It's a completely reasonable term to describe someone who denies a massive body of consistent scientific evidence. For example, I would describe someone who disagreed with evolution by natural selection as a "denier", that is, denying something in the face of extremely strong evidence.
In any case, deniers of climate change don't show a lot of good faith. Their main arguments seem be that a huge number of scientists (including several Nobel prize winners) across a lot of disciplines are either ludicrously incompetent or highly corrupt in that they modify their views according to some mucky grab for research grants. Such libel is really not in the same league as calling someone a "denier".
The deniers use words like "feel" and "believe" (GP) a lot. This isn't a subject you can use your intuition on. The science is very strong but also complex. The only people who can reasonably disagree with the science at this point are experts in the field (except they don't).
but I am by no means convinced that there is a causation link between the two,
That's not how it works. The science is so settled that it should be the baseline now. It's not everyone's job to convince you beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to tell people that solid, well-established science is wrong, it is your job to convince them. Is our fundamental understanding of chemistry and physics wrong? Are our models wrong? If so, what is wrong with them?
Syria's government isn't really based on religion. The governing regime is from the same minority religious group (Alawite), but that's more to do with corruption and cronyism than any strong religious belief.
Syria is a pretty free country so far as religion goes. It is a culturally Muslim country so women can't sit in the front of taxis/wear bikinis etc. but there's no problem if you want to go to church or be an atheist (even Jews living in Syria is acceptable, at least in theory).
There are religious tensions in Syria but really that's the least of their problems at the moment. The regime likes to raise the spectre of protests being religiously inspired but the protestors have been doing their best to demonstrate their unity cuts across these lines.
Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely.
On the other hand, it could make Kim Jong-Il sit up and realise how little support he has from China and think more seriously about pissing any more people off. It might improve China's relationship with the rest of the world as they recognise that China, despite its own human rights violations, are not prepared to prop up a regime as unpleasant as North Korea's. "Damaging the current relationship between North Korea and China" might well be a good thing; it is difficult to predict.
Speaking as a caver, it could well be a shakehole (sinkhole). It's not the classic shape for it but they vary in shape and size. It's big, but not enormous. If it is a shakehole it certainly won't have broken any records.
As a first step, check some geological maps. If you're above limestone, I'd say: case closed, it's a shakehole. Yes, it's above a cave (or at least where a cave used to be!) The first photo of the "new metal" looks suspiciously like limestone.
As the wealthiest and most populous of first world nations, you'd expect the US to be top. But try dividing those numbers by GDP or population and the US suddenly looks a hell of a lot less impressive.
There seem to be a lot of people complaining about it, but I *like* the current Gnome interface. It's simple, straightforward, has plenty of information available in minimal space and is pretty enough. OSX drives me nuts and I don't like the idea of GnomeShell or Unity. I like having a taskbar. I don't like having to click buttons or move my cursor to see which windows I have open. Evolution rather than revolution please.
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
No doubt, some people should have secured their computers better. But, no, that doesn't automatically give anyone right to do something just because they can.
There are millions of homes out there that just about anyone who isn't a quadriplegic _can_ break in. If nothing else, an axe takes care of most doors and a simple brick can defeat most windows.
What rubs me the wrong way is people equating homes with online computers. There seems to me a significantly smaller crime being committed by someone illegally accessing a computer that I own than entering my home.
I also have more of an emotional response when considering personal property than government property; even if we equate virtual property with private property, this is more like someone wandering around an unsecured military base than a private home.
Your axe comment isn't really appropriate either, as the systems were unsecured. Again, even if we equate virtual property with private property, it was more like trespass than breaking and entering.
You complain that climate change deniers are not taken seriously, but when you keep making assertions that are blatantly false, what do you expect?
Now, let me summarise the situation.
We have:
1/ evidence that the Earth is warming extremely quickly 2/ evidence that we have significantly increased the CO2 proportion in the atmosphere 3/ basic chemistry/physics shows that enough 2/ leads to 1/ 4/ a huge mountain of scientific research that shows that 2/ is sufficient for 1/ 5/ a dramatic scientific consensus that 4/ is correct 6/ no credible competing theories to explain 1/
Now presumably you dispute none of this, except that you think 4/ is wrong (despite 5/). And you have no 6/ either. Correct?
