Do you still belve global warming is real?

I am a sceptic but I also understand I could be wrong and yes I do believe we should try to cut carbon emissions we could start by using hybrid,electric and diesel cars people could use solar powers for there homes . burning petrol is not natural burning coal is not natural and that alone is a worry . I realise at the moment solar does not give enough base load power for factories so maybe we should start using nuclear more. Anyhow we have to be rational but at the same time think about what were doing and the future effects there maybe unknown effects besides global warming that is caused by carbon emmisions.I personally believe we have to start learning how to use plant materials for things even the mining for the materials to create solar is quite harmful.

NO.

The Interplanetary Platform on Climate Change (IPCC) the mastermind of this Global Warming/Climate Change are fudging the data to suit their intentions. That is, to blame any changes in our climate to human endeavors, which is the burning of fossil fuels. You will not find any reference in their reports, the mention of the Sun's influence on earth's climate, which along with Galactic Cosmic rays are the main drivers. Remember Climategate 2009 and 2011 which verifies the hoax.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is food for all plants. At the present 400ppm the world is greener, at 200ppm plants start to die, at 150ppm all life on Earth will become extinct because plants will all die. Therefore, the more CO2 the better for life on this Planet.

Do research on the Sun and you will know the truth.

I certainly believe man is causing some warming, but it is not nearly the catastrophe that the alarmunists are making it out to be.

As you stated, the polar bears population is doing fine. There has been an increase in the polar bear population over the last 60 years, not a decrease. Polar Bear are hard to track and get an accurate count, which leads to a lot of variability in the estimated number of polar bears. Polar Bears are black bears that have adapted to cold weather. They are not a separate species as they can have viable offspring with black bears.

Of course nothing that is being mentioned here is really much of a problem. For all intents and purposes, it really shoudl not matter to us human if some ice is melting except for what that causes. If it causes sea level rises, this is concerning, but the ice melting itself is really not a problem. Generally its a good thing.

That is one problem with the alarmunists. They talk about the destruction of the planet, but ignore that the planet is getting GREENER. Why? Because plants love CO2. Unlike earlier period of the Earth's history, we are in a period with a glut of CO2. When the planet had much higher levels of CO2, apart from the Earth being some desert nightmare the alarmunists imagine up for Mad Max movies, it was a tropical paradise. There was FARRRR more plant life.

Fact is that with global warming comes negative and positive consequences. While we shoudl look to reducing our CO2 emissions, just because we do not know all of the effects, it is NOT some impending catastrophe. Society is currently built upon the use of fossil fuels and the alternative forms of energy are not currently ready to take over. The quick move over from fossil fuels to renewables will cause massive starvation if not done properly, and these people pretending the world is going to end, seem to have no interest in reason.

I believe in climate change, because my name is Fippsbob Dumbledore

too many issues about global warming here. there are more important issues that our environment is facing right now.

I don't know if GW is real. I don't even know what it means. It seems sometimes it supposed to mean any warming, sometimes only warming humans cause. If it isn't defined properly then obviously it can't be declared real. Polar Bears seem to be doing what Polar Bears always have, and that is struggle to survive like all wild animals. Their numbers are hard to count and IMO they seem to be fine. Those who suggest they are going extinct do so without any real scientific evidence.

It's a lot more real than the statements you made in this question.

Yes, and let me explain why.

There are scientists out there who are studying the formation of planets. There are others looking at star formation. There are others looking at black holes and neutron stars. There are some looking at the formation of galaxies. All of these scientists are working in separate areas, and receive funding to address knowledge gaps in each of their respective fields. However, there is a unifying principle of gravity that all these scientists are aware of and which they find helps them to explain their observations.

Similarly, we have scientists working in lots of different fields in the geosciences. We have scientists trying to understand past atmospheric concentrations. We have scientists studying glaciers. We have hydrologists studying the flow of water around the planet. We have ecologists looking at the life present in various regions of the earth. All of these scientists are working in their own respective areas of expertise and are funded to address knowledge gaps in each area. We want to know more about how glaciers form, how they evolve, how they change the landscape, the dynamics involved, etc.

AGW, like gravity, is a unifying principle that seems to apply to many areas of the geosciences. It fits with observations the glaciologists, the hydrologists, the meteorologists, the ecologists, the geologists, the atmospheric chemists, etc are making. And this is why it is such a compelling scientific theory.

Skeptics like to argue that 'climatologists are making up AGW to get funding'. Actually, most of that funding has nothing to do with AGW and everything to do with studying different aspects of our planet in order to fill knowledge gaps in each field of study. People studying glaciers are funded to study glaciers, not global warming. But what we're finding is that global warming is something that all these different fields have to account for in their observations. Glaciers don't just suddenly melt around the entire northern hemisphere unless something is happening to make them melt. Global warming provides an explanation. Sea levels don't suddenly rise unless thermal expansion is partially responsible. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 don't suddenly change unless something is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. And so on ...

Global warming isn't some simulation running on a supercomputer. It isn't some theory that 'climatologists' are using to milk funding. It is a theory that scientists in many different fields are finding to be consistent with their observations. And when lots of scientists in different fields find a unifying principle that explains what they are observing, we should probably listen to them and take it seriously.

Only an idiot thinks global warming is some sort of global scientist-driven conspiracy theory.

And the Polar Bears are NOT thriving. There's less ice for them to use as hunting grounds, and they're starting to encroach upon the territory of the Black Bear who are also running out of space to live.

.......completely debunked. And scientist cherry picking data taken on asphal. The hockeystick chart totaly Ignored certain wrming periods were temps where up big time but co2 had fallendramaticall. Dont answer If you dont even have a clue. Sorry about my spelling my phone is acting up again, like auto posting half written answers.