So it looks like that the people whos quotes are used in this topic don't take into account the thing as a whole. For example, even the guy at NASA doesn't understand how greenhouses work. When it's daytime, the upper part of the greenhouse is warmer than the ground level, but when it's nightime, the ground level is much warmer, because the heat radiates thru the roof and no outside source provides more energy. Sun heats concrete material more than gases or seawater, which means that the most heat is at the ground level, not at the upper atmosphere.
When you are using greenhouse (in farming), the temperature outside may be around -15 to -10C, and temperature indoors is between 5 to 10C. Now, the annual average temperature is around 30C (i believe), and the temperature in space is around 3K, so we have 300K/C temperature difference space and earth ground level, when we have less than 30C (or Kelvin for that matter) difference greenhouse and outside temperature.
So, the different layers in atmosprere work as isolation between ground level and space. Theoretically it doesn't matter, if the upper levels would have as high temperature as 1000C, if the ground level would remain as is.
So, around 50% of the earth is constantly on the "cooling" side, when the other is on the warming side, and this is something that the "greenhouse models" don't seem to take into account.
The problem itself isn't upper atmosphere warming or the ground level warming, but warming of both. One of the reasons why warming seemingly have stopped, is the holes on the ozone layer, which cools the atmosphere.
The warming have also caused the forests at the northern side of the globe to grow and to grow bigger trees where they couldn't grow before and cause particle emissions, which block the sunlight to a certain extent.
So, we know that the earth is warming, but what we don't know, is how much mankind is causing it. We also don't know is mankinds emissions enough to push the climate change beyond the point of no return, which would eventually cause earth change like what Venus is.
But what we know, is that mankind is causing emissions and that the warming have spiked after the industrialising, which work as a proof that mankind have something to do with the warming.
As what it comes to evolution, it's unbelievable that some people still deny it. If we have fossil evidence of some earlier species, the evolution opposing people will cry that there's no evidence this species have evolved to this other, when "new" species is usually just named after something instead of calling it "the earlier frog". Microevolution is often admitted by the opposing people, because it can be created in laboratory in few years, but macroevolution denied because it cannot be created so fast, it just means million of years of microevolution. And i'm not sure, have they managed to create macroevolution in lab with bacteria, which have short life cycle. So, the actual opposition is just nothing but empty words and therefore there is no debate about it.
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