Which it may, as I said. Which doesn't make my sentence "incorrect".
Sorry, but it is incorrect. The historical record does show warming following increased CO2 emissions, and not just due to feedback loops. The years since the industrial revolution being a case in point.
And this is why the warmers are losing the battle for public opinion: they cannot engage in rational debate without attacking any questioners as enemies and shills, or ignorant puppets. New facts and points of view are disallowed just as they are in a religious conclave.
I don't think the battle for public opinion is being lost. The current slashdot debate is strongly behind the scientists, whereas, say, five years ago, it would have been the opposite.
I don't think it's unreasonable to discount the opinions of those who disregard overwhelming scientific consensus, whether it's evolution, climate change, the link between smoking and cancer, the Copernican theory, or whatever. If you're proposing that the orthodoxy is incorrect, at the very least you need to have a credible alternative theory.
There is, but of what? You won't acknowledge any doubt or gaps in scientific knowledge whatsoever.
I'm happy to acknowledge that there is doubt and gaps in our scientific knowledge, in climatology as much as any field. That doesn't mean we can throw out working theories with mountains of evidence behind them and disregard the views of the huge majority of experts. You can't just say "oh, there's some uncertainty" and disagree with the model, especially since there is no other candidate!
It is possible that our model of climate change is wrong; it's just extremely unlikely at this stage. I anticipate only refinement from here as our knowledge grows more complete.
But you refuse to even acknowledge that the historical record shows only warming followed by CO2
Your sentence is incorrect. The climate history may show that CO2 release follows warming, but that does not mean that warming does not follow increased CO2 proportions. In any case, the current period of warming seems to quite clearly follow an increase of CO2.
If you think the article "confirms that fact" then you clearly haven't read it.
Seriously, I could carry on debating this point with you, but I can't be arsed. On the one side of the debate we have mountains of data, consistent theories, and models, and a pretty complete scientific consensus.
On the *other* side of the debate, we have a series of quacks, credulous idiots, and some of the media.
There is an abundance of information out there, and anyone not convinced by now is either insufficiently informed or has a religious-style determination not to believe it. I assume you are the latter; no amount of arguing from myself will convince you.
We *know* through geological records that this planet has undergone many changes in climate, including ice, flood, fire, drought, etc. Scientists *think* - based on the limited evidence available - that greenhouse gasses are the culprit. This time. Scientists also *know* that mankind, through industry and machinery, produces greenhouse gasses. Therefore mankind must be the cause.
More like: we *know* that the Earth is warming faster than at any other time in its history. We *know* that this coincides with a dramatic release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by humanity. We *know* (though basic chemistry) that enough CO2 released into the atmosphere will cause warming. Scientists think, because of a huge number of studies, that our release of gases is sufficient to explain the warming. There is also no other good candidate to explain the warming. Therefore humanity is almost certainly causing the warming.
I can't find the reference, but recall a study published last year that showed the bovine population - both dairy and meat - producing more greenhouse gasses than all of mankind.
Emissions caused by agriculture are generally assumed to be caused by "mankind".
but when we speak in a geological time frame even as short as man's sojourn on this planet... there is simply insufficient evidence to be certain.
I can tell you're not that familiar with the concept, but we do have a process known as the "scientific method" that allows us to evaluate the evidence and decide how confident we can be in its conclusions.
Should we shut down our economies and destroy our industry just because the climate is changing, just like it always has? Definitely not! It's just something life has to adapt to.
There have been several studies that have indicated that dealing with the cost of climate change is likely to be drastically more expensive than trying to avoid it in the first place.
Even if this wasn't true, I personally consider an economy growing at a slower rate a price worth paying for a habitable environment.
The above is assuming that reducing our CO2 emissions will actually harm industry. Developing and switching to new technologies and practices may actually prove a stimulus to the economy.
An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if it is being used in formal logic: "this is so because so-and-so says so". It is perfectly reasonable to trust an expert who is speaking of a field they are expert in: "I believe this is true because an expert believes this conclusion is correct from the evidence".
