On 04/01/13 21:21, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And no, I'm not going to debate it any further.

Good

But whilst mainstream society is heavily influenced by media and the hype of support for this issue, that doesn't make it definitive -- there still is debate on the facts and what data [and lack thereof too] is used to make conclusions from these so called facts. Scientists argue both sides regularly

I agree that mainstream society is heavily influenced by media, although I also believe that mainstream society is less flustered about climate change than they were a few years ago, probably partially caused by something akin to compassion fatigue.  The problem is urgent, but the scale is so large that it's hard to see how individual choices can make much of a difference.

On the other hand, I thoroughly disagree that there is much debate on the facts or that "Scientists argue both sides regularly".  I'm pretty sure the science is against you on this one:

http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/pie-chart-13950-peer-reviewed-scientific-articles-earths-climate-finds-24-rejecting-global-warming.html 
James Lawrence Powell has done a meta-study, ... out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?


I agree that this shows that there are a few climate scientists, and more non-climate scientists, who are arguing something else, but I don't think that it's fair to characterize this as "scientists argue both sides regularly".  I think that it would be more fair to say "by far and away most scientists agree, but there is a fairly small number who don't".

, but those more pro to the cause get more media attention, which continues to perpetuate the lies IMHO, thus misrepresenting the real truth

I don't think it has much to do with media attention at all.  The media isn't very interested in science most of the time, and I think more than enough "balance" is given to those who disagree. Yet, ignoring the media, all of the meta studies are coming back with the same thing:  by far and away, the vast majority of climate scientists are saying that the climate is changing, and that the changes are caused by humans.  *Some* scientists who disagree are saying at the climate is changing, but it's not caused by humans.  And a tiny few are saying that these aren't changes at all.

One of the biggest industries sensitive to climate change has moved to start dealing with it.  Which industry?  The insurance industry.  I doubt they care whether it's human-induced or not, what they have to care about is how it needs to affect premiums.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2012/10/11/climate-proofing-the-insurance-industry/

Even Big Oil has adjusted their stance (although I'm not sure to what extent that's changing their behaviour: http://www.skepticalscience.com/bigoil.html

I don't expect to change the mind of someone who's not willing to have an open mind on the subject.  That's fine, it's your call, but I wasn't going to let you get away with stating that this is something scientists are still debating or that it's being driven only by the media, as if it were only a fringe group of scientists who were arguing for climate change with some special interest group manipulating the media behind the scenes.

    J