Climate change deniers sink to a new low, even for them

The Heartland Institute is a climate change denying group that, apparently, will do or say anything to smear real science. The billboard pictured here is real - I was going to say "not a joke", but it is, a sick one.

In their press release about this they say:

"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."

Jackson Brunsting's profile photoAdrian Parsons's profile photoOle Olson's profile photoDavid Roberts's profile photo
I hope a reasonable one will be erected to counteract the insanity.
Gord Birch
Those on the fringe do strong things to make points, don't they? But in the middle lies the truth, that the man made "portion" of global warming is a convenient truth, and not even worth arguing, climate change is real, not much caused by anything but shifts in the earth, like has gone for billions of years, and the more we spend time arguing the little point as to how much man contributed to it - the less time we have to PREPARE for it's inevitable outcome

That, my friends is what I think is ridiculous, arguing something that has zero point even if it was determined without a doubt as to who caused it, the earth, or man, or somewhere inbetween - lets quite the fighting, and just prepare for a warmer earth with more water no?
Radical fringe of society. Cutting edge of science. I can see how someone could confuse the two.
Welcome to worldwide communication in the internet age. People wonder why things like this are so polarizing and never really die off in the face of reality. It's because one person, in one place, can infect millions with a radical and unsubstantiated idea. And it just takes that one person to keep at it to keep the idea from dying.
It would be pretty easy to show all the lunatics who deny AGW. Actually, now it wouldn't. Not enough billboards.
That's the weirdest correlation I've ever seen!
Well, it wouldn't have worked as well if they'd said, "Global climate change is fake. Ooh! Look at the kitties!"
Jon Henry
The trouble with this marketing campaign is that the target audience can't read. <facepalm>
It's like going up against the Church of $cientology during LRH's heyday.
Vested interests, irrationality, avoidance of truth; they cling desperately to a fantasy that would engulf us all in catastrophe should we allow them to win.
They also have close ties to the Tobacco Institute, which tried to say for years that tobacco not only wasn't harmful but good for you. According to SourceWatch: The Heartland Institute's Environmental "expert," James M. Taylor, is a lawyer based in Florida. Despite presenting a veneer of scientific expertise in their Environmental advocacy, the Heartland lacks any scientists trained to understand climate issues.
They may as well go for literally Hitler.
When the theory of relativity was introduced, there was a counter group that said it had no barring on science. Eventually Einstein attended one of these conventions because he was curious what they had against relativity. The entire convention was anti-Semitic rhetoric. I can't help but think there is a similar undercurrent for the climate change deniers.
I think the sign is fair, free speech and all. I don't find it disgusting either - I find it stupid, both sides of the argument - ridiculous

It matters not

Who cares who caused it, the earth - by whatever means, man, natural cycle, mix of both, God, Science, whatever... is warming up - and we have to deal with it

And I find it so very obtrusive, and actually wrong of our scientific community to divide and argue over semantics - some of our most intelligent people playing a "Who dunit" when they should be joining together, shaking hands, and helping us figure a mass, earthwide solution to living in a warmer world

So stop fighting, what the heck can come from this?
I'm sure he believes in gravity and germ theory too. We better dispense with those post haste.
And I'd expect that Eric Rudolph doesn't believe in Global Warming. You can find a psychopath to smear any position that's ever been articulated.
Pretty sure calling someone a murderer is libelous speech...
Note just what they did here , If you say you believe in global warming now in this group that this sign is directed to then YOU ARE A UNABOMBER ! or some evil other type of person and must be excommunicated from their tribe!
So I guess it's not Godwin's Law until you actually invoke Hitler himself.
+Gord Birch I don't know why you're blaming the "scientific community" for anything. They're not pointing fingers or arguing publicly about settled science, they're just telling us how it is: man-made climate change is real and there might still be something we can do about it.

The other side of the argument is what you see in the image above: a manufactured, un-scientific political project funded by people with a vested interest in the denial of climate science.
Unreal. Very nice article in response to this absolute nonsense.
There is no bottom to the Heartland Institute.
+Justin Moore I understand this, but thanks, however, you don't see what I am saying - I did not say the scientific community is wrong (even though there is a lot of science also behind the community that says this is all natural occuring)

What I am saying is this, and nobody is talking to it

Who cares - more time is spend by you all fighting these idiots that put up stupid signs like that, trying to sway more idiots - who cares - every moment that is spent fighting stupidity - is a moment spent not planning for the future

That is such a basic rule - don't fight, move forward and solve - that I am so amazed to see the scientific community involved in this flame war - getting upset about the signs, fighting back, etc... I would think better trained minds would be above such rhetoric, and stick to solution finding

I am a senior Tech Exec - even in my own business the execs always wanted to know who broke something, - MORE than they seemed to want it fixed, but I always refused (sometimes putting my career at stake) to tell until 'after' the situation is resolved - I never scapegoat, and I never look for blame, I solve

Come on
Should a group be allowed to call themselves a "think tank" if all their ideas are stupid?
WOT! I can't believe my own eyes. This is something young kids can invent and have crazy fun with, not a grown-up think-tank.
+Gord Birch While I appreciate that sentiment, I think it is wrong. Scientists and those (like most of us) who are boosters of the actual scientific community cannot change anything by themselves. Fixing things requires both funding and (more importantly) policymaking. To get either of those things done requires public support and public understanding of the problem. So I'm saying it does matter when you have well-funded "think tanks" whose purpose it is to assassinate the science and stigmatize acceptance of it and we have a duty to answer these smears and the lies in the public sphere.
Vee A
Gotta give it to them...they really thought outside the box for this one
I agree, to solve a problem you have to know what is causing it.
+Justin Moore once again, you people are reading through the lines, and not at my words

Even these guys don't say the earth isn't warming, they just say it is natural, so what - regardless how we warm, we are warming, and nobody (anymore) except the brain dead, and those recluses stuck in their air conditioned homes believe that

So the arguement of 'whodoneit' is stupid and ridiculous, and does not assist in gaining more funding, it just delays the solution

It's like a bunch of babies crying for the food that is right in front of them, rather than just eating it
+Andrew MacCannell I can see why one billboard that you wouldn't have seen if not for the internet would trouble you so.
+John Bill that is not always true - solve the problem first is always the solution - then you dig in and find the reason for it to have happened "After" to ensure it won't happen again --

It worked well for me in a 34 year career in IT, that ended with me in the top 50 of a railway of 16000 people
+Gord Birch I'm not reading through the lines, I'm reading what you are saying and I'm saying you are wrong. The question about what causes climate change isn't about pointing fingers, it's actually pertinent to fixing or otherwise dealing with the problem. If we delude ourselves about those causes (and the Heartland Institute at the very least wants us to do that much) then we can't address the problem in any meaningful way.

The claim that it is "natural" has the same effect as outright denialism (essentially getting the public to ignore the problem). And regardless of Heartland's stated position on the causes, this ad ridicules the entire idea of global warming, not just the anthropogenic theory. This ad is denialism and it is harmful.
+Gord Birch Another great example of this is the church that protests all the funerals in the midwest. What's fascinating is that the church itself has only about 30 people I think, and they really only do the protests to get attention. There is absolutely no real effect that they have on most people's lives, but people get up in arms every time they do something as if it actually represents some significant movement impacting life in America. Shouldn't smug science-lovers avoid herd mentalities and know the difference between outliers and the norm?
+Amanda Scott I totally agree there - see I am not for them - no way - I think they are idiots, but I think the whole stupid fight is stupid, move forward, knowing what caused warming won't help this is global, so there is NO REVERsing this - none - so, the solution will be "SANS" knowledge of why it happened - the solution is the best way for 6 billion or more people to relocate, or learn, to live, in higher temperatures.

We don't need to have the BLAME for that
No matter what the inhabitants of Earth do the Earth will warm and then it will freeze.... I believe, in the easiest way possible, is what +Gord Birch is trying to say.
+Gord Birch I've done a lot of tech work too. Let me ask you something: Does it do any good to replace a fuse if you don't know what's causing it to blow? This is why it is important to know why a problem arises and how it happens when looking for ways to address it.
+Justin Moore In the case of global warming the only human response is to change human actions and objects, the natural climate changes cannot be changed by humans. So what do you think would be the fuse here? I don't understand the way people relate analogies on the internet.
+Philip Plait, you find it disgusting so what do you do? You use it as a self-serving publicity device while simultaneously spreading the word for them. Full marks for that.
Hahaha! The next sign should say "I had a loving family growing up. Do you?" (Same pic... same website)
+Ben Norris You're right. I should've instead kept my head down, kept quiet, and let antiscience nonsense run rampant, despite the fact that I've dedicated my life to fighting antiscience nonsense.

So bzzzzzt. Thanks for playing.
it used to rain between June - August at my place and winter used to be there from September - January. but now the the things are changed. Rains fall even during September and winder doesnt settle until beginning of November. and stays till end of February. Winters are less cold than before and we are experiencing more rains than ever before. I firmly believe that it has all happened due to gloabal warming and is man made thing. because the forest cover or the green cover has decreased a lot in areas in my district and there is lot of industrialization.
It's just like mankind to give themselves all the credit for something as extreme as the entire planet's climate change. What makes us think we have that much power in the grand scheme of things. The GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS being the operative phrase here. As in, mankind = minute speck of dust = insignificant and powerless = part of the problem. We are warming with the planet. Who caused the ice age? What was that, mankind's lack of pollution? There are natural changes happening. Ultimately just like we were created, one other than ourselves governs this planet's rise and fall. We are stewards. Nothing more.
By acknowledging climate change, our current political and corporate mentality would need to shift dramatically and many stakeholders, particularly those who lobby for fossil fuel, don’t want any change to their bottom line.

