I've written on this topic recently:

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/445624/Climate_modeling_continues_to_fail

I fall into the skeptic camp. I've been following this debate since I was in college (now over 20 years ago).  

For all the smugness I've witnessed on the issue, I continue to be astounded that no one seems to remember that very specific predictions have been made over the past 2 decades and can now be compared to the actual measured results.

As a reminder, by 2013 the consensus was that the temperature should be about 0.75 degrees warmer today than it was in 1992. Remember the Kyoto protocols and the dire predictions back then? The internet never forgets. The actual measured temperature in 2012 is about the same as it was in 1992.

That doesn't mean we haven't had some of the "hottest years on record" but if you look carefully at those records, you'll find that the temperature is about the same each year.  Whereas the predictions showed a roughly 0.33 degree increase every decade.

Even if you go by the famous 2001 IPCC report, you will find that the temperature was supposed to have increased by almost a full degree by for the year 2012 when in fact the temperature in 2012 was essentially the same as 2001 (i.e. they're the same within the margin of error).

I'm still waiting for the "Northwest passage" that they predicted would clear of ice by the year 2010.  

Nothing I am saying should imply that global warming / climate change isn't real. Humans put out a lot of green house gasses and those gasses will have an effect. But it should give any reasonable person pause when someone suggests we take drastic action about it.  At the rate things are going, we will see maybe a 0.50 degree change by the end of the century. I think we have bigger fish to fry.

BTW, the data I am talking about here comes from Wikipedia and other sources. It doesn't come from "denialist" websites.  Global temperature for 1998 was 0.6325. (C anomaly from the 1901-2000 mean). In 2012 it was 0.5728 (i.e. it was cooler).  2011 was even cooler than 2012 (source is NCDC).

The biggest problem I have with the debate is the general lack of admission that the fidelity of our temperature readings prior to the Kyoto protocol discussion were pretty poor.  I think it says a lot that the temperature readings got a lot more consistent once the measured temperature readings started to be taken a lot more seriously and were heavily scrutinized (i.e. like making sure the measurement station wasn't near a major city with its own heat sources).

I want to emphasize the above paragraph: Until recent times, the fidelity of the readings was pretty poor. Yet, nearly every graph, chart, etc. starts far in the past (1880, 1901, etc.) as if we had the capability to do global measurements that could be trusted. If you doubt this, take a look at a world temperature chart starting from 1901 and you'll note that the biggest temperature changes were from places that were way out in the middle of nowhere, like literally middle of siberia or northern fringe of Canada or in the middle of the amazon. If you discarded those samples, the global temperature increase for the 20th century suddenly becomes pretty modest).  I have far more confidence in readings since 2001 when these measurements started to be taken very seriously and with a lot of care. And since they predict temperatures to increase by 0.50C every decade, easy to see if there is a serious issue with the climate.

I think we should all do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment. Not because it affects the climate but because it's just good general policy. But I think that the idea that we should coerce people about their "carbon use" is foolhardy.

Global warming/climate change is in the same category as politics and religion. You have two opposing sides who will never agree. Moreover, each will believe they are right, despite any factual evidence, because of their belief.

Fascinating to read though...

You should have stayed out of it.

97% consensus among climatologists magically turns into 97% consensus among peer reviewed papers.  That far less impressive 97% consensus turns into 30% consensus by their measure, with only a third of those papers authors making the claim that they've taken a position.  Yes, that bullshit article is misleading a 10% consensus into 97% by ignoring that two thirds of those they've decided to put in one camp or the other maintain skepticism in their leanings, and that the other 70% didn't take a position at all. 

Their earlier article, which they link in the new and improved, more factually inaccurate one you like, at least gave the actual information while pretending they'd found consensus.

Even if there was a consensus, it would be among college professors who depend on a myth to stay employed.  Still, academia couldn't possibly be furthering themselves, that would make them just as suspect as the oil companies!  Who would we turn to for our pearls of wisdom if we can't trust the tenured teacher that works 10 hours a week and bullshits his way through an article once a year...

You seem to forget there is a huge unstable factor buried deep in the oceans, Methane deposits that may break free from pressure if temperature rises further, making global warming so strong it will cause an Ice Age again. And noone knows what temperature will cause that to happen, and an Ice Age will surely destroy our civilization before we can adapt to it.

Interesting stuff about global warming that it will actually "freeze" Europe if it stops the North Atlantic Current, Europe will be much colder and climate will change drastically here. There is a theory that it will cause another glacial if the oceanic conveyor belt stops, and it causes huge drop in temperature, named (("insert proer name here")) events.

Except Global Warming can be seen everywhere, in several deccades weather has changed, and in the Carpathian Basin it surely got warmer, we rarely had above 35°C for maximum temperatures, but after 2000 it became annual, like droughts...