Trusting experts is a vital heuristic that humans use all the time. Human civilisation as we know it would not work without it.
There is none. That is, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations have caused the earth to warm in the past. There are correlations between CO2 and warming, but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.
The only solution in a communist system is to force people to do what is needed. You tell them "You must work or the state punishes you." Then, to make them work hard you tell them "You must meet these quotas or the state punishes you." Net effect? Low personal liberty, low motivation, and the perfect environment for a police state to grow in.
I think you have it backwards. People are compelled to work in capitalist societies, not communist ones: i.e., you have to work or you don't eat. Most civilised countries have a welfare safety net (i.e. they are a little bit communist) so it is more like you have to work or you don't get any toys.
What you are saying is that many "communist" states have not really been communist but have taken aspects of capitalist societies.
The USSR managed to take many of the worst features of communism and capitalism.
Indeed, and this is the enormous hurdle for any potential Facebook competitor; even something Google-backed has little hope of challenging the FB behemoth. The only way I can see a rival social network competing is if it offers a superset of features of FB and interacts seamlessly with FB (does FB's terms of service allow this?)
Like it or not, the majority of your friends will be using Facebook. In terms of social interaction it obviously isn't as essential as face to face meeting, but it is already rather more important than email or the phone system for many, if not most, young people. If I gave up Facebook (or email or telephones) tomorrow my closest friends would still stay in touch (somehow) but it would be making life more difficult for them and I'd disappear off the radar of my more casual friends (particularly those who don't live locally).
It would be nice if Facebook was replaced by an open social networking standard or was owned by a more ethical company but unfortunately it isn't.
Grapes were once grown in England and the Thames was once frozen solid. In other words, it has been hotter than it's been now, regardless of the supposed "hottest decade crap", and it's been colder before.
I can't be bothered to debunk the rest of the crap you've written, so I'll just respond to this bit. I assume the rest of the post is on a similar level.
Grapes used to be grown in England. Grapes are *still* grown in England. They're even grown in Wales. Vineyards are in fact becoming more feasible in Britain due to global warming. Google "English wine" or "British wine".
No doubt your tiny little brain can't cope with the complexities of actual science, so you prefer to base your beliefs on individual anecdotal snippets (which happen to be wrong!)
My point of view is that I'm open to be convinced, but at the moment it seems to me to be arrogance on behalf of we humans to assume we can have a significant impact, although I suspect we're contributing in a minor way.
It may be arrogance to *assume* humans can have a significant impact, but it is not arrogant to believe the *science* that indicates human have a significant impact. It is more arrogant to believe that one is in a better position to have a view on the issue compared to the experts who study it.
The problem is the whole topic is so clouded and has now been subverted by groups on both sides with ulterior motives, I don't know who or what to trust anymore.
Whilst it is not easy to get a good picture of the science through the fog of the media (which has indeed been subverted by various groups with different motives), how about trusting the scientists? Try believing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As for me, I'm inclined to think we do have some cause for concern, based on what little actual evidence I've seen from both sides of the debate. I'm by no means convinced that we have enough evidence to support one side or another.
Me too. I understand the science at a basic level (enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming), but who is to say what is the actual level of CO2 that will make warming significant? And how do all the feedback cycles and other variables fit in?
Wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of system, ooh, let's call it the "scientific method" or something similar, where people who have studied the field could argue with their peers and put forward competing hypotheses to explain what is happening? Also, we could set up organisations to tell the general public what has been concluded -- maybe called the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" or something similarly poncy.
That way we wouldn't all need to make a snap decision on the issue based on an incomplete understanding of the issue.
Personally I'm unconvinced by climate change, just like I'm unconvinced that string theory is a viable theory, or many other advanced scientific topics. As I don't fully understand those fields however, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know better than the experts.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a completely reasonable term to describe someone who denies a massive body of consistent scientific evidence. For example, I would describe someone who disagreed with evolution by natural selection as a "denier", that is, denying something in the face of extremely strong evidence.