So, is better spend money on senseless billboards and try to win supporters. That might solve the problem...Right????
Correlation vs Causation... how does it work? :) (I'm talking about the sign not the science)
This is the "Genetic fallacy": Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes.

If Kaczynski loves his mother, does that make mother-loving bad?

Meta topic: Why do smart people see the fallacy in the billboard ad and dumb people think it makes sense?
+Steve Broome That's not quite true. You're assuming it's a natural cycle and that we're not affecting it, a claim that is generally made as an appeal to ignorance. Why assume it's natural, as you seem to be doing, when climate scientists disagree? Moreover, why be so steadfastly committed to this appeal to ignorance, as Gord has been with his "We don't know, it doesn't matter" approach, which that is utterly unnecessary? I don't mean this as an insult nor am I calling anyone ignorant, it's just that the argument is an appeal to ignorance.

So under that assumption that global warming is exclusively part of a natural cycle, the direct response is to extract and burn more fossil fuels faster to support the technology we would need to protect ourselves against the changing climate and extreme weather. But if this assumption is wrong, we'd actually just be exacerbating the problem. This is why it is necessary to understand causes.

As for the metaphor, the fuse merely represents a problem that you can't fix if you don't know the underlying causes. Trying to make it easier to live in a warmer world via an approach that just contributes to make the world warmer, without even trying to understand why it is warm in the first place is equivalent to repeatedly replacing a fuse without investigating to see which piece of equipment is pulling too much current. That was in response to Gord's claim to have worked in IT and that somehow that experience informs him that one doesn't need to understand a problem to fix it. In the case of climate change, it seems we do need to understand it to choose a path that actually would lead to a helpful solution.
+Justin Moore one thing you need to consider, science changes and scientists are only men. It's a very big universe and the depths to which our knowledge goes is probably far more limited than we as vain creatures care to admit.
+Theo Welsh Bingo, No matter if its fact or fiction. We need to take care of all the problem we cause.
Just like the use of the word "deniers" then... as in holocaust deniers, climate change deniers. The mere assocoation of the word is used to brand people who question some / all of the science as evil people. Suggest that this bill board uses some of your own medicine.
+Kelline Pickett I never claimed we know everything, but if my choices are, on one hand, some compelling facts in support of a theory advocated by a majority of people in that field, and on the other hand an unfounded assumption supported only by the claim that "We can't know that for SURE," I'm going to go with what we at least think we know.

What you're suggesting is the same sort of willful appeal to ignorance these others have suggested is a worthwhile stand-in for science when the conclusions of scientists are inconvenient. Of course those conclusions are tentative (as they always are in science), and they may be wrong as well. That possibility is not reason to ignore them and it's even less a reason to pretend that we shouldn't even be trying to investigate causes.
Even if there is global warming, and even if it is man made, there is nothing we can do about it; we would have to spend 10 times the world's GDP to lower the surface temperature of the Earth by 1 degree Celsius by the year 2100. Doesn't that seem even a little bit excessive to you?
They won't believe it till the water is under their feet, literally.
+Justin Moore valid point...however, you yourself have leaned in the direction of only what you define as "COMPELLING facts in support of a THEORY..." There is COMPELLING evidence in all directions to denote fact in all arenas of science. "Compelling" only serves to spike the interest. It's not set in stone.
“Those that say it can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it”

“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”

Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.
I have to pipe in on this because my skept-o-meter went off the charts. Every single one of those links in the article posts the exact same 'shopped looking photo. Now I know this came from press release on Heartland's website, but you know... websites can be hacked. So until I see another picture from a different angle, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Heartland is crazy, but this is a little too crazy.

BTW AGW is real.
+Parker Boyce Sounds like you're listening to some of Heartland's propaganda yourself and this is a wonderful example of why simple, direct and un-nuanced approaches to very complicated problems fail.

That claim is spurious because it it a mere calculation of the total energy represented in one degree celcius in surface matter compared with global energy production. It fails to notice that a variety of factors (that may be controlled far more inexpensively) have an enormously amplified effect on heat transfer, forcing, etc. It fails to notice that by cutting net carbon emissions by a certain (much less costly amount) we can prevent a much larger temperature rise in the same period of time and possibly avoid a tipping point whereby the oceans become a net carbon source rather than the sink they are now.
+Parker Boyce "Doesn't that seem even a little bit excessive to you?"

No, it doesn't. First, the price you list is almost definitely not taking into account the fact that with more funding NOW into climate research and whatnot, we may be able to find a way to reverse the effects of it cheaply and easily(at least compared to how we can now). To say, in effect, that it is a hopeless endeavor to try to reverse the warming because it will be too expensive is to argue from ignorance.

Second, really, no cost is too high to ensure that our children grow up in a livable world.

The thing some people here don't seem to be getting is that it is only through proper understanding of the underlying causes of global warming that we will be able to combat it. If we assume(wrongly, mind you) that it is just the earth's natural cycles, then we will probably just adopt the defeatist attitude of +Parker Boyce , or we will come to the "wrong" solution to the problem.
Pretty clear to me that the folks at the Heartland Institute are taking some controlled substance in large quantities. Either that or their press releases are written by Groucho Marx.
Global Warming and climate change. These claims are not the same. We are going through climate change, but man made global warming is not part of it! There is climate change going on now in the whole solarsystem. Is that man made?
My comment comes from a spiritual place. Not everyone agrees with spiritualism. I believe in God and that everything is ultimately in His control. However, as I stated, I also believe that we are the stewards of this planet and that many of the things transpiring with the earths temperature is directly related to our over-use of certain fuels, or the abusive and non-concerned way in which we use them. We have been like a toddler with a sword. There's no reason why we can't work to reverse what we may or may not have caused. Assuming it's all because of mankind, then all of mankind has it's responsibility towards resolve. Assuming it's in God's hands, then we are to be stewards, using wisdom and proper judgement, to make our future decisions better than our past.
what kind of sick ad exec's would think this was in good taste -_-
+Kelline Pickett You seem to be arguing semantics now. When I say compelling, what I mean is highly convincing. To that end, there are veritable mountains of highly convincing evidence pointing to anthropogenic climate change, and only vague insinuations and unsupported hypotheses to the contrary.

Granted, as a layman in this field I do not get to decide what is scientifically compelling. Experts in this field do. The fact that they find this evidence compelling and I, from what I can understand of it, find this evidence compelling is, to my mind, good reason to accept their conclusions.
Man-Made global warming is fake. Natural variation is all it is. The earth is heating up, and in around 4000 years, it will cool again, and begin another ice age. It's done this ever since it had and atmosphere and water. I don't think this advertising is legit though, I think whoever created this advert is dellusional in itself. Yes they have a point, man made global warming is a bit extreme. But to go to this extreme is a bit far.
As convenient as it is to lump "climate change deniers" into one tidy little group and blame all of them for this billboard, not all skeptics feel this way. I think this goes way too far and just makes intelligent debate a lot more difficult.
+Justin Moore I agree. One should base their conclusions on factual evidence as opposed to rumor or the personal beliefs of an individual. Arguing semantics? I simply took you at your stated word my good man.
Since apparently we are not scientist and they are. I'd like to see the sources for their statement. I will go on their web site to look for it. Don't wait for me, I won't be back that soon :D
global warming is a mith al gore said the largest lie in the world and stupid people belived him check the facts on what the earth has done when it went through a hot house and an ice age and the earth is still were
the billboard is way too extreme to get any point across ---for any advertisment. It's okay to be passionate about a cause such as global warming, but it's not that serious.
If there's nothing we can do about it, then what's the point in harping about changing it??
+Gord Birch Just think about it for a second, if man made carbon emissions cause global warning, then even if you prepare for a warmer Earth you won't do anything to stop the cause of the warming. You can't actually fix the problem if you only address the side effects of the problem because the underlying cause is still there. And anyway, you're wrong about a few points as is:

1) people do deny the earth is warming (see: Luboš Motl)

2) others think the warming will be good for plant growth. Therefore no need to plan.

3) The political groups that gravitate towards "skepticism" often reject solutions a priori.

4) Of those that think the Earth is warming, but man has nothing to do with it, some also think it won't be a problem (see Freeman Dyson).
they need convince people that it is true, how would you sell drill baby drill, that we don't need government regulation.
It's pretty funny that the easiest way to distinguish the climate change deniers on any discussion thread is not from their arguments but the awfulness of their grammar and spelling.
+Justin Moore +Brandon McCleary Not Heartland propaganda, I came up with that by myself, based on a US Senate committee report on the EPA:

Allow me to direct your attention to pages 14 and 17, particularly this quote on page 14: "EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the CAA “absurd,” affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs..."

And this quote on page 17: "'Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.'"

Based on what's written here it's not unreasonable to assume it would cost $78 billion to lower global mean temperature by 0.006 degrees C on the low end and 0.0015 degrees C on the high end. (I believe this article is referring to atmospheric temperature and not surface temp like I said. My bad.) How much would it cost to lower global mean temperatures by 1 degree C by 2100? $130 trillion on the high end and $52 trillion on the low end. Annually.

Global GDP in 2010 was $76.19 trillion. (CIA World Factbook) So we would need to spend 68% to 170% on preventing CO2 from entering the atmosphere, one way or another. (I said we would need to spend 10 times our global GDP, that was wrong. It would take 10 times the global GDP for one year to pay for reducing CO2 over 90 years.)

People are still going hungry in this world, doesn't it seem excessive to spend every penny (and even pennies we don't have!) that mankind earns on reducing atmospheric CO2?
global warming is one of the most important issues today, but no one cares about it, some even deny it
Next up: animal product industry billboards featuring pictures of Hitler reading: "History's most famous vegetarian!"