Though it is intersting it causes some places to be colder, I am surprised, but local attributes can mean much we cannot even imagine. The Carpathian Basin for example is expected to warm more than the world average temperature, I guess there should be places that will stay at the current temp level, or even get somewhat colder.

Who denies man made Global warming, well, he cannot be helped anymore. He is like religious people, he denies facts, and no amount of  facts will make him "believe it". It is not a religion that it should be believed, it is like a storm, you can't just simply say there is no storm because I don't believe in them, even if I see it with my own eyes (like the stronger storms all over the world that indicate something isn't right nowadays, unnatural).

I have a friend who is religious Christian, and even goes to University, but he doesn't believe in science, I say man, it's impossible, you don't even believe in what you are studying, it's like a paradox.

What about temperature records? The years after 2000 were hotter than the previous ones, and if you compare them to earlier decades the difference is bigger.

Removing huge areas of forests, changing the albedo of uncountable km2's, building huge cities that clearly have higher temperatures than the countryside, it surely has effects on global warming. Maybe not that high that models have shown, but they surely have. If someone denies global warming, he denies REALITY TOO.

You can sadly say the same about alarmists too. Just replace "denies" with "believes in".

And your example with storm does not apply here, as this is not about believing in/denying global warming, it is about believing/denying that said warming is primarily man-made. Which is completely different animal - you can see a storm, so its pretty difficult to deny its existence. The cause of the storm, can be disputable though, at least up until the point, where you have a complete understanding of how storms form. Do we have complete understanding of how climate works?

Anyway I read recently about some bee-related disease, where whole colonies in Europe and America went missing over last decade. Given the fact, that bees pollinate the flowers and this actually concerns food production, this  seemed to me like a far bigger issue than climate change. The likelyhood of this being caused by humans seems bigger than in case of climate change as well.

 No, i dont have it arse-about.

And we are not discussing "human impact upon the global environment". Its all about human impact upon climate change/warming. Which is hardly a fact. 

EDIT:

"Whether or not it's negatively impacting is also beyond doubt. Simply count the number of species of animals 'extincting' each year.... the culling of old-growth rainforests - the 'lungs of the planet'.... you don't even have to include fractionation of gas ...or the odd EXXon Valdez or two... the whales [that manage to escape the Japanese harpoons] that beach themselves for 'no apparent' reason.

None of that can be debated. There IS no opposite 'truth'."

None of that is debated here and denying human made climate change does not equate to denying all that.

EDIT no. 2:

"Just because good old 'mother nature' keeps avoiding the noose and prolongs/confuses scientists' expectations of 'effect' doesn't mean it isn't happening....just happening in spite of man's attempts to computer-model it."

So you decided to ignore any inconsistencies in current empirical evidence pointing out its maybe not so hot, as it may seem, and simply believe that the warming is simply happening and it is a man´s fault?

BTW did you really have such profound debates with your schoolmates back in the 70s? 

Yes, probably before you were born...and no, this generation did NOT invent cogent thought.

I spent the 60's, along with millions of others expecting it ALL to be snuffed out if and when some blithering idiot pushed a button [on EITHER side of the cold war....it didn't matter who - both 'sides' were equally lethal].

I spent the 70's naively thinking I could 'make a difference' - hence studying Architecture. [and thankfully missing conscription]. A lot of people thought they could.

These days I just watch each successive generation sober up too....

Well, no, i did not mean to do any rulings. You are free to talk about whatever you want.

You just reacted to my post, which was a reaction to post of Turchany, which clearly dealt mainly with the global warming, not environment pollution in general. I thought majority of the posts concentrated predominantly on that particular thing. 

In regard to the warming itself, i was always under impression, that the whole confict between "alarmists" and "denialists" is not about whether its really or getting warmer or not, rather whether this is man-made thing and therefore there should be certain steps made to stop it. 

Regarding architecture, its interesting and bit of funny. I mean, how you wanted to make a difference. I guess this is one of those signs of differences between our generations. I studied architecture solely cause i had a talent for drawing, i did not even know at 18 years of age, whether i want or do not want to study it. There were no such noble reasons behind it and i pretty much doubt any of my schoolmates were any different. Perhaps unlike me majority of them had actually at least clear, that they really want to be architects, but personally i think they just wanted to succeed at life in general and that was about it, as far as their motives go.

Then again, maybe neither you nor me do not really represent, what our generations are all about.

If mankind puts 0.1°C increase on the "natural" global warming (in a hundred years) that happened and still happens after the Wurm Ice Age, we can say mankind is causing global warming to be more severe. Greenhouse gases are not called this way because they are found in greenhouses.. These have huge impact on the atmosphere, and not CO2 is the worst... Methane and water vapour is worse, and as I said in my previous comment there is a huge amount of methan deep under water that only waits for the global temperature to reach an unknown value. And if that 0.1°C causes the next Ice Age to come in some hundred years instead of several thousands, it will be frustrating.

