All I know about global warming is that if it gets rid of our winters I’m in favor of it and want it to come faster.

Charles,
Forgive me for being blunt because I respect your right to judge for yourself and form your own opinions. However, I feel strongly the opinion you expressed (which I used to share) is very short-sighted and dangerous if you think more deeply about it. If you don’t like cold weather, it’s understandable that you wouldn’t mind some warmer winter months. But also consider the fact that summer months could be warmer, and perhaps dangerously so in the regions of the world already in a very warm climate.
Most of our crops come from regions that depend upon a certain climate for the crops to grow. If the temperatures continue to rise, there could be substantial loss of food and crops. This would likely lead to loss of money and jobs that depend upon agriculture.
People living in the Arctic region are already facing various difficulties from the loss of ice to the region. Tribal people have had to move their homes several times to get further away from rising water levels. The food chain in the Arctic region is dependent upon a certain amount of ice and snow in the winter, and various plants and an animals have already become more scarce. Google “global warming in arctic region” and you’ll see even more detail about the problems associated with substantial temperature change in winter and summer months.
I personally love warm weather and wouldn’t complain if the winters were a bit warmer. However, the change to human jobs, food sources, land availability, and summer temperatures could be quite costly for us to adjust to, especially if the temperatures continue to rise indefinitely.
Thanks for reading this.

Great idea! I’ve got skeptical family members who believe global warming is happening, but they don’t think humans have anything to do with it – it’s just happening as part of the natural cycle. Got a challenge for those sorts?

I commend to you the blog of Anthony Watts, and the following thread as an entry point to the many reports on the science that he has himself authored, reviewed and commented on.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/17/ipcc-lead-author-on-global-warming-conclusions-were-not-scientifically-there-yet/
“At Thursday’s [Utah Farm Bureau] convention, Tripp found a receptive audience among the 250 people attending the conference. He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. “It well may be, but we’re not scientifically there yet.””
We may and can (and do) entertain intuitive insights into local weather, regional trends and such, but for all the propaganda you are being buried under from both sides the only and validly correct answer from science is “we just don’t know for sure either way, yet.”
Dr. Watts has a longstanding blog and thousands of words of text to wade through. I respectfully but bluntly suggest that if you want to assert your opinions on global climate change, you need to read actual science from actual scientists debating the scientific issues at stake using actual data to support their contentions.

As for the warming-cooling debate (war), here is some real science on that front:
CO2, Soot, Modeling and Climate Sensitivity.
“A new paper in Science reports that a careful study of satellite data show the assumed cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere to be significantly less than previously estimated. Unfortunately, the assumed greater cooling has been used in climate models for years. In such models, the global-mean warming is determined by the balance of the radiative forcings—warming by greenhouse gases balanced against cooling by aerosols. Since a greater cooling effect has been used in climate models, the result has been to credit CO2 with a larger warming effect than it really has.”
GHC stands for greenhouse gases. Read this extensive article, and look up any terms with which you are not familiar. You will learn a lot.

And I obviously meant to show that GHG stands for greenhouse gases. Please forgive me for posting before my second cup of coffee.

To Salcia – and Franklin’s cite to Watts as well-
To the best of my knowledge about the only thing you can ask them is two questions:
Given the field’s track record in the past few centuries, would you believe the judgment of now what is 84% of scientists – and growing, or not. I suggest that lay people have little choice because on matters of how the physical world operates, science is our best source of information, and the field is in growing agreement on the subject.
On the other hand, most opposition is ideological, not scientific. Ideological opponents of science have a track record as well – and its pretty much 100% wrong.
Second, if the deniers are wrong the world will bs messed up seriously whereas if those who believe it is at least in part human caused and we can do something about it are wrong we pay more for nonpolluting energy.
To me it’s a no brainer.

I see two separate (and very important) issues here, Gus.
The first is the caution part. I join you in wanting my fellow citizens to consider the risks soberly and carefully, because (and here’s where my person brand of cynicism jumps in) humans are unlikely to act on maybes and what ifs, and will (too!) often only act after the fit hits the shan.
How many people live on flood plains? How many live in now defunct, sensitive habitats with a list of now extinct species? We have such a long list of local catastrophes clearly linked to human activity that it boggles the rational mind. Are these people unconsciously following a death wish?
For me, second, the clear issue is that science has not provided enough for either side to come to a firm conclusion. That means that however strong the opinions are on each side — and when it comes to science, with respect, 99% “of the scientists” can still be wrong, so please understand that I will ignore if not reject out of hand any such reference — they are still just opinions and not worthy of being the foundation for direct action.
Cautionary action, yes. Damn right. But let it start with the local idiocies I mention. CO2 is as much a symptom of a general disregard for our environment as it may be a direct cause of climate change. We also have acid rain, toxic waste and other effects caused by unfettered human activity that goes unchecked because “it would cost too much [/whiny voice}.” Deal with that, make that your priority, and the CO2 part will begin to come under control as well just as an indirect effect.
Watts offers the only balanced view of this that I have found. His readers and thread contributors cover the usual spectrum of trolls, sneers and jeers, but his main articles are the point there.

