Wilkins ice shelf breaking away?

^There are scientists in the IPCC, but unfortunately how their findings are interpreted is entirely controlled by the governments that fund them. Some members of the IPCC are only 'scientists' in that they have doctorates in non-relevant fields. Also some of the scientists on the IPCC 'list' wanted their names removed from the reports, as conclusions drawn were contrary to their own findings. They were refused.

straw man argument. Who made the IPCC the final and only opinion on climate change? Look at the politics behind the IPCC - it was set up by the UN.

Unfortunately there is not a concencus of opinion

evidence please, not conjecture.

• and when people start talking about 'unrefutable' science you have to start questioning whether it is science at all.
  
  
  

see both comments above.

^Oh, and CO2 is not a 'pollutant'. It is actually a plant fertiliser, and the increase in Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased plant growth by something like 12% in the last 3 decades.

Evidence please.

As for CO2 driving global warming: It hasn't ever done in the past, and the fact that it is among the lesser greenhouse gases makes you wonder who no-one is worried about their 'water vapour footprints'?

^ unfortunately the concensus is among politicians, not scientists. Many scientists are also afraid to speak out against the 'warmists' as there has been talk of Nuremburg-style trials against global warming (GW) deniers.

you are kidding with this right?

Many people I have spoken to about this matter who have no scientific knowledge on the matter believe that 'it can't do any harm in playing it safe' and going along with the CO2-as-driver-for-global-temperature theory just in case. Maybe they would be less happy to go along with this if they knew that*** around 12% of our taxes in the UK are now climate-change based, or that the billions of pounds spent by countries in attempts to reduce their carbon footprints*** could have eliminated third world debt, wiped Malaria off the planet and many other, more worthy things. Developed countries like the UK are also using GW as a means to hinder countries in Africa and Asia from developing economically.

again. citation required. I frankly don't believe this statement.

Sadly GW is also taking the attention away from *real *environmental issues (plastic soup the size of Texas in the Pacific? when was the last time you heard about that on the TV? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html)

because people can't manage two problems at once? it's possible that as people take on board the enormity of GW as an environmental issue, they'll acknowledge other environmental issues too? My experience of social behaviour leads me to believe that people need a catastrophe to adjust their thinking (small issues get ignored), but once people do change their mindset they can embrace new similar ideas easliy.