because he corrects a foreigner on grammar you nazi.

As to this point then OK, Grow gills.

im basically retyping the points made in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp  
as it seems sceptics have completely missed this simple and elegant point. 

look, if you do nothing about global warming then there are 2 options:

1a. global warming was not caused by manmade gases and we did nothing, so all is good, we spent no money on useless clean tech and we keep polluting happily until other problems arise due to this continued shortsightedness.

2a. global warming was indeed facilitated by manmade gases and we did nothing to avoid the results. In this case the future will be some ways between the high-end and low-end predictions for the next 50-100 years. At the critical end of the scale there will be half a billion people forced to seek new place to live due to rising water levels/changed rainfall patterns/ increased tornados and tsunamis. This in turn will create much more economic/social/political pressure due to aid/food/water/living space > more wars. This option possibly includes the economic depression of the 1st option, but has so much more bad results.

Now, if we DO SOMETHING to stop global warming then again, there are 2 options:

1b.  again, if global warming was not caused by manmade gases and hence the money we spent trying to stop it was not effective, another economic depressions is possible, but i would say unlikely, as the investments in clean technology and new energy would create much sustainable growth.

2b. if global warming was caused by man, and we did DO SOMETHING to stop it and it worked, then its money well spent. Sure it would be a huge cost to bear and huge changes in the world economy, but in the end, we avoided the global catastrophe in option 2a.

stopping climate change:

---------------------

action taken YES NO

AGW TRUE                      

AGW FALSE                      

ok consider this little table.

we can influence the future. we cant know for certain, wether global warming is manmade or not, but we can decide the column that our future will fall into. Its either the YES or NO column for taking action against global climate change. Now if we choose the NO option, then by that, we allow the future where there is a possibility of a global catastrophe. By choosing YES column, at worst we choose the option where we will spend a lot of money on going greener and cleaner but it wasnt that necessary to begin with. Now i would rather be safe than sorry and like i mentioned before in this wall of text, i think it might have a positive effect for the economy and the planet in the longrun to invest in clean tech.

I like this. Hopefully measures will be taken before the effects start to cause damage ... which will most likely be 100 years from now.

Unfortunately, by saying "100 years from now" people no longer find it important because they will no longer be alive at that point.

I'll make an educated guess and say that you also firmly do not belive in evolutionary theories simply because of your political and quite possibly religious stance. Honestly, you'd have to be blind (and stupid) to not see the huge impact humans have on earth.

We are Nature. We reflect nature in every way possible. Our existence is an intrinsic part of Nature, everything we do and everything in our environment is closely interlinked to levels that would astound you. We however have the upper hand in the species race and our impact can be profound, but in developing such large brains the weakness is the ability to control technologies and their impact on our environment. So to respond to your statement that "Nature is more powerful than us".

We are nature, we are powerful and we will continue to change this Earth until it is as perfect an environment for Human survival and prosperity as possible. This may be a balancing act, we may destroy ourselves in the process but at this time we can fundamentally change this planet by delivering a few thousand high yield thermo-nuclear warheads not only changing the weather for a considerable amount of time but this would certainly wipe out a huge number of larger mammals including ourselves.

Of course this serves no purpose in my example other than to demonstrate that at this time Humans have resources vastly more powerful than any single organism on this planet. As we develop our skills and knowledge further there are no bounds for 'Nature' as we are its primary ambassador.

You'd be surprised.  Yep, more outlandish claims from me.  We've been seeding clouds for a number of decades now and making it rain.  That, by definition, is weather control.   Here's a couple links on it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/06-harnessing-the-weather

http://www.chemtrails911.com/

Incidentally, there's a few articles in Discover magazine on global warming dating back to the 1980's.  If you go back and find them, the global warming trends actually exceed the forecasts.

Besides chemtrails and silver iodide seeding, look up HAARP.  Here's their own, official website:

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

And this is just the spoon-fed, publically-available information from their PR department.  It fits the definition of a weather altering device, pure and simple.  May not be complete control.  May not be able to set some global thermostat to whatever you want, or just tell a storm, "go from here to there".  But if it otherwise would have been raining somewhere and now because of something you did it isn't, that by definition is weather control.  There are about a dozen of these around the globe, each of varying effectiveness.

The reason the public doesn't hear more about this is because they're owned by the nations' militaries.  It's a new cold war of sorts, conducted by manipulating climate patterns over prolonged periods of time.  It's a perfect form of cold warfare, really, just because it's so deniable.  "What?  You mean you're trying to blame the U.S. for heating the ionosphere above China and causing the typhoons that hit last summer?   LOL!"  Sorry, but we CAN and DO manipulate the weather.  Tinkering with mother nature?  Yes.  Do we know what the hell we're doing?  No.  But that doesn'tstop some people.

Define "SOMETHING" please

>>Define "SOMETHING" please<<

I'm sorry did you miss out on the last 12 years since the Kyoto Protocol was ratified? 

im just gonna copypaste some tidbits from wikipedia to you here:

The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization and reconstruction of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

I bolded 'greenhouse gas' since it didnt say only co2 but greenhouse gases which includes methane and other more potent gases.

In a nutshell SOMETHING is a unilateral move towards cleaner energy production and cleaner industry. This will require huge investments and govermental policies/subsidies. These policies/subsidies will only be put into effect once the majority of the population supports/demands this. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) sceptics on the other hand are actively trying to prevent this on the basis of fearing their SUV/airconditioned villa lifestyle being taxed to bits or some vague paranoia about govermental control of their life which i havent quite grasped.

The man-made Global Warming™ fraud is all about money.  Whether it's Al Gore scheming to get richer off carbon credits, or scientists fudging data to get more grant money, this is the biggest fraud in recorded history.

Just look at the hypocrites attending this climate conference:

"Most delegates to the climate change conference haven't exactly been hoofing their way to Denmark's capital, swarming the city's airport with 140 private jets, 1,200 hired limousines and a carbon footprint the size of a small country."

All these treaties and other nonsense are all essentially welfare bills for other countries, just take a read through some of them.  It even talks about climate "reparations" to poor countries. 

The Earth warms and cools, the rest is man-made, a fraud that is.

Force sterilization could actually work as a global birth-control. Though it'd have to be monitered in order to prevent the human population to drop too much. Remember, sterilize a person and murder a hippy; it's protecting the environment!

By that reasoning; let's band up and destroy those monstrosities known as culture and resources lol now histroy proves thoses are killers