1 - Yes, I do believe in AGW

2 - They're is too much evidence supporting it to be ignored.Is not a case of believing/disbelieving it's a case of looking at correlations between certain human activities and world temperatures.

3 - To be honest, I hadn't heard about them until now. But if they're trying to do something about AGW I support them fully, and anyone else who supports the cause (unless they have other motives, like taking over Europe).

4 - People who oppose the theory annoy me. Not because I don't understand why they disagree but because being 'green' and helping the environment is good anyway - and most things related to AGW also harm our health, our childrens health and the environment around us.

5 - Dude, I'm living proof - every year my tan gets darker and darker. Also, try turning on BBC News without seeing some article about being green.

Also - Kytiara - plants do give off C02, they only photosynthesise when there is light. During the nightly time they respire just like animals. And C02 is a pollutant, just like water vapour - pollutant doesn't mean naturally produced, it means it 'pollutes' meaning it effects the environment in some way - usually negative.

Yulegoat: We can't handle 8000ppm?!? Do you have sources? 380ppm is .38%, 8000ppm is .8%, CO2 concentration has noticeable effects above 1% (10000ppm) lethal dose (rapid asphyxiation) is somwhere between 7% & 8% (70000 to 80000ppm). Here's the chart...

Health effects of respiratory exposure to carbon dioxide
(Baxter, 2000; Faivre-Pierret and Le Guern, 1983 and refs therein; NIOSH, 1981).

Chart from http://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/ivhhn/guidelines/gas/co2.html 

Sources are always good.

WHAT EVIDENCE?? If you're going to say there's "too much evidence to be ignored" please elaborate. Please refer to my earlier post about the percentage of greenhouse gasses we humans ACTUALLY contribute.

One more thing, I'm sick and freaking tired of people saying that if you don't believe in human caused global warming you're not 'green' and somehow don't care for the planet. That's absolute crap! I believe 100% in recycling, taking care of our planet, not being wasteful, turning off lights, the whole deal. I just don't buy into the human caused global warming theory. I believe it is fueled more by politics and money than by actual science and I've done A LOT of reading on the issue.

The planet has been MUCH COOLER and MUCH WARMER than it is now and has had much more CO2...

Compared to the age of the dinosaurs, our atmosphere is actually CO2 impoverished right now. CO2 was 20 times higher and temperature was significantly warmer without cars, power plants, airplanes, or even HUMANS! Long-term geological history does not support human-caused warming. The current data does not support human-caused global warming. The panic has to stop.

Why do you think all the big oil companies are now saying human activity is causing global warming, and we need to take action to change it?

I don't see how "politics and money" can have led to such a consensus about global warming, when the key political and economic powers a going to lose out by having to tackle global warming.

I'm not talking about money from oil companies or big business godf. Right now, certain politicians are turning global warming into a crisis in order to scare people into voting for them (if you vote for republicans, they will let their big money, big oil friends destroy the planet). It's common scare tactics. The vast majority of money to fund scientists comes from congress... you do the math. Also, please actually read the stats I have posted that cast great doubt on 'human-caused global warming'.

I've seen your data. I knew the climate had varied massively over time. But that doesn't alter the fact that higher CO2 are increasing global temeratures. And the stats you posted aren't dealing with that.

Surely the money oil companies have previously been pouring into trying to cast doubt onto global warming should have allowed them to continue denying it, were it not really happening. But they're now been forced to accept reality, even though it's going to hurt their businesses.

And why do you think a republican congress was funding anti-republican propaganda?

HUMANS PUT OUT 0.28% OF THE TOTAL GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS ON THE PLANET!!!!! To focus on that minescule output and say it is CAUSING global warming is pure fantasy. The temperature has actually been lower than it is now with higher CO2 levels (AKA, The last ice age). What about volcanic activity?? What about solar activity?? CO2 has such a small effect on the total greenhouse effect, that the current obsession with it is almost laughable. Water vapor accounts for around 95% of the total greenhouse effect, while volcanos, plant decay, etc account for almost all of the rest. So many people want to blame humans, blame technology, and blame progress for everything. Maybe they feel better blaming it on things they feel they can control. Maybe they don't want to recognize that we actually have very little, if any real control over the climate of our planet.