But I don't think man only causes 0.1°C increase, and if you check CO2 graphs (part per million in the atmosphere), it was 280 ppm around 1900, now it is 390, and will reach 500-900 in 2100 if nothing drastical change comes. CO2 surely causes warming in the atmosphere (Check Venus, 97% CO2), and I don't think that 110 ppm came from natural sources, as you can see everywhere smoke being produced, we use huge amounts of carbon based resources that should be under the ground, but we burn them, CO2 is created, gets into atmosphere, causes the greenhouse effect to be stronger.

And I haven't mentioned other gases that have more severe greenhouse effects like methan or ozone, both are being produced by humans. Water vapour is the major cause, but I don't really know what part is made by humans.

Tell me people, isn't it enough to finally understand humanity is making things worse?

If not, then think about energy consumption, nice amounts of energy are wasted in the form of heat because we can't make 100% sealed tubes or wires. Or think of the globally changed albedo (the property of a terrain, what amount of incoming light will be repelled). Or think of the huge cities, having large + temperature anomaly (heat islands? I hope Americans use this phrase too) (if you have been in a city in the summer, and visited countryside after, you sure understand what I'm saying).

I never said this, I am aware of the facts, I studied much of the climate in the past, and I know we are in an interglacial where warming is natural, but not at this amount.

I cannot imagine what drives people to think there is no global warming, like they DON'T EVEN WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. What do they think of the constantly increasing deserts? Increasing number and strength of storms? Anomalies getting more common? (in temperature both cold and warm anomalies)? Increasing possibility of floods? Hotter summers than decades ago? Here in Hungary there are winters when there is snow for only some days, while it should cover the country for like a month, giving a nice supply of water in spring and summer.. I don't know of other parts of the world this good, but putting their heads in the sand will not help anyone.

with the logic of the OP I can say global warming is brutal, I almost melt yesterday because it was very hot (like 10 degrees Celsius higher than the average June temperature).

really? I never heard about this

I forgot to mention CO2 production in my first post, and that is surely part of pollution

You can read more about it here or do an Internet search, you will find lots of information: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110316153133.htm

I wonder if Asimov ever criticized people for believing hype without fact checking it.  The Doc linked a bullshit story without source checking it first.  There is no 97% consensus, it's a compounding exaggeration that turns 10% of the papers surveyed into the opinions of the other 90%.

When it comes to the world, people are little different than insects, frail, tiny little creatures, with a split second lifespan.  You presume a radical change in the environment judging by your own history.  Your own history is an ignominious little blip in the geological time that wont even be long enough for a delineation a million years from now.  If a fly that lives two weeks were to judge the impending doom of the earth, one born in the spring and one born in the fall would have radically different views, but neither would be relevant.  To rise beyond your limited, irrelevant perspective, you must educate yourself on the history of a thing before deciding on it.

When someone says the Northwest Passage is clear of ice for the first time in human history, it behooves you to do a thirty second search to see if they're right.  Then you'd find out that Roald Amundsen was the first European to sail it in 1906.  It was frequently clear in the thirties and forties.  The same was true of the Siberian coast in the thirties, at one point, the Ruskies could look north without seeing ice in the middle of winter.  A decade later it was back to normal.

Our more violent storms fall to a similarly easy bit of research.  They aren't.  Tornadic activity in the US is not overly high.  We're having a spectacular year, meteorologically speaking, but it's nothing new.  The only reason they can even claim the events to be spectacular is because we weren't tracking tornadoes that happened in the middle of nowhere until the last decade or so.  When you look at the long view, there is plenty of evidence showing massive variation in activity over a several decades long cycle.

Desertification is another easily disproved myth attributed by hyperbolists to be the fault of greenhouse gases.  Deserts don't increase because of temperature, they increase because of water.  Instead of assuming such a thing, you should have looked into them.  When the Chinese decided to divert much of their total rainfall into a specific area for cultivation and power, it was to be expected that they'd dry out the land further south.  Regular flooding is necessary in areas that don't recieve high rainfall.  If you build the worlds biggest dam, you're going to fuck the place up.

Consider the logical fallacy involved in claiming both more severe and frequent storms, and more desertification.  More severe storms means more rainfall, over more areas of the world.  Deserts occur where there is no significant rainfall.

My mother lives in Anchorage Alaska, a few weeks ago she was bitching about how it snowed.  Gore would point to your winter and my mother's spring and say look, proof!  Reality intrudes, both localities have suffered similarly in the not so distant past, decades back.

The science about the cause of changes in the climate is not settled. The only constant about climate is, it changes.