climate change

is climate change serious? hasnt the world always been changing temperature

No, it's not a big deal.  Just another way for the government to mess with our lives, take away our freedoms, and tax us to death.

Before the misinformation arrives by the landslide (shockingly for a chess forum, there are several open threads where this topic is currently being "debated"): yes it is serious, and yes the world has always been changing temperature, but 1) those temperature changes are not always kind to existing life on Earth, and 2) there is overwhelming evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing in a significant way to current climate change.

This is plain wrong. If climate change is a government cooked conspiracy meant to "take away our freedoms," it is an embarassingly ineffective plan of theirs. But of course it's not a conspiracy, as numerous and repeated independent studies attest to the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change.

More co2 is good for plants.  It's plant food.  A warmer Earth will be wetter.  Even if global warming was happening it would be a good thing for everyone really.

Silly people. Silly people everywhere.

@Nick-Nickleby: I didn't realize that this thread was based on a question you were asking only rhetorically. I regret even trying to be a voice of reason.

This is what global warming alarmists always resort to, ad hominen attacks.

lol

You won't be laughing when we're living under a totalitarian one world facist government that was brought to power under the guise of saving the planet from global warming.

Greedy scientists made the whole global warming thing up to get more research money.

hahahahaha

Hey, thanks for checking, Nick! In fact, I do know what ad hominem means. So we're all clear, there.

Just out of curiosity, what are your sources for information regarding global warming?

My source.  I'm well read and educated, follow the news, understand the science better than most laymen and am a smart person.  This global warming alarmism doesn't pass the sniff test.

I was asking Nick, but since you responded: can you be any more specific? What news sources do you use? What's your level of education? What do you think qualifies you as smart? What does understanding science mean to you?

Just to clarify: I'm not trying to pick on you. I sincerely want to know what specific sources you use regarding climate science. If they are faulty, the better to discuss them and point out errors in their arguments. If they are sound and reliable sources making strong points in favor of your argument, then you'll have perhaps won me over.

I guess you've decided to forget your rule regarding ad hominem attacks?

Do you mean that your sources of information regarding climate science are only those two news outlets? I'm sure you're aware that Drudge Report and The Blaze are considered conservative news sources. Since fiscal conservatives will generally oppose increases in federal regulations of corporations, and since a national effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions would probably require an increase of federal regulations in some form or another, Drudge Report and The Blaze are likely a little (and I would venture to guess a lot) biased in their reporting of events related to climate change. Knowing this, I would recommend broadening your base of news sources so as to have a more complete, well-rounded picture of climate science and its issues. And of course, always treat any news on climate change with skepticism and critical thinking  - what are the source's possible objectives in reporting this story? What is the evidence for or against their argument? Do I have substantial reason to trust this information, whatever it might be?

I recommend BBC, NPR (if you're in the US), and Christian Science Monitor (despite its misleading name) for more neutral perspectives. And if you're going to read conservative news, might as well balance it out with some liberal news, right? Check out Democracy Now!, although they focus much more heavily on international issues involving violence or other crises. Democracy Now! can be quite leftist. The New York Times is a much more moderate but still slightly left-leaning publication - I like to balance that with The Wall Street Journal, which sits just a little right of center. I also love The Washington Post. Typically they are fairly moderate.

But news outlets, unless they're directly reporting on the actual research involved in climate science, will not do much to help you understand climate change. Being news outlets, they'll only report on events surrounding the issue - bills to be voted on, politicians' key statements, marches, etc. Here are some reliable sources of information on the actual science. Try to understand what the science is, first, before moving to the politics surrounding the issue:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic/global-warming-and-climate-change/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.ipcc.ch/

https://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

Yeah and in the end earth's surface will look like this