Just for the record we've had this debate on this site before and I believe the last time we had the debate it ended shortly after (but not necessarily due to) me pointing out that according to the alarmist's own data, even if we were to attribute all of the C02 increases over the last 250 years to mankind the worst case estimate you could create for C02 as a climate driver is that it (quoting from memory) was responsible for ~19% of the warming in the same time period. Keep in mind that assumes that ALL of the additional C02 from the last 250 years was man-made and gives literally zero credit to some of the largest contributers of C02 during that period...like the ocean and volcanoes etc... The actual numbers for mankind's yearly *net* contribution is less than 50% BTW.

The climate is changing, there is no doubt. But C02, much less C02 contributed by mankind, is not a major driver of that change.

I'll leave this discussion at that, I've done more research than probably the rest of the posters in this thread combined (exeggerating most likely, and I beg you not to take my word for it and think for yourself) on this topic and I feel extremely confident in my position. And for the record I am a fierce supporter of scientific research that has been thoroughly vetted such as evolution and the moon landings to borrow some examples from above. Anthropogenic global warming is simply no where near as vetted as those other examples and to suggest otherwise is an outright insult to the scientific process you claim to support. The fundamental concepts being left out in the cold are that a consensus is not equivalent to proof, and that correlation does not imply causation.

PS - You can't trust Mr Beck's movie any more than you can Mr Gore. Both are politicians and based on that alone should be greeted with extreme skepticism the moment they step out of the realm of politics, especially when they step into the realm of science. Both movies have lengthy documentation on their factual errors to support that conclusion.

I don't understand the argument that global warming is political. In NA a lot of politicians actively argue against global warming. Including the standing governments of both America and Canada.

Until very recently it was only the fringe parties that spoke of it and the mainstream parties tried to surpress it. Now that scientist have consistantly spoken out about it across the globe politicians are finally having to make it political.

As for scientist being political.. huh?? How do you get people from all over the world, with totally different political needs, economic needs, etc, to unite to create a false belief? They may be wrong, it's happened before, but to say they are just making it up is akin to saying the dinosaurs are just a lie made up by scientist to disprove the bible.

Global Warming is the most misunderstood thing on the planet. A few years ago i read an article in time magazine about global warming and was convinced that it was happening. Then i started to do my own research because of a book by Micheal Crichton called the State of Fear. He is a fiction author but he backs up his stuff with science. Since then i did some research and this is what i found.

1. The 1800 were a mini ice age where temperatures where colder then the prime temperature.
2. We are still below the optimal temperature for the earth, so global warming is a good thing.
3. The idea that there are more disastrous storms is false...they are happening at about the same lvl.
4. Most temperatures are taken near city and scientist do not know how to adjust for the heat island affect
5. Why would people lie about global warming? Because it scares people and that allows them to be manipulated and controlled. Look at the power base that Al Gore created by jumping on the global warming bandwagon! He won a frickin nobel peace prize and his entire movie is a lie!!! After the cold war crises language spiked in papers and on the news so that people will watch. Its like the idea that violent crime is higher now...actually it is not its just more in your face because of the news.
If you think that Al Gore is not an idiot, read this article
http://www.oism.org/news/index.htm
6. There are educated scientist that don't believe in global warming
7. Global warming has been used by developed countries to keep undeveloped countries down: we don't care that you are starving just don't pollute!!!
8. Humanity is hurting the environment, hell the way we are going we are going to be one large city. Why don't we worry about the fact that our world has limited resources and that we are quickly becoming overpopulated? Think about how many of the millions of starving people could be fed by spending the money wasted on global warming initiatives? Its big business!

Here is a link that explains in detail what i was talking about
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

 1) I have never seen a single scientist say that if man was not on this planet, that the plant would not still be warming at this time. What is up for debate is if humans are contributing to that number. Well, we all know they are. The question is to what degree. If it's .0001%, who cares. if it's 30%, we care. No one can tell you how much we contribute, because no one knows. 

2) Yes. If the US were to follow the rules set by Kyoto Accord, it would cost us trillions. And we still have no clue how much we contribute, or how much it would reduce the trend (again, we will still get warmer, just possibly at a slower rate).

3) Oceans are going to rise, crops are going to grow differently, the sun will effect us in different ways. We should put or efforts into what we should do about these things (along with a hundred other factors of living in a world several degrees warmer).

4) The way the political game is played, is first you create a crisis and then you claim you can solve it. For Bill Clinton is was the medical industry, for Bush it was education, and now for Obama, it's "change" (whatever that means). Global warming is a great cause (because it scares people) to be able to say you can help solve. First however, you have to convince voters that it's solvable (which it isn't).

There is much more money to be made for people against global warming. Global warming is about recycling, using less energy, wasting less stuff. Who stands to lose the most if we start driving less or use less electricity. Not the people championing global warming. But then, people love to consume as much as they can and don't want to be told they shouldn't.

Can I please please please link everybody here to something that I believe should be considered the most valuable source in this debate.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/media/4th_spm2feb07.pdf

Its a summary of a report from the IPCC and states with no political bias that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the last 50 years. In other words they think that there is a more than 66% chance that the human contribution to the warming climate has been significant. And they believe that there is at least a 90% chance that humans have contributed in some way to the warming.

Seriously, just read it. Its only 21 pages long and its very interesting what they think as these guys are basically a huge heap of experts in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC

 Those damn evil scientists, all they want is our money. I put my faith in George Bush.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/47/18866

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf

http://www.unep.org/Themes/climatechange/PDF/factsheets_English.pdf

If you google the topic you are going to get a bunch of websites that claim what you are saying... they are lying or wrong.  This is the UN, the IPCC, the US government, and PNAS (the official science Journal of the UN).

The following is President Bush's press release announcing the switch in the traditional Republican to the international and scientific consesus on climate change.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

The Senate'sresponse to his budget request mentioning climate change

http://energy.senate.gov/public_new/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=d1e428e9-75ea-413b-9e08-d3b65c7ff57f 

Here are some other countries' research links or positions.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/index.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/studies.htm

http://en.g8russia.ru/g8/history/gleneagles2005/7/      (Russia's stance at the G8)

http://www.climate-change.ir/en/    or more specifically http://www.climate-change.ir/en/concept/#gg  (Iran)

http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/13986.html    (Brazil)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ec.gc.ca%2Fclimate%2Fhome-e.html&ei=CQvNR5ORNJaYeoLJvQ4&usg=AFQjCNHQb8w627xTQq5edpgE1mrPL0yJaA&sig2=iG2wP-4hHnB_jHH748rNEQ  (Canada)

http://cambio_climatico.ine.gob.mx/ccygob/ccygobingles.html (Mexico) 

There are 174 signatories of the Kyoto Protocol.  Many of them are developing nations and third world countries; this is important because it is internationally understood that anti-Greenhouse Gas emission regulation is bad for growth.  They sign it any way, because it is needed.

Congratulations Mr Expert. So what is the science behind your dis-belief?

I find it really, really sad that instead of everyone focusing their efforts to reduce greenhouse effects, we have to divert much of our attention just to keep trying to convince people.

I guess this is the nature of humanity, be it for good or bad. 

Either way, we know that pollution is bad, look at the health of people living close to coal powerplants... there is no negativity or fear or reason NOT to clean up our act.