In any case, deniers of climate change don't show a lot of good faith. Their main arguments seem be that a huge number of scientists (including several Nobel prize winners) across a lot of disciplines are either ludicrously incompetent or highly corrupt in that they modify their views according to some mucky grab for research grants. Such libel is really not in the same league as calling someone a "denier".
This is exactly how I feel.
The deniers use words like "feel" and "believe" (GP) a lot. This isn't a subject you can use your intuition on. The science is very strong but also complex. The only people who can reasonably disagree with the science at this point are experts in the field (except they don't).
but I am by no means convinced that there is a causation link between the two,
That's not how it works. The science is so settled that it should be the baseline now. It's not everyone's job to convince you beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to tell people that solid, well-established science is wrong, it is your job to convince them. Is our fundamental understanding of chemistry and physics wrong? Are our models wrong? If so, what is wrong with them?
Syria's government isn't really based on religion. The governing regime is from the same minority religious group (Alawite), but that's more to do with corruption and cronyism than any strong religious belief.
Syria is a pretty free country so far as religion goes. It is a culturally Muslim country so women can't sit in the front of taxis/wear bikinis etc. but there's no problem if you want to go to church or be an atheist (even Jews living in Syria is acceptable, at least in theory).
There are religious tensions in Syria but really that's the least of their problems at the moment. The regime likes to raise the spectre of protests being religiously inspired but the protestors have been doing their best to demonstrate their unity cuts across these lines.
35 tablets isn't that many. Apple must have sold 10 million iPads by now.
Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely.
On the other hand, it could make Kim Jong-Il sit up and realise how little support he has from China and think more seriously about pissing any more people off. It might improve China's relationship with the rest of the world as they recognise that China, despite its own human rights violations, are not prepared to prop up a regime as unpleasant as North Korea's. "Damaging the current relationship between North Korea and China" might well be a good thing; it is difficult to predict.
Speaking as a caver, it could well be a shakehole (sinkhole). It's not the classic shape for it but they vary in shape and size. It's big, but not enormous. If it is a shakehole it certainly won't have broken any records.
As a first step, check some geological maps. If you're above limestone, I'd say: case closed, it's a shakehole. Yes, it's above a cave (or at least where a cave used to be!) The first photo of the "new metal" looks suspiciously like limestone.
Well, take the prize for Physics:
USA 25.4
Germany 20.0
UK 14.8
As the wealthiest and most populous of first world nations, you'd expect the US to be top. But try dividing those numbers by GDP or population and the US suddenly looks a hell of a lot less impressive.
There seem to be a lot of people complaining about it, but I *like* the current Gnome interface. It's simple, straightforward, has plenty of information available in minimal space and is pretty enough. OSX drives me nuts and I don't like the idea of GnomeShell or Unity. I like having a taskbar. I don't like having to click buttons or move my cursor to see which windows I have open. Evolution rather than revolution please.
Yes, Wales *is* part of Great Britain. GP is incorrect.
Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
No doubt, some people should have secured their computers better. But, no, that doesn't automatically give anyone right to do something just because they can.
There are millions of homes out there that just about anyone who isn't a quadriplegic _can_ break in. If nothing else, an axe takes care of most doors and a simple brick can defeat most windows.
What rubs me the wrong way is people equating homes with online computers. There seems to me a significantly smaller crime being committed by someone illegally accessing a computer that I own than entering my home.
I also have more of an emotional response when considering personal property than government property; even if we equate virtual property with private property, this is more like someone wandering around an unsecured military base than a private home.
Your axe comment isn't really appropriate either, as the systems were unsecured. Again, even if we equate virtual property with private property, it was more like trespass than breaking and entering.
It's simply untrue that climate models have been unable to make accurate predictions.
See here for example.
You complain that climate change deniers are not taken seriously, but when you keep making assertions that are blatantly false, what do you expect?
Now, let me summarise the situation.
We have:
1/ evidence that the Earth is warming extremely quickly
2/ evidence that we have significantly increased the CO2 proportion in the atmosphere
3/ basic chemistry/physics shows that enough 2/ leads to 1/
4/ a huge mountain of scientific research that shows that 2/ is sufficient for 1/
5/ a dramatic scientific consensus that 4/ is correct
6/ no credible competing theories to explain 1/
Now presumably you dispute none of this, except that you think 4/ is wrong (despite 5/). And you have no 6/ either. Correct?
