Climate Change, Global Warming, discussion.

Okay, let's give the 80% plus scientists our support and agree that man burning fossil fuels is a cause of climate change.  Although it has not been determined exactly how big of an effect this, compared to natural causes, has on global warming.

Some scientists like Stephen Hawking, seem to think we only have about a thousand more years on earth, and the solution, look to the stars and relocate.  He says: “I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I’m an optimist. We will reach out to the stars.”

Others like Ivar Giaever state:  "In the APS (American Physical Society) it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

As a result of following the first line of reasoning, many governments (and most UN members) feel that citizens should pay for this travesty through donations to committees to further study the phenomenon, or to just pay a tax for being such bad earth citizens, as is being done in Canada.  To me, these politicians have only seen the taxation benefits of the science, and appear to have no discernible plan to try to heal the earth.  I guess higher taxes will miraculously fix the problem.

On one hand, if some tax funds are thrown at the problem, before it is stolen or siphoned to other redundant programs, there may be some progress in finding alternate energy producers.  This may be a better solution then Stephen Hawking's plan to relocate humans to a new planet.  Of course, his main financial benefactor is trying to find us one.

And, of course, on the complete other end of the climate change debate are some really funny guys.  Here is a quote from one of them.  Guess who?  "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."  Okay, you guessed it, Donald Trump in a 2012 tweet.  But don't laugh, if all the scientists in the world that agree that man is causing climate change are either Chinese, or paid for by the Chinese, he could just be right.

Until science does further studies and is able to determine just how much man is contributing to climate change, how long we have (unless Stephen Hawking's prediction of 1,000 years is correct), and if we can do anything to stop or reverse it, I'll wait for the verdict.

As Igor states:  "I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part."

Thoughts?