But why does anyone have to GO THERE? Why aren't they using the phone or skype?

Idiots who hate science will never take climate change seriously, even after what happened in Brazil and what's occurring with coral reefs, and on and on. You can't cure stupid.

It's time people realize that "man-made climate change" is a business. If they didn't scare so many people, they'd have less money in their budgets. It's become a religion to many, and if you don't believe in their religion, you're a heretic.

Perhaps it is a business, but whether it is a business or not doesn't make it any more or less true. I mean, cancer treatment is a business that is making a similar amount of profit as climate change, yet I don't hear that many people going around shouting that cancer is a myth. I guess the best question, though, is to ask "Does the $160-ish billion dollars spent on climate change research actually do anything to limit climate change?"

Global emissions will continue to rise in the 2020s, so any expectation of suddenly reversing the trend is misleading. But just throwing up your hands and saying "why bother?" is kicking the can down the road and sentencing our children to face onerous restrictions. The "anti-vax" campaign is just as misleading. Nobody wants polio or other diseases, but whose choice is it to refuse vaccinations and risk spreading these to people with compromised immunity? Smoking was once commonplace, but I don't see organized pro-smoke movements today. People griped about changing lamp bulbs, and while cheap replacement bulbs had a bad reputation for light quality and durability, today's LED bulbs greatly improve on both. Coal is an industry which peaked 100 years ago. How many homes were built with coal furnaces since WWII? Do you really care how electricity is generated, as long as it works when you flip the switch? Business cannot hold back time. We can adapt now, or we can all suffer in misery later.

There is no scientific evidence that man is causing the climate to change. Just because you have 20 scientists who all agree on it, is irrelevant. Science is based on fact, not people agreeing with each other.

"There is no scientific evidence that man is causing the climate to change." This is pretty easily refuted. Check out this paper, particular 10.1 ( http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/10552/1/Detection%20and%20attribution%20of%20climate%20change%20From%20global%20to%20regional.pdf ) Plus, common sense. Every watt of electricity a human uses ends up as at least a watt of heat. Realistically, since generation plants are only about 30-40% efficient at converting fuel into electricity, 1 W of electricity is about 3 W of heat. That's 200 quadrillion BTU of heat, just from electric power generation. Where does that heat go? It warms up planet Earth. "Just because you have 20 scientists who all agree on it, is irrelevant. Science is based on fact, not people agreeing with each other." This is kind of silly, to be frank. If scientists are interested in facts, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them professionally agree on what those facts are telling us, it logically follows that there might be some merit to the idea. If you have some facts that contradict the prevailing idea that humans cause global climate change, then let's talk about those facts.

So what are YOU doing, mushroom? I don't know for sure but I think you may be vegan, and that can help. Are you completely off the grid? Do you plant trees? Do you use non carbon producing transportation? Is agriculture the culprit? Can individuals even make a statistically significant difference? Or is it all big business's fault? I'm not convinced its not just weather. And I asked you because you seem to be informed in this area, not because I'm picking on you... This time, lol Actually anyone with an answer will do. What CAN we do?

In response to BJ, A survey of around 2,000 American Meteorological Society members released last year revealed that 38 percent of meteorologists aren’t convinced that humans are the main cause of climate change.

I'm not as concerned with warming trends as I am the mini ice ages that tend to follow them.

Hi Linda Joy. Thanks for that information. Do you happen to have a link to that article? Here is a meta-study from NASA's website: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ , 2340 out of 2412 climate scientists believe that climate change is a result of human activity, which is just over 97%. There is this 2016 survey from AMS: https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3 in which 29% of (~4000) members said climate change was entirely due to human activity, 38% said was mostly due to human activity, 14% said about half due to human activity, 7% said mostly due to natural weather patterns, and 5% said entirely due to natural weather patterns. Same source you mentioned, but a vastly different characterization of consensus. But, same as I said to Archie Bunker, facts are pretty high value. If you know of specific reasons why human activity is not the cause of the climate change, that'd be even more interesting to talk about than the scientific consensus.

Like I mentioned above, the fossil fuel used to generate electric power are responsible for the release of 200 quadrillion BTU per year (211 011 TJ/yr) into the atmosphere. The specific heat capacity of the Earth's atmosphere is 5 348 000 TJ, so that's 0.05 degrees Celsius per year just in direct heat only from electricity. Actually, I think electricity generation is only about 40% of all fossil fuel use, so, one could assume that the temperature rise would be just about 0.1 degrees Celsius from direct heat generated by worldwide fossil fuel combustion. That's not taking anything into account from greenhouse gases or the sort, just heating the air by burning petroleum products.

"There is no scientific evidence that man is causing the climate to change." I HATE SCIENCE! I HATE MATH!! You can't cure stupid!