I am fine with people putting their ideological messages wherever they want to put them, but this is just a pile of logical fallacies, not a reason to change anyone's mind.
Good idea John. There needs to be a another billboard saying;
Yes, we can do that and we should, as much as we can. Perhaps if we put a stop to smoking and start recycling... there are small steps we can take
But no one is going to walk to work and be late, or not use a train when they have to. Factories cannot be shut down.
I'm more worried about how people are polluting their surroundings by foul behaviour towards each other :(
"The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so" by Lawrence Solomon
And the global warming activists have not demonized their opponents? I must wonder if that may be the point of the sign.

Is it just me, or is the American culture becoming more and more polarizing? That cannot be good for any of us. "What's sauce for the goose..." won't justify us.

Our choices: "Us verses them" or "We" or "I and Thou." Only the first one is easy-- and it is also evil.
Man, when Ted catches wind his mug has been used this way.....he is gonna be BENT ;)
Check #SMManners on Twitter on Tuesday nights at 10pm. You can give advice on polite discourse and wishful thinking "agree to not agree and compromise." :-)
+Kelline Pickett the problem I have with the "it's in God's hands" view is that there are plenty of people who use that belief as an excuse to either: deny the science, or, accept the science but deny that the consequences are of any importance. They think something along the lines of, "well, God will rapture us up before the world goes to shit." or, "God won't let it get too out of hand, rather, He will magic the problem away."

Now, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that you are one of those types. Frankly, we just cannot assume that anything of this much importance is "in God's hands". Rather, we have to act as if God doesn't exist, or doesn't care about this problem, because the consequences of taking a faith-based approach to climate science are the same as taking a faith based approach to medicine: there are serious consequences.

So, believe whatever you wish, but when it comes to the science, and how we should treat it, we simply cannot operate from a supernaturalist viewpoint. We have to act as if there is no God to save us from ourselves.
Apparently they base their claims on some papers that say that scientific climate models are unreliable. We cannot predict accurately the future of climate which such models. And that PROBABLY the 2/3 of the temperature increase of the first half of the 20th century is due to natural phenomena.
Now, how they could prove the last statement without a reliable scientific climate model is not really clear.
"SOURCE: Science" is a source listed on
what kind of source is that???!!!! it turns out all of the sources are articles written by anti global warming people like themselves not scientists
I can't trust anyone.
Doesn't that mean that climate deniers are more batshit than Kaczynski?
So it doesn't really matter what side of the argument you fall on. Even if you don't think humans contribute to climate change there's no way around the fact that energy consumption has a limit. At our current rate of growth that limit isn't even very far away even if we could take advantage of all the sunlight hitting the earth at 100% efficiency (thermodynamically impossible) we'd only have about 400 years. We literally have no choice but to reduce energy consumption at some point. We can either plan for it today or run smack into a wall.

Read more about it here:
No, it means that you are the same as Ted K. if you believe in global warming. That's the message they are trying to portray.
Oh that is well bad, really, even for them.
Radicals, Activists, Extremist, Hippies, Terrorists they are all the same.......
They say Heartland Institute, I say Troll Syndicate.
OK. There are idiots on all sides of every issue. Some of them erect billboards and others scathe at them. However, when a Nobel Prize winner in physics joins the ranks of many other scientist resigning from the American Physical Society over the theory (and it is just a theory) and are proclaiming that people with something to gain have blown it all way out of proportion, maybe we should take a second look. Most of the propaganda is politically or financially motivated. Always follow the money.
+Susan Reynolds I would love to never hear the phrase "it is just a theory" again. When you say that, everything else you say is meaningless because it shows you clearly don't understand what a theory is.
+Susan Reynolds The most important principle in this debate is follow the evidence. That's true for all science. The evidence leads straight to the conclusion that the observed warming is caused by human activities, mostly the burning of fossil fuels.

The money leads straight to the carbon fuels industries. The just a theory line is a bit much too.
Come on, my city 10 or 12 years ago was really cold, and you could go outside without wearing a jacket. Now it is so hot that I can barely stand it and people (women mostly) wear those tiny shorts, even at night.
If that is not a global warming proof, so what would be?
In addition to that it doesn't rain as much as a few years ago.
not his earth, not his problem ;)
Global Warming is a Joke. Politicians are trolling us since any legit scientists will tell you that the earth is on a cycle... think of the ice age and pre-ice age. The earth has NATURAL cycles where it heats up and cools down depending on the cycle of the sun, and the natural cosmic heating from other systems, and more variables similar.

When looking at their facts and evidence, it shows that the amount of extra heat due to humans is negligible to the natural heating of the earth.

So now one should question, if scientists are telling politicians this, why are politicians going off and finding random scientists to come up with anything else to help them support global warming?

Well, if you read books by bankers, or people who are claimed to be in such groups like the Illuminati, or NWO, etc, the idea is that by spreading fear about global warming, people can get a vote across for carbon taxes. Fear of Carbon pollution doing this and that will be one step in uniting the world into global taxation so we can be good little tax cows and moo moo moo all the way to their bank accounts.

Think about it... if there was a global elite... what do they want? They want to tax everything, right? Don't be fulled by their bullshit. They all have agendas they are trying to push off.
OMG! Most murderers believe in GRAVITY! Belief in gravity must make you a murderer!

Either that or the people at Heartland are imbeciles. It isn't entirely clear.
All of this has happened before and probably will happen again.
Global mockery is all I see, people tend to forget, this planet long before we came along, went through these stages without our help. It's doing it again, I mean, if anything Global Warming is a band wagon topic to capitalize on fear. The Earth will do this with or without us, it doesn't need our input here. Now I will admit, we could always stand to live a lot better than we do and take more pride in how we do take care of our planet. But that's been a subject of countless discussions and people still don't listen.... Go figure!
Phew! Read through the short comments. Life's too short to read the longer ones! Btw, the longer comment harm the earth a lot more than the shorter ones....
I believe that global warming is a haox, just like the thought Al Gore created the internet.
Sad to see that people on both side of the argument are turning things into a joke and into a question of believe, its not about believe, its about probability:

1) What is the probability that climate change is real. I would say about 90%.
2) Given that climate change is real, what is the probability that its going to have terrible consequences? I would guess about 80%
3) Given that climate change is real, and is going to have terrible consequences, what is the probability that its our fault? I would guess about 50%.
4) Given that climate change is real, is going to have terrible consequences and is our fault, what is the probability that there is a causal effect (not just a correlation) that CO2 has on global warming. Given that apparently CO2 lags temperature, I would guess about 20%.

If this is about right, there is a 2/3-th chance that it doesn't really matter what we do and a 1/3-th chance that it does and that we can act to avert disaster. So even I find man made global warming relatively unlikely, I'm with the CO2 cult so far, we should try to act even if we don't believe it is very likely that it will matter.

What I find scary however about the CO2 cult is its blind fate in C02 as prime and only suspect. There is so much crap that we pump into the air and especially the oceans, but scientific research seems to focus on just a single (and relatively unlikely) suspect. So it seems to me that believers in man made global warming are actually increasing the probability of man-made disaster by focusing everything on CO2 and so called greenhouse gasses. So here I'm with the skeptics, I find it very unlikely that CO2 can cause global warming if research apparently shows that global warming causes increased CO2 levels.

Seems to me that both sides need to wake up. The man-made global warming skeptics to the fact that even if the probability of man-made global warming is low, its stile wise to act. The CO2 cult to the fact that we are abusing mother nature in many other ways, so there should be many other suspects in both the air, the sea and even possibly the soil.
I dont think that we should listen to "The Unabomber" LOL
The climate is changing, of that, there can be no question. However the issue is whether or not the change is caused by human action or is simply a normal natural process. The ice ages came and went long before man had any presence to affect the climate
There is no debate. This has always been a war. Facts and reason on one side, wild accusations and demagoguery on the other. Sure, the science isn't perfect, but what is? The overwhelming consensus is that the earth is warming and human activity is a primary factor.
Just because horrible/insane people have sane views, that does not invalidate those views.
I don't think this is a subject we need to base on belief
You know fires can start naturally and they do so all the time.. but add in a 13 yo with a gas can and I bet he can speed up the process a heck of a lot,, maybe burn a few things that wouldn't have along the way. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand.
The ad is careless and not relevant. I do agree, however, that global warming is totally false.
Al Gore didn't invent the Internet... but he did make up Global Warming.
Greg S.
Translation: "We can't refute this argument, so instead, have some ad hominems. (They work so well on the Internet after all!)"
How different would the universe be of humans never existed ? Err no different ! So it doesn't matter! things run there course and do their cycle Nothing really changes ! 
Tin Le
This reminds me of the Flat Earth Society. To them, facts is irrelevant. They "know" better :-)
Anyone who doesn't think we're raping the earth and causing an imbalance need their heads checked for their own obvious imbalance. It's just so typical of Americans to have a conspiracy theory of everything.
Global warming is a fact & it's natural. But governments are using it to put up taxes & blaming us (Yes the fly everywhere with there mates to a talk about it) and we pay for it!
Paid for by your local Christian Church
What a pile of steamy feces. Kaczynski should sue, if he is still alive.
All of human kind's co2 emissions equals out to 2% of the total carbon emissions in the world. Human kind DOES NOT affect global climate change on the scale that Al Gore says says we do.
Carnot's Theorem appears to not apply to rhetoric. There may be a correlation with Moore's Law, and from about 1975, too.
Real science? Like Mann and Hansen? Or are they more activists and humerous statisticians? So what is the "real" average temperature of the globe and how many .1's did it really change. Yes there is AGW. The question is how much. That is being derived from creative statistics as is the historical record. SCIENCE is based on observation. The billboard though is clearly in poor taste and I have no respect for EITHER lobbying group as both have financial goals to achieve (redistribution of wealth from industrial non-industrial nations, net energy loss alternatives seeking subsidies, oil and coal looking for handouts, corn farmers looking for handouts, continued governmental funded studies and positions, you name it).
funny enough - the guy how used to be the president of my silly little country was called Lech KACZYNSKI :)
Frankly, I find this so disturbing it's hilarious.
Climate change, formally global warming up to the point people realised the systems were so complex some areas would actually cool. Whether you attribute it to human behavior or natural cycle has either party provided anything resembling conclusive evidence or even theory that comes close to understanding the many variables and knock on effects of global climate?
Climate warming it is not science at all: it is religion with heretics burning
it's seems going bad something.
Awright! I'm on the radical fringe of society! That was easy!
science is when you prove things. When all who not believe are labelled as "radical fringe of society" this is simply some kind of middle ages style practice nothing related to science.
One step up from witchburnings, but the mind set is the same. Cazart.
Global warming is happening but it isn't caused by us. It is natural cycles of the earth (Global warming, ice age, global warming etc.), perhaps our involvement has increased it happening but it isn't all as doom and gloom as some would have you believe.

