Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

The main advocates of global warming are the scientists. They stand as much to gain as any other scientists who do research in any scientific discipline. And a "theory" in science is the highest level of certainty available in science. So, emboldening the word "theory" as if that somehow diminishes its standing is unnecessary. And ultimately, so what? This has no impact on whether the theory accurately accounts for our observations.It does have an impact if the theory is untrue, which I believe it is. The main argument is that temperatures have been on the rise since 1880. However, it is a known fact that the mean temperatures of N.America and Europe were unusually cold from 1300 to 1870. This is known as the little Ice age and its existence is advocated by geologists across the world. Coincidentally, the period of "global warming" began in 1880, just as the little Ice age ended. This means that we are measuring the mean global temperature in the 21st century against those of an abnormally cold period? I am not, in my view, being unreasonable. I have nothing to gain from the world becoming inhospitable. I refute the notion of Global Warming because of the paucity and inconsistency of evidence and because of the suspect motives for governments to push it forward. As I believe I have said, Al Gore made a film called "An Inconvenient Truth" advocating the man-made global warming theory and calling for people to reduce their carbon footprint. The video contains 9 proven factual inaccuracies. On the website, under the tab "evidence" the theory is explained, but the only evidence give is a pictorial comparison of Mt. Kilimanjaro today and in 1970. The picture from today has less snow. That picture could have been taken at any time of year and even photo-shopped. The carbon credits scheme Gore advocates, making said credits an international trading commodity designed to raise funds for...whatever is being done to stop G.W, was joint created by Maurice Armstrong and.....Al Gore. So why do people trust his opinion on G.W when he stands to make a lot of money from people believing him?I would expect anybody who believes in and raises awareness of G.W to attempt to personally reduce it. Mr.Gore, however, owns a mansion which uses ten times as many KWhs per annum as the average American household. If he was genuinely concerned about G.W, does it not stand to reason that he would be conservative in his contribution to it? That is what I mean by the advocates of global warming standing to gain from it. If you stood to make, say, $20m by people buying your anti-fairy devices, would you not do all in your power to make people believe in dangerous fairies? You might not, but most people would.That's myopic. Hospitable environments and resources, which we use to survive are a tangible benefit of not perpetuating energy imbalance with anthropogenic forcing.It is only myopic if you believe the G.W theory to be true. If I did, I would obviously agree with you, but as I do not, you cannot call me myopic for not seeing benefits to combating a problem I do not believe to exist. No it doesn't. It only highlights you being too literal.Not true. What do you think of when you hear the word hole? A gaping, unoccupied space or a gradual, inexorable and ultimately unexplained thinning?Why don't you argue against the science?There is very little science to argue against, just government hysteria masquerading as scientific fact and hiding behind insufficient evidence of suspect origin and veracity.But they don't know the latter because they don't (and possibly can't) read scientific literature and depend almost entirely on the News-media and blogs to do the science for them.The same can be said for those who advocate global warming, aside from, of course, the scientists. However, you use the word scientist as though it were some kind of argumentative atom bomb. The fact is that scientific consensus is rare and has almost never existed. I would recommend reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". This details the history of science. In it, you will find that scientists are far from infallible and often misrepresent results to further their own theories and opinions. Scientific consensus is a bad thing. When everybody believes something that is incorrect, who will seek the truth. I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as scientific consensus, even on some of the most basic areas of science. Physics, the realm of thermodynamics, is one of the least coherent sciences. Quarks, tauons, tachyons, string theory, FTL travel, none of these things are agreed upon and neither is global warming.