Which it may, as I said. Which doesn't make my sentence "incorrect".
Sorry, but it is incorrect. The historical record does show warming following increased CO2 emissions, and not just due to feedback loops. The years since the industrial revolution being a case in point.
And this is why the warmers are losing the battle for public opinion: they cannot engage in rational debate without attacking any questioners as enemies and shills, or ignorant puppets. New facts and points of view are disallowed just as they are in a religious conclave.
I don't think the battle for public opinion is being lost. The current slashdot debate is strongly behind the scientists, whereas, say, five years ago, it would have been the opposite.
I don't think it's unreasonable to discount the opinions of those who disregard overwhelming scientific consensus, whether it's evolution, climate change, the link between smoking and cancer, the Copernican theory, or whatever. If you're proposing that the orthodoxy is incorrect, at the very least you need to have a credible alternative theory.
There is, but of what? You won't acknowledge any doubt or gaps in scientific knowledge whatsoever.
I'm happy to acknowledge that there is doubt and gaps in our scientific knowledge, in climatology as much as any field. That doesn't mean we can throw out working theories with mountains of evidence behind them and disregard the views of the huge majority of experts. You can't just say "oh, there's some uncertainty" and disagree with the model, especially since there is no other candidate!
It is possible that our model of climate change is wrong; it's just extremely unlikely at this stage. I anticipate only refinement from here as our knowledge grows more complete.
But you refuse to even acknowledge that the historical record shows only warming followed by CO2
Your sentence is incorrect. The climate history may show that CO2 release follows warming, but that does not mean that warming does not follow increased CO2 proportions. In any case, the current period of warming seems to quite clearly follow an increase of CO2.
If you think the article "confirms that fact" then you clearly haven't read it.
Seriously, I could carry on debating this point with you, but I can't be arsed. On the one side of the debate we have mountains of data, consistent theories, and models, and a pretty complete scientific consensus.
On the *other* side of the debate, we have a series of quacks, credulous idiots, and some of the media.
There is an abundance of information out there, and anyone not convinced by now is either insufficiently informed or has a religious-style determination not to believe it. I assume you are the latter; no amount of arguing from myself will convince you.
We *know* through geological records that this planet has undergone many changes in climate, including ice, flood, fire, drought, etc. Scientists *think* - based on the limited evidence available - that greenhouse gasses are the culprit. This time. Scientists also *know* that mankind, through industry and machinery, produces greenhouse gasses. Therefore mankind must be the cause.
More like: we *know* that the Earth is warming faster than at any other time in its history. We *know* that this coincides with a dramatic release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by humanity. We *know* (though basic chemistry) that enough CO2 released into the atmosphere will cause warming. Scientists think, because of a huge number of studies, that our release of gases is sufficient to explain the warming. There is also no other good candidate to explain the warming. Therefore humanity is almost certainly causing the warming.
I can't find the reference, but recall a study published last year that showed the bovine population - both dairy and meat - producing more greenhouse gasses than all of mankind.
Emissions caused by agriculture are generally assumed to be caused by "mankind".
but when we speak in a geological time frame even as short as man's sojourn on this planet... there is simply insufficient evidence to be certain.
I can tell you're not that familiar with the concept, but we do have a process known as the "scientific method" that allows us to evaluate the evidence and decide how confident we can be in its conclusions.
Should we shut down our economies and destroy our industry just because the climate is changing, just like it always has? Definitely not! It's just something life has to adapt to.
There have been several studies that have indicated that dealing with the cost of climate change is likely to be drastically more expensive than trying to avoid it in the first place.
Even if this wasn't true, I personally consider an economy growing at a slower rate a price worth paying for a habitable environment.
The above is assuming that reducing our CO2 emissions will actually harm industry. Developing and switching to new technologies and practices may actually prove a stimulus to the economy.