Still, that "advert" is just incredibly low and does it really serve to benefit anyones message or opinion on the subject?
Who's al gore again ? 
If there were any way to put their crazy asses on another planet and say, "Good luck, you buncha windowlickers!" I wouldn't care what they think, but there isn't. They are killing the only planet the rest of us have.
I'll say I'm personally not a believer in global warming, but these ad's are a stupid media stunt that should have never received funding. What a waste.
And the source of's money? The oil industry.
As a man with Chemical Engineering degree from REAL university, I must say this clowns really made me laugh when I checked its website. Educated human being must ask question: Who pays them to spread this hate and illiteracy?
So it used to be global warming, but then when the earth started cooling they changed it to climate change. LOL! What is it - warming or cooling? I guess it's both. So who cares? If it warms for a few years then cools it all evens out in the end. Pathetic liberals...
I don't see murderer's caring much about saving the planet.
In my vicinity, the deniers seem to have a strong paranoia vibe - if the government told them that eating arsenic was bad for them, they'd wonder what the government was hiding about the benefits of arsenic.
First, last, only comment on this idiotic topic. The loonies have taken over the asylum - quite successfully it has to be said. First of all by their language "climate change deniers" which automatically implies that people who disagree with them are idiots in some ways.

"Climate change fascists" would of course be a good way to describe people who use the language in this way.

You know it's not proven so go away and do some good with your life without trying to scare the shite out of everybody else.

I don't believe in global warming because I already have a religion and I don't need two. I think that global warming is sound based on some simple science. But I also think that the Earth is far too complex to jump to conclusions about what will happen in 50 years. The Taylor-Proudman theorem alone illustrates a margin for error of ridiculous proportions, that is only one theorem that describes one effect.

We cannot predict the weather for three very important reasons:
- We cannot stop time still to take a perfect snapshot of atmospheric particle momenta and positions
- We do not have super-computers even remotely powerful enough to store and compute the above data
- The universe is non-deterministic due to quantum superposition (eigenstate vector collapse) making it impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy using data from the present

And another important point, none of the above is reason to continue burning and relying upon fossil fuels. Ideally we would advance to cleaner and more efficient forms of energy upon their own merits, not motivated out of impending doom.
Looking forward to a McDonald's billboard with a picture of Hitler saying 'I'm a vegetarian. Are you?'
Those people who made this billboard are as stupid as those who believe that solar or wind power plant can solve problem of changing climate, which is actually not a problem since climate has been changing as long as earth exists.
May I suggest this:

And note, the "Analysis" part is, at present, still done with computer models which do not/cannot account for the complexity of the system...
Let's suppose these rising temp trends SO happens to be taken at the peaking stages of a warming cycle, which I believe is where we are right now, does this correlation indicate causation? If so, then the premise of this conclusion violates the fundamental framework of Science and the Scientific Method, no?
Is CO2 a greenhouse betcha! Does it warm the atmosphere when in high enough concentration...absolutely! Just look at Venus as an example. But, I invite those who really care to do some homework on atmospheric content...make a table of all atmospheric content, but you can ignore the trace gases except for CO2 (since it is the gas in question) and don't forget water vapor. Then, look up spectral absorption and emission wavelength of those gases in your table. Next, rule out those molecules that do not impact atmospheric temperature change thru their spectral emission. Finally, add the percentages of every gas that has any impact (emission in the near and far infrared spectrum) together, divide each of these gases' percentage by this summed value, multiplied by 100 and see which of these gases impacts global temperature increase more. There are flaws in this comparison...not detailed enough, but should still give a good idea of what vs what has more impact to atmospheric temps...just a quick application of high school AP chemistry and statistics.

I believe in Unicorns and lollipops and the Rabbit of Resurrection.
This is despicable but I still don't believe global warming can be provably linked to mankind. Didn't we learn in junior high about the scientific method? Tell me how it is even remotely possible to control ANY of the variables that affect climate. If you can't control the variables, you can't prove the theory.
+Gord Birch Do you disagree that it is important to know whether reducing human-caused carbon dioxide emissions would slow the warming?
I agree the climate is changing but I doubt just because of people and cars. The climate is changing, just like it always has, but this time I believe things are happening faster because of us. I do believe our cars and what have you are effecting how fast the change is happening. It may be be happening faster than we can adapt to it this time. For that reason I believe that we need to change how we do things.
Does it matter if its caused by man or not? Its happening, and we are fumbling the ball big time on the 'adaptive response' that humans are traditionally known for.
People, why do you have to "believe" in global warming? Why are people who don't called "deniers"? What does this remind you of? After all this same language, "believers" "deniers" etc. has all been used by various religions throughout history who implemented their beliefs with force. If climate change could be scientifically proven, you wouldn't have to believe in it. You would know. +1 one this comment if you're still a "denier." @Evan Skov Oh and I'm Jewish, so how do you like me now?
+Charles Alexander That is a load of BS. A lot of things have been proven, and there are still deniers. People deny that the world is spherical. Does that mean that the world has not been proven to be spherical? Or do you deny that too?
It is mostly nature's way of growing old so if there's some anti-aging solutions we can apply, share it with us so we can help, each one of us in this whole wide world. how old is our planet?
Global warming isn't proven but this is still ridiculous. It is evil and, if you want to be technical, logically flawed.
+Charles Alexander its put in religious terms by the people who think its all made up in order to further discredit it, which is only funny because the people who ignore the fact of global warming are usually religious and unable to accept an end to humanity other than the one described in their holy book of choice.
I'm still from Oklahoma, are you?
Both sides are spewing propaganda and both sides speak as if they are right. I am sick to death of all this crap. The planet will take care of itself...eventually; we just might not be around to see it. ;-)
I think the ads are way overboard and don't like them. To play devils advocate, I don't think they are saying that global warming does not exist, but that it is not man-made, but instead, a natural thing that happens to the earth every 50,000 years or so; it's natural, not man-made.
One of my two tests of insanity. If you don't believe that the earth is getting hotter and if you don't believe in evolution, you are insane. My wife says I should cool it on the calling people insane but that is the way I see it.
he scares me he looks like he lives in da gutter
and also, the way we have our year set up isn't perfect. So each year the climate isn't changing that much, it is just that that the way we measure time isn't perfect.
Human caused Climate Change is a Hoax, a political hysteria, it is unbelievable that anyone still believes in it.
How warm was the troposphere in 1776, before Americans came along and fucked everything up (Sarcasm)? Anyone? Oh, yeah we don't know. What about next year? Anyone got a guess?
There is no proof that this warming is dangerous or unnatural, so...I don't deny, I just don't know, just like you!
One scientist said that global warming will happen, it is inevitable with this planet, we didn't cause it. Whether it happens slowly or quickly, however, is up to us.
you are smart whats 10 to the power100
We're in a post-Ice Age, of course we're warming over the long haul. The deniers are right, in as much as there's no definitive proof that human intervention is causing the warming trend, or a cooling trend, or any trend....we're studying a millisecond of climate timeline and pronouncing it conclusive. That's utterly arrogant and close-minded, and unfortunately recent events show the proponents are just as quick to fabricate or bend the rules to fit their predetermined conclusions.
Yes We humans are casing issues with the environment, but are we not still exiting an ice age ? However I agree that using slander and misinformation to swing political power is wrong. Let science keep working and not stop it.
uh... it's been happening for thousands of years
We may not be causing the warming effect, but we are polluting our environment, that, I think, is what we should be worried about...
Both sides of the climate change debate are unproductive and very (extremely) narrow minded. Arguing that humans cannot change the earths climate is patently ridiculous. Almost as silly is arguing that we can or should, change it back!
Earths climate has ALWAYS been in a state of flux, and always will be, from whatever cause. This has always resulted in extinctions, sea level change, climate adjustment and catastrophic (for some) variation.
The only logical or productive debate should focus on what we humans will or can do to ADAPT.
'Gotta agree with Yves Mia, we are NOT the cause; do we excellerate the process.. probably, but our home has been thru this more times than we can count. The earth will be here long after our time is done and will regenerate as it has always done. What WILL end will be humankind as we know it. So lighten the eff up, ain't nobody here getting out alive anyway! For the record, I admire David Suzuki but Al Gore is a money-grubbing opportunist who will milk so-called Global Warming for every fricking cent. The whole thing is a money grab. Just my opinion; everyone has one, eh? Common sense when choosing you energy choices make sense. I'm rather fond of Geo-thermal but somebody out there probably thinks we should not stick long pointy things into Mother Earth. Oh, by the way, God Bless & Greg loves ya!!!
But what if they are right!? and we make the world a better place for nothing!?
Hitler didn't believe in global warming.

