I believe that the opposing „industrial“ group of people who are interested to persuade others that this is all nonsense is more significant and influential.

The topic is certainly full of questions and the public is being manipulated by media and noone knows where the truth lies, only the future will as the time goes on bring answers to these questions.

What about others ? Join us and tell your opinion ! 

Of course, that's the thing. It's no longer about saving the planet only, it's about money.

Take a look at those satellite images of the north pole ice cap and you will see that it is shrinking. Soon there will be no polar ice cap for the first time in 3 million years. Do you need better demonstration that the climate is changing?

It's not about whether climate changes or not. It's about MAN-CAUSED climate change. Climate was constantly changing even BEFORE there were people! That's the argument.

That's the new religion. If we're not good, the world will come to an end.

And, if the whole thing can be resolved by looking at two satellite images, what are all those scientists paid for? Don't you think that ecology is more complicated than that???

At this point it would be maybe interesting to change the direction of this discussion… What do you suggest, then ? It is easier to analyze the situation than to bring a solution.

Should we behave in eco-friendly way trying to cut down the carbon emissions, protect natural resources etc… or can we be satisfied with the argument that there are too many unanswered questions and unclear issues and continue devastating the environment ?!

Climate was changing before that's true, but never at this speed.

Green house effect is a proven fact. CO2, methan and other gases are greenhouse gases. Michael Crichton is an author of fiction. His book The State of Fear gives a very cynical view on people and their motivation.

Do you really think that burning billions of tons of oil doesn't affect earth's climate? Let's suppose that we are not the cause of changing climate, what can we lose? We will decrease our dependency on fossil fuels and we will decrease the amount of emission we release into the atmosphere.

Of course it's easier to say that climate is changing all the time and there is nothing we can do about it

I am with you on this kenzo! The aim of this topic is if nohing else to make people think about this and maybe persuade those who say this is all nonsense.

Regarding the theory where this phenomenon is compared to religion, I am not a religous person but on the other hand I don't dare to say „God does not exist“ .. 

Maybe there really is nothing we can do about climate change. Maybe we have already reached the breaking point and the whole process is now irreversible.

Everything you know about the environment is based on the things you hear/read. People who REALLY understand ecology, the systems and everything, they are divided into two groups. What you call „A GIVEN FACT“ does not have to be as „given“ as you may think. That's what Crichton was trying to point at.

Of course, he's an author of fiction. His novels, however, are very well researched. The scientific facts he presents in his novel are NOT A WORK OF FICTION.

Funny that you condemn Crichton as an author of fiction and therefore not reliable and yet you will believe what you hear from the media. Crichton, at least, went to great lengths to DO ACTUAL RESEARCH. Media? They just print whatever is popular.

But everyone prefers to believe the commonly accepted facts. And when someone like our president says it's a load of BS, everybody thinks he's crazy. He's not. There are actually people who don't go with the flow and do not blindly believe everything they are told.

Our president has economic background and maybe he is more interested in macroeconomic figures than in nature … 

maybe you should read The weathermaker by Tim Flannery and you will change your mind. All you know about climate is based one book that says it's all bullshit, he wrote the book to make money.

But I said the book does NOT say it's all BS. I said it makes people see both sides of the argument.

Literature has always been a perfect way of enabling people to see things differently, think differently. There's nothing wrong about that. There's nothing wrong about asking WHAT IF and writing a well-researched book about it.

A lot of writers influenced the way I think. Kurt Vonnegut, for example. My views on the world, people, humanity, religion… to a certain extent they were formed by this writer. There's nothing wrong or even nothing unusual about it.

He wrote it to make money. Okay. I do a lot of things to make money. Does that mean that I'm a bad teacher or that my software sucks? What if my students said – We don't believe you. You're teaching us in order to make money!

How come that what you say is a fact and what I say is just a theory?

What you are saying is that I'm influenced by media and therefore wrong, because I'm „going with the flow“. On the other hand, you have read one book from a controversial author and therefore you are right, because you are not „going with the flow“.

How do you know that other scientists haven't done any serious research? Do you think that they have invented the whole global warming thing in order to make money?

Majority of respectable scientists say that global warming is happening and people are causing it. Of course there always will be poeple saying that it is all bullshit.

Unfortunately, it is easier for the majority of people to say that something is nonsense than to change the stereotype of our life and risk our wealth and economic prosperity.

Did I say that it's bullshit? Did I say I think it's bullshit? I don't think so. I said it made me see both sides of the argument.

I don't pretend I can read satellite images, or that I can say that this or that is a fact. I can't. Most people can't. So why do they?