A big part of which side of this argument you fall on depends on which scientists you listen to. There is scientific research on both sides. A common statistic thrown out is that 97% of scientists agree that humans are primarily responsible for climate change. But there are other research studies that show a large percentage of scientists who disagree with the "established facts." As LCDR (Join to see) said, I have read the studies, not with the intention of throwing anything in anyone's face, but simply to learn. I still believe that climate change, as presented to the American public by the media, is not as serious a topic as they make it out to be. Does human activity affect the climate? Yes. Are we going to destroy the ecosystem with our activity? I doubt it.

What we have to remember is that numbers and statistics are pretty easy to play around with to get them to say what you want. You can easily get to a 97% agreement rate if you only look at studies coming out of universities and think-tanks that are sympathetic with your cause. I'm not saying that this is how that 97% figure was arrived at, just pointing out that numbers can be manipulated to get the desired results.

Pollution is real enough and so is change. If you listen to many programs you get the feeling that they are not smart enough to do due diligence. LCDR (Join to see) Based on your politics I am not surprised by your answers.

Confusing Pollution with Catastrophic Change perpetrated by mankind is more than debatable. Pollution should be fixed and that includes damaging elements introduced into the atmosphere. China and the dust bowl situation is an example of climatic terrorism caused by stripping vegetation.

As far as many of the claims about climate is that I know talking points 97% of scientists agree and the Climate V. Weather arguments are pure political horsecrap and I am being nice.

Most lay people here have little understanding of Climate and how weather and climate work together. Weather over a short period of time has NO impact on Climate and short term can be inclusive of 20-30 years or more. We have no real definitive baseline to make the determination that it is getting cooler or warmer to the extent of the alarmists and political followers of Al Gore.

It is obvious that Lt. G just took a headline or info graphic and never bothered to look into the actual data. This statement is not true, and has been shown to false with readily available data. They didn't even have to gather NEW data to disprove it.

LCDR (Join to see) - Again, I read that exact same article. Let me put it into perspective. I am a scientist. What you believe depends on if you fact checked the majority of scientists or blindly follow the very minority who still disagree. You show me the scientific research (not the media page talking about it) that proves your point, and I will show you the peer review process that found it's flaw. Scientists make mistakes. That is why we have the peer review process. If your research has not been peer reviewed it is irrelevant.

I remember that very issue!

That cover isn't real. Time didn't even have an issue on Apr 8, 1977. There were definitely articles in Time about a "coming ice age" but that one's a fake.

LOL

Very good one MSgt Allan Folsom Love it..

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS. Unfortuntaely, every time one of them casts a vote for a bill regarding the environment they are essentially doing the same thing. These are the people that have been elected to sponsor, write and pass legislation on our behalf. This vote, while relatively meaningless reveals where the heads are on this issue. They will write, sponsor and pass more environmental regulation which will impact us all. Not sure you can be in the Senate without facing votes on environmental legislation.