Can someone name that fallacy?

If you say it's impossible look at Venus I don't want to end up that way.
I think we need to maintain stability how ever we can for now. Long term I hope for more precise control of our weather atmosphere etc. Possibly via an array of satellites.
Global warming? Well DUH! We came out of the ice age didn't we? Man-made global warming? Don't flatter yourselves, this planet has been around for millions of years, we ain't gonna kill it. The earth warms and cools in cycles all on its own.
What about the health ramifications of a poor environment? That alone is worth us looking closer at what we are doing to our environment.
The tyrants who said this should be judged by their own double standard. Dragging them behind my car would not be good enough for those who deliberately misinform the public, but for what, to save face?
us humans are very unreasourceful. I think that if we put more thought into our everyday lives and not be just plain lazy then MAYBE we could fix this horrible global warming problem that us humans have created
There is no evidence that shows such excursions in warming over a 50 year period. Period. Maybe best to be conservative and consider that we may play a role in the process.
I both rejoice in and despair of the US
So brilliant they can put a man on the moon; so stupid they can't see what's staring them in the face.
The only redeeming feature is as Winston Churchill said of the US
"You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing; but only after they've tried all the other options first"
We are all pawns to the greater plan. A few rule the world keep it impoverished so we can develop and control what resources there are in this world. For me I do not believe anything anymore unless I see it with my own eyes. Too few people have too much power and will go to any means to discredit something if it stands in their way. Cynical? Maybe but unless you have all the answers ie all the answers then all you have is faith. Not fact. And you are foolish if you think otherwise. Global warming. Nobody really knows. There are strong arguments for and against. But to reiterate nobody really knows.
Don't worry...I am here to save the world. I can control everything, so don't worry. Just eat organic :) I'll take care of the rest.
If we all eat organic we'll all fart more methane and make matters worse
I am just guessing -but heartland probably does not have integrity as a core value...
+Craig Gibson Absolutely spot on sir!
+Ash Lizzard I agree that this should be a worry.
+Kaiyne De'Wolvinsbaine No one should restrict science, however; science requires funding. Science must be sure to not exaggerate any findings to further their funding. Awareness campaigns are invited, but must not include scare tactics to fuel anything, even the continuation of the science.
One "greenhouse gas" that no one ever mentions is plain old water vapor. When I was in the Navy, I was an Aerographer Mate . At night the Earth radiates heat in the form of long wave radiation, after being heated all day by short wave radiation, (both visible and non visible light), South Texas, where I was stationed is DRY. After sunset, in the winter time, a drop of three degrees per hour was not uncommon...until the temperature ran into the dew point.. No more cooling after that, we'd go from "clear and 10" to "WOXOF"( that means for aircraft ceiling 0 ft. and visibility 0ft. in about 15 minutes. As the Earth's temperature increases there will be more water vapor that will hold more heat... you can figure the result.
Don't question ME. I am so important...I'll get it done.
I'm torn, is +1ing this a good thing or a bad thing?
LOL...I want to take some credit if everything works out...ya know :)
They say "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. "
So that means that just about ALL of Europe are "on the radical fringe of society. "
Typical US arrogance; Climate Change deniers are on the same level as evolution deniers STUPID
Really, think about Europe in today's context, you guys are fighting for existentialism, your nanny state mentality has bankrupted you not only morally but monetarily as well.
Who eve heard of still believing in global warming??
+Vijay Sha
Yeh and if we get sick we don't have to be rich to get treated too
The problem I've always had with both sides of this argument is the insistence on calling it "science". No it's theory. Neither side of the discussion has proven the theory and as time marches onward old theories have been replaced with new ones as the old ones turn out to be based on flawed data of flawed science. Both sides of the argument are guilty of straight up falsehoods, lies, and few have an agenda other than money. Don't tell me that those high mucky mucks who "believe" in the man made warming theory don't have financial intensives to making theory into science.
+Eric Musehl
You are of course correct, when I lived and worked there I met many; however they were in a very small minority
Fully one third of Americans could not find Iraq on the map of the world one whole year AFTER the coalition invaded 20% didn't even get the right continent
I love many aspects of the US, but the depth of ignorance staggers me sometimes
Kaczynski made bombs so we can add basic physics, chemistry and thermodynamics to the list of science topics he believed in. That still doesn't mean Heartland has a point.
The most troubling aspect of this billboard (and the larger climate change "debate") is that actual science is being ignored in favor of hyperbolic political statements. At some point, we have to accept the conclusions of the experts.

I'm betting that NASA, you know, rocket scientists, know a bit more about the environment than most of the folks on the other side of the (so-called) debate. If NASA (again, scientists) is convinced, then can we at least agree that there is some seriously convincing data in favor of the conclusions that: 1. the Earth is warming, and 2. humans are responsible for it?

And yes, it is important that we identify the cause of this, so that we can begin to formulate a solution to the problem.

But don't take my word for it. Read the book yourself:
Let us not worry about it being man made or not... let us instead fix it because we are an amazing species and can do this!!!
Call them at: 312-377-4000
E-mail them at: and
With more than a decade of no global temperature increase, I've become a global warming skeptic. Rather than call this group names, maybe you should check your assumptions. (And don't respond that they called you a name -- unless you are Ted K. or one of the other nasties they were obviously referring to).
It may turn out that global warming was just another scientific error (no progress without mistakes - I get it). But if the real world data doesn't correspond with the theory, dump the theory. Unless its all about the funding...
It doesn't matter who caused it. The meat is in the fact that it is happening and we should stop it, for our children and their children to come. We can, if we care and want to.
owen...when you get sick, you get to go to a dumpy chance to get better, more advanced and minuses. Someone who can make such bold, judgmental statements sounds pretty ignorant. With all this connection to the world, thanks to technology, gone are the days where you can lump people in groups according to region. But i'm sure you know everything and will come back with some ignorant, 'I'm better than you' comment.
In the 70s, a couple of scientists who weren't getting traction in the science and peer journals were talking about global cooling, and got a few sensationalist headlines.
+Tim Fontaine
Please supply the citations of the published peer reviwed papers which support your argument that "Science supports the statement that Global Climate Change is NOT man made"
Yeah....lets accept the conclusions of the experts....and ignore the conclusions from just as many experts that have a completely different opinion. Also, lets ignore the spokespeople for climate change that obviously believe in it, but have done nothing to change their own lives.
Indeed, I lived through the 70s. Don't recall the phrase "global cooling". Nope. Not at all. Never heard of it ... until people brought it up as some kind of "all science is bad because some scientists get it wrong sometimes" weirdness.
Climate change deniers and creationists hurt our society. All these anti-education and anti-science movements are a bigger threat to a modern society than most of the things we fear.
+Jessica Higa
"when you get sick, you get to go to a dumpy chance to get better, more advanced and minuses"
Is this supposed to actually make sense or mean something??
You are absolutely right I am ignorant, so ignorant I've only managed to get a Ph.D. in a sciences based subject, which really only means I am aware of just how little I know; but that does not worry me as I know that all the web-educated young out there know everything there is to know
Summer is here! Time to start the Global Warming debate again!
Did they get Ted Kaczynski's permission to use his likeness in their advertising? He should sue.
Yes, because showing the face of the Unabomber on your advertisement is a great marketing idea.
When you are as well informed; educated and as smart as The Heartland Institute it probably seems so.
Global warming. So what? It will get warmer, it will get cooler. Big deal. Have you ever considered that there is MOST LIKELY a longer frequency of warming and cooling, just as there is a shorter yearly cycle? Im so tired of these freaking fear mongering, narrow sighted, spazmaniods talking about global warming. And the culprit is supposed to be CO2? I dont know if you remember this from 5th grade, but plants love CO2. They soak it up and in turn give us a little element called oxygen! Yeah, you know that stuff we need to breathe? Time magazine ran a similar story in the seventies, the cover story in fact, about Global Cooling. Ooh scary! People like the "warmies" will always find something to be afraid of. I support clean energy research and development 100%, but we dont need to foolishly rush headlong into government regulations, designed to shut down any company that cant afford immediate changes, when the unemoyment rates are already too high. And if you support cap and trade, you're either a filthy rich energy tycoon, a dirty politician, or a total freaking idiot. Have a warmie day, suckers!
See what I mean about Stupid Americans
Looks a little bit like House doen't he?
How bizarre! Who said "Hey...I know!" and then put this up? People still amaze me.
I'm American and I agree with you Owen!
Please don't get me wrong, like most Americans I think America is the best at most things.
Unfortunately this includes IGNORANCE, and as a nation you are collectively so used to getting your own way you're bellicose about it too
I'll gladly make a T-shirt with the Unabomber's face on front that reads "I believe in Global Warming" in the back.

For real, people need to get their facts straight and use some common sense for once.
The thing about "Common Sense" is it's remarkably rare
Well that's it!
The job I was running has finished and I can go to bed (it's 01:00 over here on the radical fringe of society) after all us murderers, tyrants, and madmen need our sleep too
+Daniel McCully What a bigoted thing to say. Just because those people have a different opinion on the science does not mean they are anti science or education. I think being so close minded to even the idea that there may be another reason or way is actually what is bad for our modern society. At one point science thought the world was flat, and that the universe revolved around the earth. The people that had a different mindset were put to death as heretics and witches. Be open minded and have a debate....if your side has the truth behind it it will win. Why must you resort to slanderous statements if you are so sure?

