Holy crap, look at that wall of denial below me.

Just in case you don't return to the thread, here's my responce: @skierpage: @Candyman: You don't provide a single link for your allegations. ME: Neither did those I was replying to. And I didn't scold them for it, because this is just a forum thread, not a scientific paper. But you want footnotes, fine, I'll give you a few. @skierpage: The rapid and accelerating increase in greenhouse gas (primarily CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere is a fact and correlates well with the billions of tons of CO2 emissions from human activities (mostly burning fuel). ME: It's a fact that CO2 levels have and continue to rise. CO2, however is NOT the primary greenhouse gas; that would be H2O. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect @skierpage: The expected result of that is a rise in temperature due to the greenhouse effect, which is just simple physics. This was all well-understood in the 1980s and earlier. The question then and now is how significant the effects would be and if other factors would counterbalance. ME: Yes, exactly. That's the QUESTION. And it's still an open one. @th4tkid: The only way to predict is to run a climate model. The IPCC is the consensus of the climate scientists who run those models, that's its job. Saying there is no consensus is simply a lie, read the definition of consensus. ME: Read the definition yourself, you patronising twit. There is anything but "unanimity" or "general agreement" on this issue or WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DEBATE! The IPCC's job was to produce a report concluding what the UN had already decided it should conclude. It was NOT a scientific paper in any sense. It was a political statement, and many of the scientists named in the report DISAGREE. Saying there's a consensus, despite widespread disagreement, is the lie. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387680-details/Greenhouse%20effect%20is%20a%20myth,%20say%20scientists/article.do @skierpage: Now as you admit we have over a decade of factual evidence for recent rapid rise in global average temperature. EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION FOR THIS is unsupported by evidence. Name one that isn't shot down at realclimate.org or the (excellent) Natural Scientist set of articles. You yourself say "evidence is key". ME: Honesty is also key, and to say that every other hypothesis is unsupported by evidence is another lie. Here's an example; do CO2 levels drive temperatures, or merely amplify natural fluctuations? Here are a couple of articles discussing something different from your so-called “consensus.” http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/09/correlation-falsification-the-missing-global-warming-CO2-link Notice that they DO HAVE EVIDENCE. And here’s your suggested site’s “debunking” of them: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ I put debunking in quotes not to mock, it’s a good article, and a good refutation. But notice that it never DENIES the evidence, it just poses different interpretations and explanations for what that EVIDENCE MEANS. You obviously believe the author’s interpretation on this, and that’s fine. But, sorry, though, it’s not the case that the best written or most convincing article wins. That’s not science. And to just say there’s no disagreement, or that the other side has no evidence is just a flat out lie. @skierpage: Fine, you choose to ignore the consensus and hope that it's "planet's ongoing evolution". ME: No, I never said that. I ASKED why we should draw a conclusion, and call it case closed, when the debate, and the research is still going on? Seems you need to re-read my post, along with the definition of “consensus.” Re-read my post. READ IT, don’t just REACT TO IT. Show me where, exactly, I said that? I said there isn’t firm enough evidence to conclude that, and that there is evidence to refute it. I’m not “ignoring” the evidence in favor of man-made climate change, you are ignoring the evidence against it. I’m not “hoping” the current climate change is just a natural fluctuation, I am acknowledging the pure FACT that global temperatures have always fluctuated. @skierpage: So answer this: If you don't think the current global warming arises from human activities, what do you think will be the effect of CO2 levels hitting 500 ppm, or 600 ppm, or 700 ppm? That's where it's heading. ME: Again, read, don’t just react. Think, don’t just feel. I never said carbon, and pollution in general, isn’t a problem. Just that we shouldn’t leap ahead of the science just because it’s become “common knowledge.” Sure, it's a well supported hypothesis, but well supported hypothesis have been proved wrong before; remember nuclear winter? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v42/ai_8878263 Personally, what I really think is that technology will out. Instead of restricting and cutting back we should find better ways to do what we’re doing. Fewer cars? Bah! Look at all the real positive changes made to humanity by modern transportation; food distribution alone has reduced incidences of famine and saved MILLIONS of lives worldwide over the past century. Why in God’s name would we want to have fewer cars on the planet? All we need are cleaner cars, and we’ll get them; technology will out in the end. I think people have too much of a crisis mentality. 30 years ago it was a global ice age, now it’s a global sauna. The oil’s been running out since the 1800’s, Nuclear energy will give us all cancer, and genetically modified foods will poison us. Blah, blah, blah. It’s all bull. Not the science, but the political and social movements that get ahead of the real science and want to “do something.”