I learned in the last anthropogenic global warming debate I participated in was that there is a lot more dissent among respectable scientists in relevant fields than I had thought.

But on the other hand, just because there is still much questioning of it doesn't make it not true, it just means the question isn't settled. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to everyone in this thread, because I don't recall anyone turning HappySquirrel's quotes into a direct appeal to authority -- but there is more proof than disproof out there. Just not enough for me to answer "fact" with the kind of confidence that the K-T impact theory commands. (But I still say it's true.)

It snowed in malibu, CA. today.
It's freaking 43 in L.A. tonight. That is COLD! I had to wear a turtlenect and a sweatshirt on top of that!!!!!!!!

Nope, it would still be an appeal to authority.  You can say that you trust an expert to be right, but when you say that he IS right BECAUSE he's an expert, you've committed the fallacy.

^ Adding to my train of thought: In this case there are a lot of highly respected experts on both sides, many of them having staked their reputations or careers on the outcome of the debate, all staring daggers into each other and many of them shouting at each other and/or proselytizing the undecided.

In other words, I expect it would be fairly easy for me to put together a list as impressive as HappySquirrel's or more so, and all it proves is that there's a debate ... then again, that's an important thing to prove.

On another topic: 'A few decades ago they were afraid of global cooling. This global warming scare is more of the same.'

I looked around a bit and saw nothing even remotely on the scale of the current worries. A Newsweek article, a bit of alarmism from Carl Sagan, and not much else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Can anyone tell me why this comparison (GC/GW) isn't totally bogus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_warming

And I know that Wikipedia isn't exactly the last word on matters of controversial science, but this statement, if true and not misleading, gives AGW doubters a fairly steep hill to climb:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

What say you, skeptics?

Wow, Final-Fan, those last few posts you've made are some of the best I've seen as far as supporting global warming goes. I hold much the same opinion, though I seem to be on the opposite side of the argument from you.

My basic issue, is not really whether I believe in global warming or not, but in how the idea of it is being used. 20 - 40 years ago people were worried about global cooling, but back then, no one was having their companies fined or protested over it.
Now you have companies being forced to change the chemicals in their products and manufacturing processes in order to be "more green" when it isn't even really certain that there is global warming, and there's certainly no clue AT ALL of whether man is at the root of the effect, or if it's simply a natural cycle of the earth. (No, I don't believe that little wikipedia exerpt at all)
But even with the lack of proof, people are still being forced to change their lives in order to "prevent" this "disaster" How do we know if it's not working when the "disaster" isn't going to happen for many decades down the road? If nothing happens, they can just say "see? all those fines and regulations we've imposed worked! you'd better keep listening to us, or in 10 more years the entire earth will be flooded!"

No, it is not an appeal to authority by definition. Each of the quotes was followed by a reason why that person should be considered an authority.

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.   

UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.  

Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.  

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

No, the AGW idea is that our efforts won't be enough to stop it immediately. GW will continue for a few decades on the momentum of past (and current) pollution. If nothing happens, they are proven wrong.

And sea level will not rise by all that much. The problem is that, for instance, Bangladesh has a population of about 150 million, and about half of the country is a meter or less above sea level. So rising sea levels will quickly become a problem for them.

I can understand that "better safe than sorry" is a bitter pill to swallow when we're talking about massive amounts of time, effort, and money being directed at a problem you doubt exists. Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with the status quo in the US, i.e. pro- and anti- factions end up causing minor efforts (and yes, it's been minor so far) while a huge debate ensues. Efforts will get stronger or weaker with the ebb and flow of battle, until a winner emerges.

The bigger problem is the new kids on the industrial-nation block. Honestly a lot of the AGW stuff coincides with regular environmentalism and we are getting seriously fucked in that department.

I don't even mind basic level environmental awareness and responsibility, if only for a pure quality of life issue. I like being able to drink water without a filter and breath air without feeling like I'm sucking a cigarette through my nose, but there are so many things that have been taken off the market for environmental reasons, and replaced with products that barely do the job half as well as what they're replacing.
Heck, my mom has become allergic to about 90% of detergents and shampoos, usually stuff that is "new and improved" or "greener"