The fact is, we could continue to output the same CO2 levels we are now for the next hundred years and theoretically slip into another ice age, or go into another warm period, or stay where we are... even the best scientists don't really know. These major 'climate changes' have all happened with higher CO2 levels than we have today, without cars, without humans (and we're not even talking about major climate change these days, just a couple fractions of a degree).

Historically, warm periods with higher CO2 levels lead to a better, greener planet (plants like balmy temperatures and CO2), while cooler periods are called ice ages and are commonly associated with mass extintions, famine, etc. Winters have always been the hardest time for living creatures, not spring and summer. We should all be thankful that we were born in a warm, green, prosperous world and not a cold, grey, dying one. Undoubtedly another ice age will come (history shows us they always do) and those people will be starving and talking about the good old days when the plants grew, they had food, and societies flurished.

As for me, I wash my hands of panic, mass hysteria, and speculation. I'm grateful that I live in a warm period (called an interclacial period by the way, it's no warmer than any other one) and not in an ice age. I'm going to live my life, take care of the planet to the best of my ability, and do my best to leave the cleanest, best world I can to my children.

 -I'm out for the night.

First, where did you get your numbers from? EDIT: Just looked up the 2nd page of this thread and realised you were using Monte Hieb's personal webpage as reference. Since there was no mention of source for the claim in his page, I ask you to find one yourself. In addition, I wouldn't call water vapour "emissions" (neither does Hieb). Water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, but it works quite differently from CO2 because of its short residece time in the atmosphere. It's rather feedback than forcing, contributing 36-90% of the greenhouse effect, depending on area and the changes in moisture.

When talking about emissions (people see that as a increase in forcing), it's rather misinforming to include the greenhouse gases from the natural cycle (decomposing leaves etc.) to the nature's effect. The problem is that we're adding CO2 outside of the natural cycle. That is the only way the CO2 in the atmosphere keeps cumulating. Biological processes are unable to raise the CO2 level purely by themselves. Volcanoes do emit CO2 outside of natural cycle too, but we have surpassed them long ago in emissions. The CO2 of man vs. volcanoes is something like 100:1. Methane and other gases are important too, but I'm trying to keep this short.

The CO2 levels have risen 30% in the past 100 years, and according to isotope analysis of the substance, humans are to blame for that addition.

It's a physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The infrared radiation absorption qualities of CO2 have been measured in laboratory conditions several times. This is what the focus on this debate should be about. According to satellite measurements of the spectrum of the outgoing radiation, greenhouse effect has gotten stronger (which is predicted on the basis of the CO2 knowledge): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

"We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

...and so the facts are: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (climate sensitivity about 2.5 C), 2) CO2 levels have risen 30% in the past 100 years due to human activity, 3) greenhouse phenomenon has amplified

Agree?

To my knowledge there were huge deserts in the times when CO2 levels and temperature were high. IIRC, up to 90% of the land area was deserted in the pre-dinosaur times.

380 ppm is 0,038%, 8000 ppm is 0,8% (european style). The occupational guidelines in your source are 0,5% for 8 hours. 0,8% is harmful 24/7. In addition, CO2 keeps cumulating indoors because we exhale it, so if the CO2 levels were 0,8% oudoors, they would probably be well over 1% indoors in non-air conditioned properties. Those are very close to the values that require immediate evacuation:

Existing Guidelines

Gas masks may be of limited use in high CO₂ concentrations due to the lack of oxygen. Hence it has been recommended that working or living areas should be immediately evacuated when concentrations exceed 1.5% by volume (the occupational short-term exposure limit value). Ambient guidelines for CO₂ do not exist. Occupational guidelines for CO₂ concentrations are given in the table.

Occupational guidelines for CO₂
(Concentration of 1% = 10000 ppm)

http://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/ivhhn/guidelines/gas/co2.html

@ timmah!:

You missed out:

"Surely the money oil companies have previously been pouring into trying to cast doubt onto global warming should have allowed them to continue denying it, were it not really happening. But they're now been forced to accept reality, even though it's going to hurt their businesses.

And why do you think a republican congress was funding anti-republican propaganda?"