Global warming is an outdated term, please change the title to, "climate change" Any way, to completely deny climate change is asinine, and this is coming from a far right leaning conservative. The true question lies in how much human activity has to do with the climate change, which is something that's up to debate

The real question is what's the solution? And no not wind and solar coupled with emissions tax, I'm talking about an actual tangible cost effective solution. What does that look like?

Because it would be bad for oil companies and we can't have anything that hurts their profits. Greed will destroy the world.

Because the only solution given is: "Increase government control over businesses and citizens and then increase taxes while also criminalising anyone who disagrees with us" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer Princeton accomplished physicist speaks out against climate alarmism http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#770f55997187 97% flawed "One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent. But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t. The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested: “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta" http://m.eae.sagepub.com/content/21/8/969.abstract Temperature recording is inaccurate, doesn't consider margin of errors and the site locations are not adequate http://www.hanfordvitplant.com/about-project How to get rid of nuke waste https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency Solar cells are at near peak efficiency as afforded by thermodynamic heat engine equation maximum http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-enron-wants-global-warming ENRON lobbies to destroy credibility of all who oppose global warming and wish to profit off of the fear http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/indium/mcs-2013-indiu.pdf The material for solar panels is rare as hell, expensive, has to be refined massively and you require electrically conducting glass. This would all be outsourced to China as Germany has done, for instance. Solar panels have a set lifetime. They degrade over the years until they're basically no better than a piece of silicon on your roof. Also, the "efficiency" that is on the label is actually out of around 70% of total possible efficiency. There's a physical limit to how good solar panels can get. Right now, most up and coming/in development solar panels run about 10-15% of that 70% limit, and pretty much all solar panels will degrade past 50% efficiency in 20 years. Solar energy is a meme. It will cost more to continuously replace solar panels than it will save us, while causing a huge trash and recycling problem, since not everyone will properly dispose of their old panels. https://www.google.com/amp/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/08/18/birds-bursting-into-flames-above-solar-farm-stirs-calls-to-slow-expansion-streamer-solar-field-central-valley-heat-streamer-fire-burn/amp/?client=ms-android-sprint-us Panels catch birds on fire http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/region/3805700-study-finds-north-dakota-birds-displaced-wind-turbines Wind displaces wildlife Skepticalscience is shit https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/ An actual physicist shits on the site as being anti-science http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?m=1 Loads of inconsistencies and lies and falsehoods with censoring and deleting and ignoring debunking. SkS is a political machine, not a science 97% myth. Skepticalscience reports 97% Cook study is truthful http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97 Analysis of the study by an expert in the field discovers massive bias and cooking of results while also cherrypicking datapoints and refusing a double-blind study in order to shame scientists who may have had doubts http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=495104001002067116001071068020118081101069081061084031018005019028083093002113085101000003027026054116046003011029118029031089107048048080009069023114097081083005008051035087103119119118000099100071015126127127090124125012074119020087108098082119101022&EXT=pdf 95% myth https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/ No one has any idea if the polar bear populations are dying. They believe they are and they say they have logic behind it, but previous unofficial citations are the best we had pre-70's and, using those, it would seem that the population is growing. The reality? We have no idea what's happening. We just assume and believe. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming Al Gore and a Navy climate science expert said sea ice would be nonexistent in 2013, those failed so Navy scientist published a new and widely cited study that predicted that 2016 would have little to no ice whatsoever http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013

Because oil and coal companies donate heavily to republican campaigns so climate change denial has become a platform of the republican party and if you don't believe in all of the tenants of the republican party that makes you a dirty dirty liberal. Also don't even think about voting for a democrat who promises to fight climate change because politics are very polarized right now and voting for the opposing party is an unspeakable transgression.

Idk. Tell me why I'm not allowed to come from a hunting and army family and believe in very moderate gun control. (Meaning the laws already in place, perhaps add a couple things)

It's a natural occurring cycle that humans have almost no impact on. Deforestation is the biggest contributor.

I think a better question is.. Why the hell have we allowed ourselves to get to the point where matters of science become partisan issues?

One problem, evidence is now coming out from the senate committee on Science and technology that none of the "evidence" provide these past 20 years is not founded in actual data and that everything they have spewed is nothing but political lies. In fact it has come out that the only scientist willing to question these numbers was immediately fired after sharing her results with the committed by the Obama administration. Which is illegal. Also one nice bonus, no "data" from 1995 and back is reliable as the tools used to check were as much as 35% off compared to modern tools. So that being said. The climate is changing, normally, and on schedule, just the sedimentary layers show it does for millennia after millennia. Enjoy your fearporn of climapocalypse.

Because to identify as a part of the political process means that you have to participate in groupthink and believe the very same principles as everyone else in your group. To be able to have a voice in political discussion, you must be easily fooled by anti-establishment rhetoric which actually supports the establishment, just behind the curtains. You must be ignorant to the scientific method, and you must simply spit out what you read on your biased news articles. And by the way, you'll be inclined to think this post is speaking directly to your party because you've been subjected to dogmatic political rhetoric for the past year.

Take that liberal propaganda elsewhere

It's snowing outside, the planet isn't getting warmer idiot.

The joke is on all you fools, the Sun will be the end of this planet, it's just a matter of time.

You don't "belive" in global warming. You either know its real, or your an idiot.

The question you guys should be asking yourselves is why this is even a political discussion. It should be a scientific one that we are all concerned with regardless of if you agree with various conservative or liberal viewpoints on other matters

Anybody in any political party who discourages you from making up your own mind is doing a pretty big disservice to their party and political position, not to mention the idea of democracy as a whole.

Simple, we Americans have become a raving pack of idiots who drink the kool-aid. If you do not choose a side, you will be unpatriotic, get testicular cancer & suddenly start eating only super cute babies. To hell with choosing a side, I consider myself to be an intelligent person & in no way do I wish to be half wrong, all the -blam!-ing time! I am just an American who is interested in the betterment of America. That & I mean come on, these morons have been in power for how many years now? Yet the things they touch are only getting worse & more extreme on both sides.

Many stronghold states of that party relies on gas for their revenue. I could imagine why some would hate obama when he restricts one of the few main state incomes. At the same time it must be done. Dont believe me? Just be aware when china actually puts air pollution alerts. The way i see it is coal and oil is limited so why rely on it when we should be focusing on limitless. Seems like common sense. Thats one less war for resources. Plus more money in your wallet for gas saved.