And bringing creationism into this discussion was a very smug and small minded thing to do when the article had nothing to do with religion.
Pfft global warming for today the kids of 2112 do not care about us why should we care about them? =D
The issue is Man-caused global warming. And true climate science done by true climate scientists, who aren't being paid by the government or some other entity requiring their findings to agree with this presupposition, doesn't support human CO2 production as a major factor in global temperature change. CO2 is one of the least represented greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule in comparison to the most influential greenhouse gas - water. Volcanoes pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans ever could by a large factor. Study of millenniums old ice cores in Greenland shows that CO2 levels are nowhere near a historical high, and that CO2 level increases actually follow increases in global temperature. Studies have found that the ocean actually absorbs and releases CO2 in relation to global temperatures, which would explain this phenomenon.

While this billboard is ridiculous and completely ill-conceived, you shouldn't dismiss perfectly intelligent people making perfectly rational and scientifically supported claims that human-produced CO2 is not the driving force behind global warming based solely on the ignorance and foolishness of some who might hold the same belief.
Wow, yeah, well, it's warmer today than yesterday. Tomorrow might be warmer yet, or cooler. Either way, I'm glad I'm still breathing.
Yep and the earth is flat, the universe revolves around earth and elvis and tupac are still alive in new zealand
^^^ ha, like New Zealand's a real place.
I know global warming is true because my teacher said so. Ofcourse she also said blood is blue until oxygen hits it and Pluto is a planet, but you can't argue with the genius that invented the internet.
Global warming is real and u know it!!!
Maybe we should start a fund raiser to buy beeno for cattle, or better yet start a new tax to make sucessful people buy the beeno!
The climate changes! It has done from the very beginning..... it is cyclic..... deal with that fact people..... the Earth is a more wondrous machine than we will ever know.
In the 70's they said they was going to be global cooling and that never happened... So I seriously doubt global warming will be happening 
It is happening though the science is explaining it more. The cooling in the 70's was because of another chemical that was likely to reflect most of the sunlight but caused acid rain and had a horrible air. Now without this the rise in carbon dioxide allows for increased warming. But now without the old chemical which was anyway harmful this is having its impact without being kept in check. More and more science is being done and we are getting a better picture of it. Any of you deniers should actually read the scientific papers, and see that it is actually occurring, though its affects are slowly being understood. Before they had little understanding now they have a little bit more. From the changing of the ocean currents which could cause damage that we do not know of. To increase in radical weathers. What we know is that we are at a point where we the humans are effecting the climate.

This is the age of the anthropocene and we have radically changed the climate, and we are the ones who can decide how the climate shall be.

Also climate is not weather, it is long term. 10 to 20 years in short to millions of years in long term.
He probably also believes in gravity. What a tool.
"Imagine if this global warming thing really is a hoax, and we make the world a better place for nothing." ~author unknown
the only reason global warming is happenig is because of carbon dioxide there's to much of it and people are cutting down trees
ha losers accutally talkining about gw
Just a Money and Freedom grab....wake up
+Johnny Kelley Thank you for giving an example of the mindset of those contributing to the problem.

Someones opinion on scientific findings does not really matter. Observations and peer reviewed work matter.

I could have also thrown in Flat Earthers, but at least their not taken seriously as these other dangerous groups. Another good group to mention would be those who contribute to deaths by spreading lies about vaccinations.
Another way to look at this: even mass murderers are more right about global warming than are the people who put up this billboard.
All the deniers should ask their selves why is the Heartland Institute putting these billboards up? Is it because they depute the science? Nope. Their own mission statement says "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".

What this actually means for their big oil and coal clients is to stop any regulations that would effect their profits. The Heartland Institute could care less about the actual science, their mission is stop regulation. They by the way, also claim tobacco smoke is harmless.

The oil industry is worlds biggest welfare recipients, just consider what we spend in protecting the oil industry in the Persian Gulf [trillions] yet somehow they are never asked to pay their way. Their very business model is built on socializing costs and privatizing the profits. That is why they are fighting it so vigorously, regulation of C02 would privatize their costs back on to them. They don't want that, they want the public to pay for their pollution.

A secondary reason is they want people dependent on them, like drug addicts. A system whereby there are literally millions of small scale energy networks would cut them out of the loop. An analogy in the computer world would be where there are only a few powerful mainframe computers vs a system where there are millions of small networks strung together [the Internet].
Since when is consensus fringe?
I'm convinced. If it's good enough for Dr. Kaczynski, it's good enough for me! Let's not forget that before he became a homicidal madman he was a genius. ;-)
RE Heartland Institute's billboard: It demonstrates the downside of freedom of speech.
Sol and alpha centauri are binary star system a third star orbitz the binary star system every 200,000,000,000 years the three suns are at there closest approach to earth I think it is natural that the planet warms up.
The Earth is flat, and the Universe revolves around it. Lightning bolts come from Zeus. Thunder is just the sound of angels bowling. Crazy heretics who disagree! You're all UnaBombers!
Global warming. Liberals greatest invention. Remember your first science class where you learned about earth cycles? Welcome.
No such thing as Global warming.
If you want to fear monger over it, go ahead. Try to change something you gave no control over. Are you worried about the sun burning out too? Lol
Wow, next thing Aaron will say that stress causes stomach ulcers, so drink your milk.......
+Aaron Ferguson Bwahahahahaha. Okay that isn't fair. To put it very simply those things happen quickly, by geologic time not at any rate like we are seeing.

+Phil East Denier is the correct term. They certainly aren't skeptics, because evidence has no impact.
Back in 2012 Al Gore told all of us in FLA that we'd be under water in ten it's 2012. What am I supposed to do with this ark in my backyard?!
Global warming or not it's hard to deny we are wrecking our planet.
It may, or may not, be true so let's NOT continue to pollute the Earth! Regardless!
noooooooooooooooo global warming
The last major volcanic explosion put more greenhouse gases in the air than man in all our history. 
Dr Kaczynski, while an undergraduate at Harvard, was part of the CIA's LSD experiments...his consciousness having been forced to expand, he foresaw the coming danger to humanity of technology...he may be the only sane man left on Earth.
Jim A
The problem is that real science does not support all the precepts that the global warming society panders.
Heartland is division of Flat Earth Society, still trying to prove the notion that the Universe rotates around this planet.
Please let me know when THI kills 50 million people, as enviros have by banning DDT. The point, sound bites are really great, but everyone needs to dig a bit deeper and think for themselves.
Science has no sway over anti-rationalists.
as much as i question global warming... this is just plain stupid
the billboard i mean
The debate is when the Earth will become inhospitable for humans. The Earth will survive anything we do to it, its us that need saving.
They are Playing at being ostriches and hiding their heads in the sand
+Daniel McCully So me pointing out how you being a bigot toward people of a different opinion is an example of the problem? There are a massive amount of scientist that disagree with your opinion. They have observation and peer reviewed work. They just don't get a rubber stamp from people like Al Gore so they get ignored from people like you. I never said I believe that climate change is wrong. I said there are a bunch of opinions on both side, and to say that someone with a different opinion is what is wrong with our society is tantamount to hate speech. Having a discussion or debate is healthy, but the way you wrote was so extremely close minded it is disturbing. Calling people with a different opinion (opinions that are backed up by large numbers of the scientific community) dangerous groups simply for having a different opinion is bigotry. Plain and simple. Saying you disagree and giving the reasons why is fine. But the fact is, this is not a cut and dry issue in the scientific community. There are many opinions....and that is what they all are....opinions. We have not had the technology or time to have a finite answer at this point. And what really aggravated me was your flippant statement about people that believe in creation. As if those two things have anything to do with each other. It was a statement that is just based in meanness.

I do I completely agree that the people that are against vaccinations are wrong. And they have basically no one backing them up in the scientific community. I have friends with kids that they don't vaccinate, and my child won't play with them till he has had all of his.
1.cover your mouth with your hand
2. Whisper a wish in your hand this on three other comments
4.look at your hand
Let us not forget that consensus is not science. Nobody ever said that a consensus of scientist ever said that the Sun is 93 million miles from the Earth. Nobody would think to talk like that. Consensus is only used when the evidence is lacking.
Yup. This undid a lot of what good publicity Heartland did get from the Gleick incident and understandably so. Then again, what do you expect from a small time advocacy group?
But hey, they've got us talking about them, so there's that. No publicity is bad publicity, as the old adage goes.
Global warming for me would be a whole lot easier to believe in if the "scientists" that are pushing it weren't fabricating data. You loose allot of ground with people like myself when you push the issue to the point of insanity with falsified data and exaggerated documentaries.
Man made global warming and climate change are two different things Mr. Scientist. So easy a caveman can see it!
Global warming was disproved many times...
Still trying to figure out why global warming (and opposition to the notion) appeals to political zealots in the first place. Why should political notions have anything to do with physical sciences?
i believe its just a con to raise prices on oil and related items
Those idiots that spend billions on weapons and military budgets and create worldwide fear and poverty, they have a backing of such ignorant hypocrites who care about nothing but their own low-life existence.
What's really funny is they picked one of the most brilliant minds ever to use as an example. Kaczynski was a Harvard educated mathematics prodigy before he went looney. The guy is disturbed not stupid!
+Mark Monyhan I think they knew full well about Kaczynski's pedigree. The between-the-lines implication is that all scientists are just one step away from going looney.
Tree-huggers put this up as a decoy, pure and simple. The earth itself puts more crap in the air and water daily than humans can in a hundred years. I've yet to see a climate doom group do anything on the up and up. These groups just try to scare the public to goat them into feeling bad and ultimately relieve them of their money or rights. Come on people...
ahhhh I love the smell of my burning tires and lots of hair spray in the morning :)
They chose a bad person to display the "only murderers and nut jobs believe in global warming" Ted Kaczynski was a genius who was accepted to Harvard at the age of 16. Just sayin
Correlation is dumb. This doesn't prove global warming is real. Oh, you wear a green hat, that must mean that everyone that wears a green hat believes in climate change. Moron. The fact that we humans think we can play God and save the planet by driving less is beyond stupid. Btw, global warming is a joke. It's called business.
Global warming gives people a purpose in life. I drive a prius aka I care about the planet. In reality its just another way for the government to tax corporations and its citizens just for breathing...
The stupidity is amazing. Pick up a science text book... actually just pick up a book which isn't a tabloid.
I agree that it's a silly billboard. But the topic post replicates the exact same logical fallacy: "Climate change deniers sink to a new low, even for them." So the actions/views of Ted Kaczynski should not be taken to impugn the entire pro-global warming movement, but some individual(s) putting up this billboard is an excuse to go after "climate change deniers" in general?
Climate change is happening here in the UK it is 10 degrees Celsius, raining non-stop for 5 weeks and this is supposed to be spring.
+Lionel Plugge and you can prove that because people were driving cars that the climate has changed? Doesn't have to do with gulf stream?
Sorry it is Unabomber, durived from an FBI case file called "UNABOM".
I'm sure the climate is changing,just as it has done for millenia. even before humans evolved. But to say Mankind is wholly responsible is incredibly egotistical.
The term "denier" says it all.

