Oh, another two points I was going to briefly bring up:

One, I am ABSOLUTELY in favour of renewable energy sources, however not because I believe co2 is causing global warming, but because we are on the verge (if we haven't already) reached peak oil, and that, my friends, is going to be a much more devastating event than a few celcius increase in tempurature, both for modern society and global economics. Also, I think burning fossil fuels is smelly and creates much worse pollution than some co2.

Second...I can't remember second anymore.

 This is exactly that organization (I can't remember the name) that turned out to be sponsored by Exxon or something wants you to think (their punch line: CO2: We call it Life).   Their money worked.

Like pretty much everything else, toxicity depends on the concentration.  At low concentrations, CO2 causes no humanly harm.  Look up the "carbon dioxide" article on wikipedia for more info.  

The Kyoto treaty, for example, excludes developing countries.

That's not true. Every global temperature reconstruction I know of shows medieval warm period being warmer than little ice age but cooler than today. Some places, like Greenland and Europe were very warm though. If you have some graphs with opposite results, mention your source.

What you are not understanding is that I'm not advocating drastically cutting back emissions.  That is what you are advocating.  IF humans are causing global warming, we're going to have to do a heck of a lot more than Kyoto to do something about it.  Since personally I don't see any conclusive evidence that anybody's life is at risk from this, I'm not advocating a fundamental economic change for the entire world.  That is your argument.  But don't argue that following Kyoto or something is going to make it better; we're going to have to do a lot more than that to have any significant effect, and that's only after what supposed damage has been done occurs.

As for your last argument, I think everyone (except maybe the oil/coal/gas companies) would like to switch to renewable energy.  The problem is that we can't simply wave a magic wand and do that.  There is a lot of research being done and I think that's wonderful.  If fusion or wind power could solve our energy needs tomorrow, I think just about everyone would say great.  But until then, unless our entire society reevaluates the way it does just about everything in relation to energy (and yes, it will cause considerable pain for just about everyone, since just about everyone uses energy), we are going to use non-renewable sources.  Those are just the facts.

Just wanted to say this because I thought that this fact I read today was pretty amazing:  if we could harness 1% (yes, ONE percent) of the energy of the Jet Stream, it would provide enough energy for everyone on Earth.  Natural forces are amazing things.  Now we just need some amazingly innovative people to figure out how to harness this kind of awesome power! 

Scientific concensus:

The Earth is currently experiencing a warming trend - pretty universal.

Human activity is contributing to global warming - widely accepted, with some debate as to the matter of degree.

We must do something RIGHT NOW or the ENTIRE EARTH IS DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY! - Oh, please.

The global warming hysterics are just as idiotic as those who deny it's even occuring. Warming is occuring, and it is likely to present some problems in the long term. However, many of the things that are contributing to global warming are also the things that are improving quality of life. The debate to be had is when to trade off one thing for another, and the obstinate loudmouths on either extreme is making that debate next to impossible.

True, but the difference is not great, and the margin of error for the older temps is much higher.

There is a difference between warming occuring and it being caused or even contributed to by humans.  I don't think people who think that it is or isn't are idiots, so long as they are expressing an informed opinon and not basing it on wild claims in a "documentary" or instinctive denial/backlash.

Do you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (from here on labelled as AGW)?
What are you reasons for believing/disbelieving?
How do you feel about the IPCC?
How do you feel about proponents/opponents to the theory?
What proof can you show one way or the other (Links would be good here)

1. Only slightly (as in 1% of total warming)
2. Just my opinion based on everything I've seen and the history of the Earths climate cycles.
3. 2500 scientists just contributed to it. That just means that 2500 scientists agreed with atleast ONE PART of the whole report. Not the whole thing.
4. Alarmists / Realists
5. Just stuff I've read about the medieval warm period. Search google for it.

I mean, people forget that 10,000 years ago, most of the land in the world was under a thick layer of ice, so of course global warming has happened since then. And thats a good thing.

There was something like 100x more CO2 in the atmosphere when Dinosaurs roamed the earth. What evidence do we have that there were tons of killer hurricanes? Life in general is powered by the heat of the sun. Where do you think more life would survive: The tropics at 120 degrees F, or Antarctica at -40 F ??

Maybe its just because I live in Texas, and we have summer highs of around 105 F, and nobody ever dies. All of the politicians know they will be long dead before the "horrible" consequences of global warming come - if they come at all. The politicians are just using this to get votes. Basically "vote or die in a horrible hurricane or possibly a heat-wave or maybe just a flood."

i guess you dont understand global warming. it warms the earth as a whole. this brings about the law of unintended consequences. it can actually affect places in a completely unobvious way.

take my home in the bay area. last march we had 27 days of rain in march. 27! that irregularity is caused by something, most likely global warming. this year we havent gotten as much rain as we got in march of last year.

another one is england. if the world heats up the icecaps melt. this will have a surge of cold water from the poles. the surge would hit the warm current that moves from the equator to england. this disruption would COOL england.

global warming isnt about temperature, its about how the world functions.