to predict but it will cause extremes (i.e. stuff that humans aren't used to). there is no scientific debate about whether global warming is happening. the CO2 levels are rising. that's a fact. there is political debate in america but not many other first world countries. the biggest die off in the history of the planet was due to global warming (natural that time though). one major thing global warming is doing is it's killing most life in the oceans, which of course will have an impact on a lot of other stuff (e.g. us). this is done with the CO2 offsetting the dynamic equilibrium in the water. you might have heard how plankton soaks up CO2? well they do (indirectly), and it kills them. i learned about this in analytical chemistry, not some environmentalist class.

My opinion: Regardless whether we are directly affecting the global temperatures through our pollution or not, the fact is, we are still polluting, and still burning fossil fuels that are going to run out soon. So whether we're contributing to global warming or not, it doesn't matter at all, we're going to have to make drastic changes to how we energize the planet, and if that involves less pollution, and being friendlier to the environment over all, we can't really go wrong. So be green.

It's just a phase that the earth is going through and has gone through before. Of course this time, the weather effects of it will be much worse because of the greenhouse effect - which is our fault for polluting the atmosphere.

...I think we'll live. Not so sure about some of those endangered species of arctic animals though. Their icy habitats are quickly melting and leaving them with nowhere to go. :(

Regardless of the pollution and chemicals we dump in the air (which may contribute to warming), the Earth heating up is natural.

I do think, however, that we need to cut down on CO2 emissions and save the OZONE LAYER.

Whoever says Global Warming isn't real is scared and in denial...

This hasn't happened before.

Not like this.