An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if it is being used in formal logic: "this is so because so-and-so says so". It is perfectly reasonable to trust an expert who is speaking of a field they are expert in: "I believe this is true because an expert believes this conclusion is correct from the evidence".
Trusting experts is a vital heuristic that humans use all the time. Human civilisation as we know it would not work without it.
There is none. That is, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations have caused the earth to warm in the past. There are correlations between CO2 and warming, but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.
This argument has been debunked time and time again.
That's just sophistry. From a pragmatic point of view, most people have no choice about having to work in a capitalist society.
You can argue the various merits of different political/economic systems, but people are effectively forced to work in almost all of them.
The only solution in a communist system is to force people to do what is needed. You tell them "You must work or the state punishes you." Then, to make them work hard you tell them "You must meet these quotas or the state punishes you." Net effect? Low personal liberty, low motivation, and the perfect environment for a police state to grow in.
I think you have it backwards. People are compelled to work in capitalist societies, not communist ones: i.e., you have to work or you don't eat. Most civilised countries have a welfare safety net (i.e. they are a little bit communist) so it is more like you have to work or you don't get any toys.
What you are saying is that many "communist" states have not really been communist but have taken aspects of capitalist societies.
The USSR managed to take many of the worst features of communism and capitalism.
Indeed, and this is the enormous hurdle for any potential Facebook competitor; even something Google-backed has little hope of challenging the FB behemoth. The only way I can see a rival social network competing is if it offers a superset of features of FB and interacts seamlessly with FB (does FB's terms of service allow this?)
Like it or not, the majority of your friends will be using Facebook. In terms of social interaction it obviously isn't as essential as face to face meeting, but it is already rather more important than email or the phone system for many, if not most, young people. If I gave up Facebook (or email or telephones) tomorrow my closest friends would still stay in touch (somehow) but it would be making life more difficult for them and I'd disappear off the radar of my more casual friends (particularly those who don't live locally).
It would be nice if Facebook was replaced by an open social networking standard or was owned by a more ethical company but unfortunately it isn't.
Grapes were once grown in England and the Thames was once frozen solid. In other words, it has been hotter than it's been now, regardless of the supposed "hottest decade crap", and it's been colder before.
I can't be bothered to debunk the rest of the crap you've written, so I'll just respond to this bit. I assume the rest of the post is on a similar level.
Grapes used to be grown in England. Grapes are *still* grown in England. They're even grown in Wales. Vineyards are in fact becoming more feasible in Britain due to global warming. Google "English wine" or "British wine".
No doubt your tiny little brain can't cope with the complexities of actual science, so you prefer to base your beliefs on individual anecdotal snippets (which happen to be wrong!)
FAIL.
My point of view is that I'm open to be convinced, but at the moment it seems to me to be arrogance on behalf of we humans to assume we can have a significant impact, although I suspect we're contributing in a minor way.
It may be arrogance to *assume* humans can have a significant impact, but it is not arrogant to believe the *science* that indicates human have a significant impact. It is more arrogant to believe that one is in a better position to have a view on the issue compared to the experts who study it.
The problem is the whole topic is so clouded and has now been subverted by groups on both sides with ulterior motives, I don't know who or what to trust anymore.
Whilst it is not easy to get a good picture of the science through the fog of the media (which has indeed been subverted by various groups with different motives), how about trusting the scientists? Try believing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As for me, I'm inclined to think we do have some cause for concern, based on what little actual evidence I've seen from both sides of the debate. I'm by no means convinced that we have enough evidence to support one side or another.
Me too. I understand the science at a basic level (enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming), but who is to say what is the actual level of CO2 that will make warming significant? And how do all the feedback cycles and other variables fit in?
Wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of system, ooh, let's call it the "scientific method" or something similar, where people who have studied the field could argue with their peers and put forward competing hypotheses to explain what is happening? Also, we could set up organisations to tell the general public what has been concluded -- maybe called the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" or something similarly poncy.
That way we wouldn't all need to make a snap decision on the issue based on an incomplete understanding of the issue.
Personally I'm unconvinced by climate change, just like I'm unconvinced that string theory is a viable theory, or many other advanced scientific topics. As I don't fully understand those fields however, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know better than the experts.