Blind refusal to accept the facts in the face of overwhelming, scientific evidence, by people who don't understand the scientific method. Rather than make scientific counter-arguments resort is made to silly, unsubstantiated comments.
+Robert Dickson
Not wholly responsible, but we've definitely made it worse. And not just the global climate, but the environment as well. Those oil spills in the oceans don't start themselves, you know.
Same. The climate has been changing and getting warmer, since recording started.
Global warming is fact but not man made. Its part of the earth's natural evolutionary cycle. Prove me wrong!
If it is true how is it that low temp records still exist from the 1920s?
i always belive in it. No wonder i'm so hot when i'm under the sun
too hot is a problem, too cold is also not a good thing....
Like I said last time last time +Philip Plait had a global warming related post:

Personally, I used to believe that global warming—not climate change, necessarily, just this recent radical change in it—was mainly natural and humanity only contributed a tiny percentage to it when compared to the entire earth. Then one day, after posting that belief, someone told me that humanity doesn't need to be causing global warming so much as contributing just enough to push the natural climatic cycle over the edge. Therefore, our "tiny percentage" was just enough to tip the scales and send earth into a state of [continuous] heating.

This is a more reasonable and sound argument because it suggests that even though climate change is a natural phenomenon, the unfortunate contribution of greenhouse gases by humanity provided just enough to push it into a downward spiral. Now, our only hope is to reverse (or at least slow down) this relatively artificial disaster through more conscious energy consumption. Hopefully, God or the Earth (or possible we ourselves) can forgive humanity for its past irresponsibilities and through time, this small planet can return to more stable climatic temperatures and change cycles.

Just a thought to ponder.
+Gord Birch, middle ground logical fallacy.
+Richard Herist Jr.
"Smh can't fix stupidity"
True; but does America have to make into an art form?
+Johnny Kelley
"There are a massive amount of scientist that disagree with your opinion. They have observation and peer reviewed work"
Care to actually cite some?
Here in the UK we have a saying
"There's none as blind as them as won't look"
Deniers fit that bill exactly; too busy driving their gas guzzling SUVs around the well paved streets of the US
Jason that at least is an honest and logical position to take
whatever happens the truth is Terra will survive. So will life on earth but in a different way as we know it. Terra survived asteroids, dinosaur era, Terra will be there until the Sun will extinguish and perhaps beyond that... Humans are concerned about losing their own life when talking about warming climate. It's all about us disappearing... not life on earth... Whether it's nuclear holocaust or global warming we only think about us and this is why we will be punished one way or the other...
wanna go do some... pollution dunno... ah i know... i gotta go spill some oil on those pesky penguins
Technically, humans contribute around 0.0000000001% of the green house gas pollution in teh atmosphere. It has been proven over the years that nature does a pretty good job itself to increase the green house gasses (volcanos for the win). One volcanic erruption puts all of our green house gasses to shame.
What we are most responsiblre for however is teh destruction of the ecosystems. But hey, were humans, nobody can deny that our nature is to dominate and control everything around. You want a representation "Big buisnesses (oil, supermarkets, mining)". We all depend on this and because of this, they control us and the world. They fund nearly everything from deforestation to the destruction of the Antartic and Arctic "Oil on Penguins pun above".
But serriously, people need to open their eyes to the fact that it isn't the emmisions that are our main problem to us with the resources that we so desperately need "need". We do not need them, it is the destruction fo the ecosystems that we all thrive on in order to live
"It's not earth that's in trouble
It's the people that live on it, no noEarth'll be here long after we've all gone the way of the dodo"

The Way of The Dodo by The Streets
Global warming is a good thing. Look at the ancient world. Scientist say dinosaurs lived in a world with much hotter temperatures and much higher CO2 content. We are just fixing the earth to the way it should be.
+Valery Tolkov I'm sorry, I didn't explain it whole. I mean climate change is not a problem which we should avoid. It's problem we should deal with, a problem we should learn how to live with. If the sun exploded, I think people would try to find how to deal with this problem and not to predict it and then avoid the explosion of the sun
It amazes me the number of people here just repeating ignorant and or purposely misleading statements made by Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Lets apply that same standard to disease, 'invisible germs cause AID's is a plot made up by Al Gore'. How about radio waves, 'hey how do they get them thar people inside that teley-vison box'. Geography, 'God done said the world is flat, so who the hell are you to question him Mr. fancy book learning guy'?
That's simply a bad argument. They are doing their argument more harm. RETARDS.
+ Owen Robert

When you get sick you wait in line for years to get a simple treatment, your government tells you what medicine will be allowed and what surgery is right or wrong for you.

Don't preach us American, look inside your life, almost all of europe they are bankrupt, if american's take away the research and then you won't even get the medicine. If we take away the military you will overrun by sudanese militia. (European Military could not fight Libyan airforce for 3 days before crying for uncle's help).

So please come down your high horses
+Steve Horne re: meta-topic: two words... Confirmation Bias. The message of the billboard panders to those with the same message already in their head. As for us seeing the fallacy, we already see the conclusion is flawed before we see the route to get there.
Here's a meta-meta question: if the message were "correct" (you agreed with it) but the route to it contained a fallacy, would you still pick up on the fallacy? Try to think of a real example, not simply the answer that best reinforces your values.
They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."? What are you and your cohorts good sir?
Dawn, your comment about government responsibility ignores the fact that every country in the world, all with different governments, acknowledges that there is now enough evidence, note 'evidence', to make it clear that man is primarily responsible not only for the actual temperature rise but for the speed of change. Yes, there are natural influences on the climate, of course there are; it's a chaotic system, which is for ever in flux. BUT, there has NEVER been a period in history when temperatures have risen as fast as they are at present and those changes coincide exactly with the rise of man-made pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. Denying this reality is simply burying your head in the ground, I'm afraid.
Between man made and not man made global warming the GB deniers try to claim all climate change is not real. Then they go and play like there is climate change but it has nothing at all to do with humans. Then there is going to be those that say it wouldn't matter what causes climate change because it is a part of nature.
There is the man made pollution that floats in the oceans that effects climate change. There is that pollution in the air that also effects climate change. Global warming, global dimming, and all these things of climate change are real.
Yet I don't know if there will be enough fish in the oceans and food not poisoned by pollution to eat in the future. Especially if people and corporations keep going at this rate in polluting things. I don't know if clean water will be rare for all in the future as well. People don't seem to care much about the earth in this matter. Most seem to rather love the profit of money, politic, and power and even the latest entertainment over the health of the planet. So how is your reality show doing today?
Phil: did you become not a scientist while we weren't looking? Be honest.
Sent to "":

Regarding your billboard concerning the Unibomber's "belief" in climate change.

The "guilt by association" pattern is a logical fallacy. The voluntary use of a logical fallacy to promote an argument is a form of lying. The involuntary use of a logical fallacy to promote an argument is a dereliction of your duty as communicators. Either way, this reflects very badly on your credibility for thinking individuals.

Perhaps we're not your target audience, though.
Hi...I'd just like to state, for the record, that as an Englishman I am utterly ashamed at some of the ignorant and racist comments made by +Owen Roberts Many of my closest friends are Americans and they are all, to a man, far more intelligent than you sir...I am totally
embarrased by you flag-waving ignorance...
Thank God I'm not an Englishman
As I said many times I have lived and worked over there, I, for the most part, love it and Americans; however that does not blind me from the exasperating faults.
As for my ignorance, have you lived there? I have!
As for my racism; well it may come as a surprise, but Americans do not constitute "A Race" they like the UK (please note the difference between England and the UK) are a nation and a multiracial one at that
As for my flag waving at what point did I wave any particular flag and which one was it?
+Vijay Sha
When (IF) you can learn to spell my name correctly and have the good manners to do so then I'll take each one of your wholly inaccurate prejudices apart for you.
+ Owen Robert (plural or singular)
You are a turd and there is nothing which could be taught to you because you are the product of a nanny state and you will remain the same. You want government to take care of your lazy ass from cradle to grave and you don't mind leeching of other people's hard work.
A nanny state which produces more (per capita & percentile of all graduates) Science and Maths Graduates and post grads than does your nation; which probably explains why you deny the facts like evolution; the moon landings; global climate change.
I just don't get why the richest nation on earth can embrace such lamentable levels of basic science and not be thoroughly ashamed of it. The UK is pretty poor but you are the best
May I also take this chance to say how refreshing it is to see how arguments are carried out in such a non-personal and reasoned way
"You are a turd" "Your lazy ass" " Leech"
I know I must be winning the argument when the interlocutor resorts to abuse
+Marc Hertogh I'd love to see a source.
+Matthew Gompert I'm not sure, but I get the impression that Philip Plait wasn't looking to discredit climate-change. To quote this very post, "The Heartland Institute is a climate change DENYING group..." I rest my case.
Myth: Volcanoes emit more C02 than all of the C02 emissions from mankind combined.

