I don't know what that gas is, but I think it's safe to assume that the level of that gas has been balanced for a long time because the biomass of it's producers is pretty much constant. CO2's danger lies in its long atmospheric residence time of about 200 years, whereas methane 'only' has about 20 year life expectancy. To my knowledge, the more exotic greenhouse gases have even shorter residence times as they are more unstable.

"Other processes, like biological ones, only recycle the carbon in biosphere, they don't add it. So if you're saying volcanoes didin't add the CO2, then it's humans."

You can't take natural causes out of the cycle. Its no wonder you think we're all going to drown in ice cap water or something, you have no idea how to think logically.

If the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to an arbitrary number like 1000, but non-natural sources account for 10 of it, and humans account for 6 of that, you could say that humans are the biggest contributor of non-natural CO2 in the atmosphere. Thats peachy. It doesn't freaking matter though because 6 out of 1000 is insignificant to the whole, and thus insiginificant to the TOTAL greenhouse effect caused by CO2.

The fact that The existence of, and man made nature of climate change is even still being debated scares the hell out of me.

I haven't said anything about drowning in ice cap water. 30% addition of CO2 in the atmosphere is significant and humans have caused that. In pre-industrial times CO2 levels were about 280 ppmv, now they're about 380 ppmv.

What you don't seem to understand is that the natural cycle doesn't add the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. An analogy: there's a pool in your cellar and it's half full. You also have a pump that drains water from the pool, attached to a hose that squirts the exact amonut of water that is drained back to the pool. We call that natural addition of water. Then there's Dude X who brings a bucket of water every hour to the pool. Are you going to say that the pool won't ever get filled with water because the addition of the Dude X is so insignificant compared to the natural addition?

Look at this graph. Is there even one time when CO2 and temperature track with each other?? There's not one time when they track closely enough to make any reasonable assumptions about their relationship. The earth has gone into ice ages with significantly higher CO2 levels than what is currently present in the atmosphere.

Godf said:But if other sources of greenhouse gasses have been reasonably constant, and we're now adding to it, then it really makes no difference what level of natural greenhouse gasses were required to maintain previous temperature levels, human emmissions can still have just as much impact, regardless of the ratios between the two.

They haven't been consistant. CO2 has risen and fallen by much larger amounts than we're seeing today, largely due to cycles of volcanic activity. And the higher CO2 levels (as you can see from the graph) had virtually no correllation with temperature change.

I'm just tired of so called scientists putting so much emphasis on such a small piece of the overall puzzle. The tendancy is ALWAYS to blame us first.

godf said:"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?"

Republicans have been continually labeled as 'anti-earth', 'anti-green', etc. If a republican votes against global warming funding, they are labeled with these names, so they do so for political reasons.

I don't call myself a republican, I'm more of a Libertarian/independant/conservative/moderate depending on the particular issue. I guess I like to look at the facts and make my own decisions without having to parrot some party line. Free thinker if you will.

Stof Said:The fact that The existence of, and man made nature of climate change is even still being debated scares the hell out of me.

The fact that anyone thinks there should be no debate on an issue scares the hell out of me. Something as immensly complex as climate change will ALWAYS be open to debate. There are so many different factors involved in the climate of an entire planet, I don't think even the most brilliant scientist of today could really predict it. Hell, even the weathermen can't accurately predict the temperatures for NEXT WEEK. I've seen them off by as much as 5-6 degrees on many occasions. Theoretically we could still go into an ice age. No one really knows for sure what is going on, and I get a little riled when people insult my intellect, and that of others like me by saying it's 'SO PLAIN that there should be no debate'. 

Also, notice that they've (scientists & politicians) conveniently changed the name to 'Climate Change' so that no matter which way temperatures go, it can be blamed on human activity. If we slip into an ice age it'll be our fault too, even though it's happened before without us. Whatever.

First, I couldn't find the scientific articles that are the basis for that hand-drawn graph of Monte Hieb. Would you kindly tell what are the works that "C. R. Scotese" and "R.A. Berner, 2001" refer to?

Here's a bit more up-to-date graph of the temperature:

Second, no-one has stated that CO2 is the only factor behind climate changes. In long time spans, the Milankovich cycle, for example, is much more important.

I was hoping to get some conversation about the satellite measurements of the fortification of greenhouse effect or about the measurements of CO2's infrared radiation absorbing qualities, but I guess that won't happen. After all, it's pretty hard to argue against physical observations. Have you ever read and understood scientific studies about these issues?

Robert A. Berner is a professor at Yale university. Here's some info. http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/berner-robert

Also check out this article he wrote:http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyBernerScience01.pdf

The actual CO2 data used for the graph comes from the following article: 'Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time'  (which I do not have a direct link to)

Christopher R Scotese is a professor at the University of Texas Arlington http://www.uta.edu/ees/Geohomepage/Faculty%20Pages/scotese98.htm

This page: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm actually contains the temperature graph that the above graph was created from.

This isn't a hand drawn or made up graph like you were saying. There's no need to insult people just because you disagree with them.

Monte Hieb's website essay was just a place where many of the other articles and data I've seen have been put into one place, that's why I chose it.

And I'm not suggesting that anyone is saying that CO2 is the only thing effecting the climate. I'm just saying there's too much emphasis on CO2- emphasis is the word I have used every time. Climate change is nothing new or out of the ordinary. As far as we can tell, the earth has been in a constant state of climate change since it was formed, and I don't think anything we do can stop it. BUT I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE EMISSIONS, JUST THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO BE IN A STATE OF PANIC ABOUT IT. We can make changes in more gradual ways that don't harm or destroy economies.

And yulegoat... 'Have you ever read and understood scientific studies about these issues?' is a pretty insulting way to debate. Let's not insult each other's intelligence. I see from this thread that you are a very intelligent person... so am I. We just have different opinions on this particular subject. I have no doubt that you have read at least as much as I have about this subject, you've just come to a different conclusion than I have, and I respect, but disagree with your opinions. So let's keep it civil.

Let me revise my original assertion. THIS statement scares the hell out of me.  

Why? All he's doing is casting doubt on the ability to predict climate change 100 years into the future based on a previous track record.

Sure, we know more now than we did in the 70's, and revised the model. But who's to say we won't know even more in 2030 that will completely change the model again?

Skepticism is healthy and good.