Hey guys, tell us what you think about this and other environmental issues ? Do you agree that such a problem exists or do you incline to the opposite theory that it is a natural process, which can not be influenced by humankind ?

Well, I am dead sure we affect the world around as, thus even environment. The question is just at which level and amount.
I figure the level goes hand in hand with the amount.
The topical issues can be rooted just in natural circulation of the nature, thus meaningless fuss around it. On the other hand, it can be caused by man. Then it is the matter worth talking about.
I maintain the latter option. Why?
Because every action has its reaction. Things so don't work without consequences. Everything has its reverse side. Nothing is just good or just bad. Everything must be balanced. And when we are like pig wallowing in messy mud, always taking and not giving. It must result in something. So if we keen on living this way, someday we will be wiped out.
The very issue is only us.

Thank you for your comments Batllefield, I fully agree with you on this. The only thing most people care, is their well-being and they don't give a „s..t“ about nature and environment. 

My views on this issue radically changed when I read Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR.

Changed in a positive or negative way?

I have not read this book, but I think it is full of „scientific“ proofs, that nothing like a climate change caused by humans exists.

On the other hand, why would anyone (especially scientists) create an imagination of an unrealistic phenomenon and spread lies ?

Hard to speculate, maybe we should go to the library and borrow the book … and share our views on that afterwards .. 

I would rather say WHY THE WOULDN'T? The other month it was found out the scientist claiming the radical climate change by 2015, I guess, made up the survey, observation with way worse consequences than should be.
I reckon it is because the profound relationship they have towards the planet. When watching all those people not giving a damn about world around them, they just had to make a stand. Even though the rightness was doubtful.
If they had pulled off, the things could have been set in motion way faster, more effective. But, they hadn't. I guess a shitload of their credit has been dumped.

In a nutshell, I understand the points of both sides of the wall.

McKay: What do you mean, POSITIVE or NEGATIVE?

Jaja7958: The book doesn't say who's right and who's wrong. It just makes one think. It shows that there are many top notch scientists on ‚both sides‘. It shows that in general, people know very little about ecology, especially those who blindly advocate the so called man-caused climate change. It points out that environmentalism is a new religion. RELIGION. People are made to fear the environment, people are made to think that being good (green) can save them. People talk about it as a fact although they understand it very little. They believe everything they hear from the media…

It's a great book. It made me see that everything is not as black and white as we're normally told. It doesn't tell you that it's a load of nonsense. It makes you think. It makes you see both sides of the argument. Plus, it's a GREAT STORY!!!

I meant how your views changed after having read this book you mentioned.

However, you've just answered my question in your last comment that it made you think and nothing is black and white.

I would like to make one point here – what can we loose when we will (maybe blindly) believe that we are responsible for the climate change ? It is hard and maybe impossible to find the absolute truth, but is it worth to risk that one day all the predictions of scientists (those who „believe“)will come true ??

the same with any other religion: What can we lose if we believe in God? What if, at the end of the day, it all turns out to be true, everything the Christians/Muslims… have been telling us? What can I possibly lose by making a decision not to sin anymore, praying every night, joining a church…

What I really hate is the way people are manipulated. They were manipulated by religious leaders in the past and they are manipulated today. No one cares about the truth. And after Environmentalism there will be something new. People will always find a deity to worship.

Of course, I'm not saying we should NOT care about the planet… And neither is Crichton's STATE OF FEAR.

Man-caused climate change is NOT A FACT. It is just a theory. One of several different theories. It's just more popular than others, because this one ends in a big catastrophe, the end of the world. If we don't change our ways, we will all die.

I can see your point Marek and you are right that there are similar features, the only difference is in the individuals who spread the „religion“ and there is a big difference. The church used to rule the world and need to have obedient listeners but what about scientists are they going also to seize the power and increase their influence by proclaiming inaccurate facts which maybe are not truth ?

Oh, the facts are accurate, that's the thing. But the facts on both sides are accurate.

And, it's not the scientists who spread all this. It's the media. There are scientists on both sides, but only one side gets the spotlight. That's where the manipulation is. Scientists are not doing it.

Definintely media are always focused on one side of the coin, which is more intriguing for the audience … I have not think about it from this angle before but it still does not rule out the alternative, that the most catastrophic scenario may become reality ..

Anyway, you asked WHY anyone would spread things about teh environment that needn't be true.

There are organizations who FEED on Environmentalism. Huge amounts of money are involved in the whole thing. HUGE. Scientists, organizations, political groups… There are people who depend on climate change. If anyone proved that it's nonsense, these people would be cut off from a great source of money.

Read the book. Crichton at his best.