Fact: Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
Fact: Number of Mount St. Helen size eruptions needed to equal what humans produce in a year = 3500
+John Bill
Now don't go spoiling their nice prejudice with facts; it spoils all their fun, after all IGNORANCE IS BLISS
I wanted to ask your view, Philip. When the ice melts we get more clouds. When we get more clouds, we get more Sun reflected back to space. When things warm up, they eventually cool down. Global warming doesn't take us to a hot place but rather a cold place. Yes or no?
+Francis Walsh
Don't forget when the Ice goes so does an awful lot of reflection from it; so I'm not at all sure that the increased cloud cover will balance that out could be, in truth I'm sure it's a complex subject
Come on guys! If it gets too hot then ice bergs melt and we drown! Global warming!
But not before those in the Pacific Islands, but of course their lives are not as important as driving an SUV
I don't know if the pie size slice of data we have is enough to convict the human race of destroying the climate.
Climate change is a fascinating topic.  A true skeptic would weigh the evidence on the two sides, and select the one with the most credible evidence supporting it.  

On the side supporting a conclusion of climate change, here's an overview of 10 lines of evidence, from 47 independent data sets:

The 2009 State of the Climate report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”. The conclusion? All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.

The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing:

The 10 indicators are:

   1. Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
   2. Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
   3. Air temperature over the oceans.
   4. Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
   5. Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
   6. Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
   7. Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
   8. Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
   9. Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
  10. Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.

Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

More detail, with links to recent peer--reviewed scientific papers:

The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:

    * Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
    * The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
    * Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
    * The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
    * There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
    * A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
    * Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
    * Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)

Ice Melt

    * Arctic permafrost is warming at greater depths (Walsh 2009) and degrading (IPCC AR4, section
    * Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
    * Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
    * Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
    * Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
    * Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
    * Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005)

Biological changes

(Too long, go to the link...)

To dig further:

The Human Fingerprint of Global Warming

On the side of denial of climate change, there is no scientific evidence (published in respected journals), only the energetic waving of arms and publication of pseudo-scientific sounding propaganda.  Go ahead, look up the scientific papers placing climate change (or its anthropogenic origin) in doubt.  Science welcomes and celebrates revisions to theories, and a scientist could make his career with such a discovery.  No such discovery has occurred.
Definitely fascinating psychologically, and unfortunately, these genuine radicals have way too many followers.
spell gay then spell sun and love that female angiel at motel six,and we will leave the light on and off
Yes, and to those uneducated, unevolved, I would like to say that is sooooooo watching a 1 year old try to walk!
I don't understand why evolution and global warming issues divide our country (I am referring to America).

 In school we are indoctrinated into global warming as a man made disaster, in school we are indoctrinated into evolution and the big bang as how we got here.

 In church or home (in some cases at least) we are indoctrinated into God is in control, and God made everything so what you do, your carbon footprint won't hurt his creation.

These two beliefs don't go fit together very well so I guess we get a divide.

My thought is... what if (and this seems the most likely) we are wrong on both sides? God is unimaginable (according to the bible) and the scope of what is still unknown by science is daunting. How about instead of teaching a doctrine or a theory, or a belief, we give students the tools to find the real answers. If we tell them we don't know, maybe they will keep looking. Inquisitive minds is what we need, not indoctrinated.
The nice part about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. 
Science is never "wrong" John. Neither is mathematics.
Science is theories.  Theories change.  For example, the theory of gravity was modified by the theory of relativity.  That doesn't mean we can ignore these theories or that they are wrong.  For all practical purposes the theory of gravity is valid. However, if you are creating the GPS Satellite system, you need to consider the theory of relativity as well.  Ignoring the theory of gravity because the theory of relativity modified it can have great consequences.  

Science says that Global Warning is caused by carbon emissions and is man made.  That is the operational theory.  Your best response it to take that as fact as for all practical purposes, it is.

I agree with the point that we should not be arguing about the validity of climate change being man made.  So get on board and quit questioning it.  It is the operational theory so treat it as fact just as you treat the theory of gravity as fact.
On the aspect of whether or not a significant portion of current climate change is anthropogenic (man-made), here are useful summaries of the evidence, at various levels of detail:
Whether or not Climate Change is Man-made (Basic Level)
"When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it."

Whether or not Climate Change is Man-made (Intermediate Level)
"In science, there's only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world - and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:"

Whether or not Climate Change is Man-made (Advanced Level)
_Not all of the factors influencing the planet drive the climate towards warming, but currently, the total effect of all of the positive and negative contributing factors does, and many of the strongest influences are driven by mankind"
"Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming are present."

Follow the links and let me know what you think.

There's a Google+ page with links to research and articles on Climate Change:
+Allen Edwards that was response to someone else. Waiting for responses, he said science is never wrong. Just making a point, I know it is theory, he doesn't, he akins it to mathematics 
+Jeff Sullivan   Excellent post.  And then ask yourself if the "experts" who deny man caused climate change don't 1) change their story given new evidence but reach the same conclusion and 2) used to campaign that smoking did not cause cancer. 
We really need to keep our sense of humor and fascination when we see things. I also believe it proves strongly that not all humans evolve at the same rate. Some just seem to be a little closer to our poop flinging relatives. 
+Gord Birch There are over 170 commonly-used objections to climate change, and you can click on each one to examine their blatant flaws in much more detail:

Your point that "It's just a theory" is most similar to the one stated as "The science isn't settled", #65, and the explanation of how that argument breaks down is covered at basic and intermediate levels here:

Yes, you're technically right, science is never settled, it invites challenges to all theories, but that point is irrelevant... we're not going to float off the earth simply because gravity is a theory, nor can we ignore climate change simply because it's also technically labelled a theory.

All major scientific organizations in the world support the core conclusions (most have explicitly stated this, often multiple times, as in the case of the American Geophysical Union (representing 50,000 scientists who perform relevant earth science research), which issued statements in 2003 and 2008:
As yet another example, the professional organization for physicists, the American Institute of Physics, summarizes the 100+ year history of our development of scientific knowledge on global warming here:
The Discovery of Global Warming

Your opinions are not uncommon.  Many members of the public don't know that there's no contrary evidence, and are under the mistaken impression that there's some sort of "debate" on the topic of climate change.  The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University looked at that blatant mismatch between the research and what was reported to the public by the media, and presented the following findings:

Disinformation, Financial Pressures, and Misplaced Balance
A reporter describes the systemic forces that work against the story of climate change being accurately told.
By Ross Gelbspan

Global Warming: What’s Known vs. What’s Told
‘Americans could be forgiven for not knowing how uncontroversial this issue is among the vast majority of scientists.’
By Sandy Tolan and Alexandra Berzon

Knowing Uncertainty for What It Is
In reporting on the science of global warming, journalists contend with powerful, well-funded forces using strategies created by tobacco companies.
By David Michaels

+Allen Edwards is correct that the oil and gas lobby and similar special interests are using the well-proven denial tactics of tobacco companies used to delay public understanding on the link between smoking and cancer.  In fact, they've even hired some of the exact same lobbyists to spread doubt and delay action on smoking.

Now before you simply conclude that I'm "taking a side" in the imaginary among scientists) "debate", let me state clearly that none of the carbon controls or treaties under discussion by any government makes any sense.

NASA Goddard Director Dr. James E. Hansen catches a lot of grief from the propaganda mills for presenting evidence.  What they don't tell you is that he advocates fourth generation (clean) nuclear power, he distrusts environmentalists, he opposes Kyoto-like carbon control treaties to be imposed on developed nations.  He's adamant about including high emission, high growth countries like China and India in all global treaties (to ensure that CO2 levels actually go down, which all current and proposed treaties fail miserably to do).
Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth
"No time remains for a transition via ineffectual half measures.  Frank communication with the public is essential. At present, all around the world, many governments are guilty of greenwash, an implausible approach of goals and half-measures that will barely slow the growth of CO2."
Clearly he's calling out politicians, and the entire IPCC / United Nations strategy, as being seriously flawed.  That's not the behavior of a conformist. 
If you read some of his writings, Dr. Hansen is refreshingly logical in his approach, which can't be said for the politicians who try to hijack us into many different directions in the name of addressing global warming.
In fact, Dr. Hansen's radical departure from the IPCC's recommendations and his opposition of the broader treaties being negotiated to expand the Kyoto Accord reveals the blatant fallacy of some skeptics' claims that there is some sort of hoax or conspiracy involved among scientists and/or governments on this topic.
For more of Dr. Hansen's recent papers and presentations:

Developing nations account for over 50% of emissions today but they have 80% of the population and the vast majority of population and economic growth.  Simple math shows that economic growth rates of 8-12% yield a doubling of economies and emissions every 8-10 years, so the developing nations alone will have emission levels roughly equivalent to the entire world's emissions by 2020 or so, even if developed nations left the planet.  So Kyoto-like treaties are deceptively inadequate, and the United States' strategy of staying out of the treaties to pressure developing nations to sign on is entirely in line with that broader need to address global problems on a global basis.

We can't control global governments, so for most of the general population, "prepare for it" is about as good as we can do.  Expect extreme weather, prepare for crop failures and higher food prices, save for more difficult economic times, and so on.
Seriously people I responded to one person about one statement of his that science is never wrong. Nothing more. So I won't read the comments above that are longer than the post, and likely stuff I have read a thousand times. My comment was to +olé Olsen 
Some religious extremists are haters of Science. Truths conveyed by Science are often hated by them. Climate change is a case in point.
Add a comment...