why do so many of you like to come here and ask loaded questions on both sides of the issue?

On the AGW is real side, I think there are a few people who are simply parroting popular media and the like, and some radicals who want us to throw out all the advantages of modern civilization, but I suspect the majority have at least tangentially run across the scientific facts (I wouldn't expect Joe Q. Layperson to read the average scientific paper, I find some of them nearly impenetrable, even in my field, and I have a science degree; but most have at least read Wikipedia or the like) For the average reasonably intelligent non-scientist, I think the fact that roughly 97% of scientists agree with their position is persuasive enough.

And, frankly, there's a lot of "slop" in how we use energy, and a lot of targets for reducing our fossil fuel consumption are pretty low-hanging fruit (like "avoid waste" or "use CFLs") I, for example, own and drive a car--but I generally walk or ride the bus to and from work.

And, of course, there's alternative energy. Solar power from photovoltaics is rightly and reasonably questioned, but there are presently available technologies that are either nearly or entirely competitive with fossil-fuel-based energy sources--thermal solar, petroleum from agricultural waste, and the like. There's research going on into safer nuclear power, more effective wind power (rather than wind farms in the "wild", I think we should put our wind turbines on sky scrapers, personally...)

On the no-AGW side, I think it's a combination of ignorance (honest or willful) and political ideology.

And I, at least, try to avoid the loaded "Here's the truth, don't you agree with me, huh, huh?" questions, and go for "Have you genuinely considered this aspect or angle?" type questions.

why do you assume I get my energy from non-renewable resources? I do not. Wikipedia is not a source of research. Sure it can be a stepping stone but for real research go to scientific journals. I bet you don;t even know how to find those. This is a site where the majority of the posts do not have to do with how to deal with the situation. the majority of the posts have to do with the reality of the situation. And your assumption that 'warmers' state that Al Gore discovered the greenhouse effect is flat out wrong. John Tyndall was actually the one that discovered the greenhouse effect in 1861. Not 100's of years, as you claim, but close enough. And chances are quite a few of the regular 'warmerss' in here know a lot more about the greenhouse effect than you do.

I think AGW is likely. The Industrial Revolution (discovering how to exploit our life support system - Earth) cannot occur with neutral effects. Guess that says that I tend to side with the 'warmers'.

In the 1980's and '90's I did a hell of a lot of backpacking with friends that just happened to be top notch microbiologists and atmospheric scientists. They were very concerned about AGW back then. At that time most people would have thought that Al Gore was the name of some psyco in a Steven King book.

Have I done thorough research?

No. But I have a tendency to side with reasonable people.

Do I think we humans will ever learn how to responsibly manage the planets resources in a way that has long term survival as the goal?

Not a chance.

We simply, as a species, can't see beyond our noses.

.we've that subject right here in Spain they are Romanian and Bulgarian gypsies. on the start i used to furnish them funds or food until eventually they began sitting outdoors shops breastfeeding getting their older little ones to beg who're very intimidating .the youngsters consistently attempt to take the procuring out of the trolleys .there have been camps interior the woods the place i stay or perhaps if the girls human beings and young ones have been wearing rags ,and that they are forced to hold the little ones and water a solid mile from the save to the camp , the lads drove approximately in new 4 via 4 s. there's a protracted canal close to my homestead with a street that runs parallel it quite is barely huge sufficient for 2 autos to bypass ,one night a gypsy lady positioned her toddler in this street in front an oncoming motor vehicle.the motive force of the motor vehicle swerved and went rapidly into the water fortunate 2 human beings walking their dogs stored the motive force.this is the 2nd time this year it has befell , they are hoping the motive force will end the motor vehicle and that they are in a position to then rob her or him. So i could say report them by way of fact their behaviour does worsen .

Energy consumption is no indicator for the standard of life, and here I understand that consumption is the yard-stock by which you measure the "standard of life" this in its self is debatable. "No One's" standard life has fallen as of yet, by the good management of energy! I think that the Americans believe that a car consuming three time the amount of energy get them from point A to point B, better than a car consuming far less, or leaving electrical appliances on, when not at home is good energy management, it's not. And it's not a question of deciding for one self. Energy mismanagement is not a choice for individualist.In fact if one saves on energy, one standard of life for the point of view of consumption will increase.Driving a smaller car, turning electrical appliance off when not in use will give you more money in your hand, but that's you voluntary choice.The choice of society it to tax energy and force a change in energy consumption habits, this of cause will not give more personal revenue, but it will make people change involuntary their energy management habits and society the revenue to research into new energy forms. It's a kind of win, win situation.

Terrible it must be that both sides on the earth debate (round versus flat) are so reckless at "cherry picking data, using emotional arguments, and not proposing solutions for years now." Let's have a civil discussion, shall we, about whether society really needs indoor plumbing, fire departments, or vaccines against communicable diseases. instead of more research concerning unproven germ versus miasma theories, the health benefits of open sewage, and whether fire is just one of the four elements of the world.

If you were impartial you would refer to anti-warmers by a more truthful label rather than the lie. Skeptics are not anti- warmers, they just find the global cooling that became AGW now known as climate change supporters. To lack credibility, And yes your rant is pro strong government control to save the planet from evil man. So You lack credibility with me.

I have read every one of the links that should prove some thing, I find disagreements among the scientist, few of whom have credentials in a field that has to do with climate, and many that are working for a organization that has as a goal proving Global warming. If they oppose the position they are out of a job. Proving a negative is in fact impossible. So skeptics have to settle for shooting down, the claims of the accuser. That's why a defendant has no burden to prove he is innocent. Claim man is causing the world to over heat, Skeptic I don't see any credible proof for your claim. The skeptic has no reason to offer any proof. the burden is solely on the claimant. It's like religion you have to convince me your God is the real God, if you want me to believe, as you believe. Bottom line is it's about belief.

you say

"do you understand that your standard of living...depends absolutely on the amount of energy that you have at your disposal? that is a proven fact. more energy=better living standard"

this is wrong. above a certain level of consumption (roughly one tonne oil per person per year), the human development index, a common indicator of human welfare, does not rise significantly. so U.S. Americans are using 10 times as much as they need to to have a happy life.

similarly;

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84625

Most probably because the subject of this category it self is pretty loaded.

It would be similar if YA open category in "Science and Mathematic" about little green men and who belief in them and who does not. Same Idea, different beliefs ;).

If we wipe out all of the cows, then global warming would be massively reduced...and there would be no McDonalds (who fell massive forests to graze their cows).