There is no lack of evidence that shows our environmental trouble to be self-inflicted, but if I agree I might feel compelled to actually do something and I wouldn’t even know how to begin – it would take effort! – so I am going to work really really hard to cobble together some explanations, some sympathetic sources to cite, and some logical fallacies that sound good. And if I’m faced with someone who is educated enough to dismiss all of this and recognize what I’m trying to do it might at least keep them confused long enough for me to get away before they can point it out.

The sad thing? All of that effort could have been directed toward learning about the problem and starting to fix it, or even doing unbiased research. Biased research always delivers exactly the result it’s expected to.

To Charlie H., for example: You think the scientists measuring temperature didn’t think that putting a light in a box might affect the reading, or that tarmac might be hotter than grass? I don’t think our educational system has fallen that far yet.

Thank you to Lulu Blue for pointing out a common failing of sceptics: they claim big names as being “against” global warming, yet rarely cite credible (or, in the case of Jim Berry, ANY) research that counters the consensus.

And thanks to all who have the courage to face up to the truth, no matter how frightening or painful.

Haha. I can’t believe how superficial this article is. Imagine if soomeone had written an article that said “I used to believe in global warming. But I realized that the scientific community is an elitist group of liberal anti-industrial intellectuals that ostracizes and brands those who contradict it as being mentally inferior so as to ironically impose a sort of group think on itself. That’s why they all agree on this. That made me realize there is no global warming. That and I did some real research.”

That would be pretty retarded. I agree with someone who posted before me that the solar activity theory is the most compelling explanation out there.

You really can’t find credible peer reviewed scienctific papers that disagree with your views? You haven’t looked very far. Lot’s of stuff from MIT and the Max Planck Institute, by the right wing Chinese government; even by NASA and some of the science referenced in the IPCC. The science is anything but resolved.

Then how about you produce some links to these documents for review?

I applaud your due diligence and open-mindedness. It is refreshing from an admitted member of the skeptical crowd. How any skeptic can doubt that pouring billions of tons of a greenhouse gas that remains for a hundred years or more in increasing amounts year-to-year into a paper-thin atmosphere has impact on the functioning of that atmosphere’s properties is difficult to fathom.

What has always seemed most perplexing is that even if you’re unconvinced as to the proof, given the potential magnitude of the situation it would surely be preferable to err on the side of caution. There are lots of little changes you can make – using energy efficient light bulbs, insulting your house etc – that make no difference to your lifestyle and actually save you money as you use less electricity.

There’s a charity I’m involved with called Together.com that is based around these principles. Some of the things you can do are so straightforward, and they’re also running a competition at the moment in which you can win a load of eco-friendly prizes. Seeing as its a “confess your eco sins” theme, even some sceptics might be interested…