I was once a skeptic myself.
I am not qualified to evaluate evidence that comes from a wide variety of scientific fields studying the most complex system human beings have ever tried to study. I have heard and read practicing scientists from both sides of the debate – and the issues they discuss are not ones a lay person can offer much on beyond rooting for one side or another, if they are foolish enough to treat science as a sport.
For example, Richard Lindzen, whom I have met, is one of the major skeptics. And a respected one. His argument has to do with the albedo of clouds (how reflective they are). Global warming increases water in the atmosphere and so presumably will increase clouds. BUT some clouds it turns out trap more heat than they reflect. It gets very complex very fast – and that is simply one factor among many. Lindzen may be right, or he may be wrong. Neither you nor I are qualified to judge.
So my starting point on this debate is neither you nor I are qualified to evaluate the science. Any more than you or I are qualified to evaluate a whole lot of things requiring serious training to understand, if we have not had the training. Individuals often have a hard time acknowledging that their ignorance is deep and permanent – but its true nonetheless.
What we can do is ask where the scientific community as a whole is headed on this issue. We can ask just how much disagreement there really is in the community of scientists who actually study the problem. And we can ask how serious it might be if its real.
As the years have progressed the community has shifted more strongly in the direction of anthropogenic global warming being real. It appears to be about 84% of scientists as a whole according to a PEW poll, though I do not know the percentage among specialists in that field, which is more interesting. I gather it’s clearly a majority, though. And the worst case scenarios if global warming is real are getting pretty bad in their impact.
Having once been a libertarian and then a classical liberal (no more) I was long surrounded by people who were skeptical of global warming. It was nearly ALWAYS from ideological reasons – “The Market” could not handle the problem if it existed, THEREFORE it did not exist. At a certain level intellectual integrity evaporated – which is why they so often give any reason, no matter how foolish, as evidence they are right. They are NOT interested in finding the truth because they know it in advance, just like “Creation Scientists.”
That is why I predict that almost on one will take Nate Silver up on his bet. To do so would be to admit that standards exist for holding an opinion they hold regardless of standards.
From my perspective anyone who does not take the cautionary strategy as good sense, has no good sense.

I think it’s such a shame that all environmentalism and common sense respect-for-the-earth gets reduced these days to the “global warming” debate. Personally, I trust the world-wide scientific community when it agrees overwhelmingly that global warming is both real and man-made (I don’t buy the arguments of some vast government conspiracy, and I’m unimpressed by the “science” funded by the petrochemical and automotive industries, for instance, to find the results that would look best for business).
But the more important issue isn’t whether or not temperatures are rising, but whether or not we can live a respectful and reasonable lifestyle in relationship with the Earth. Even if, a generation or two from now, the temperatures don’t rise drastically, the current trends in lifestyle are leading us farther and farther away from sustainable, integrated living–things are becoming increasingly fragmented, alienating, virtual and plastic. The air is more polluted, and so is the water; noise and light pollution drown out the birds and the stars. Do I want to live in that kind of world, or leave that world for my children, even if the temperature remains the same? Of course not! It’s common sense, really, that even every kindergarten knows: don’t sh*t in the bed. The Earth is our resting place, our home, where we sleep, eat, live and breathe. Don’t pollute, don’t over-consume and then think you can hide the waste “somewhere else,” and don’t spend your whole life trying to justify a lifestyle that doesn’t really make you happy, anyway.
It matters to me that global warming has the potential in the future to alter the planet’s ecosystems so dramatically that we might not be able to survive in the place of our very origins (though I think, I hope, that the Earth itself would survive us)… But what matters more to me is that so many people right now, today don’t seem bothered by this thought, don’t hesitate when they imagine a world where the very air we breathe and water we drink must be processed and filtered before we can trust it not to do us harm. Global warming or not, there is absolutely no excuse for not living a more “green” lifestyle and making those changes today.