And now to get back to the main topic itself.

1. I don't believe it or disbelieve it.  I think we don't have enough evidence to say conclusively either way.

2. There isn't enough evidence because we have such a low level of understanding of the climate system of our planet.  Computer models that are used to predict drastic global warming don't include scores of important factors.  Not only this, but even if warming occurs, since 98+% of CO2 comes from nature, it is very much in question how much of this problem is caused by humans.  Suffice it to say we don't really know nearly enough, with only 150 years or less of accurate measurements of climate data, to predict what will happen with trends lasting millions of years.

3. I think it's sad that a body that should be apolitical gets politicized.  I hope they are able to continue their research in as unbiased a fashion as possible.  Although I am skeptical as I am with most theories that attempt to explain something we know little about, if the hysteria really ends up being the truth we need to know about it!

4. I think that mostly people have honest beliefs on both sides and just want what's right.  Sure, there are hypocrites like Al Gore who claim sea levels will rise 20 feet in 100 years (even though the IPCC says only 20 inches) and who jet around in private planes and live in mansions while lecturing others on their carbon emissions, but most people are just reacting to media hype on this issue or part of the inevitable backlash.  I respect all informed opinions on this issue, other than that which says if you don't agree with me you are ignorant/stupid/dangerous/religious nutjob, because in fact we don't know for sure.

5. There is no proof to show.  Statistical data can show us temperatures are rising to some extent.  That is a fact.  We can measure the amount of certain gases in the atmosphere.  But for something as complex as global climate change we are woefully underequipped in the scientific understanding department. 

Pielke has explicitly denied being a skeptic, and said:

 "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf). "

 Humans are causing climate change.

 He does doubt some of the scientific conclusions arround global warming, and believes the current consensus exagerates the impact of CO2 emmissions, and downplays the impact of other human activities.

"1. I don't believe it or disbelieve it.  I think we don't have enough evidence to say conclusively either way."

If the IPCC reports are true, and we go on polluting anyway, as we're not certain enough, we will cost millions of people their livelihoods, homes, and means of supporting themselves.  We will not be certain we're causing climate change until well after it's too late to do anything about it.

Some people in the developed world seem willing to take that risk, knowing that their governments will have the resources to allow them to adapt.  They know that they are taking a risk with the lives of others.  This is especially ammusing when it's conservative Americans who had just supported the invasion of Iraq as, while the evidence of their WMD program was shaky, it was a risk that could not be taken.

If people would study, humans represent a minor change in climate, but we do aid in the destruction. Everyone should buy organic conserve energy, gas.
PS it is interesting how there is a magnetic shift, every 12000 years or so.
Keep that in mind when studying sumerian text. We are coming out of an ice age, It iwll be hot for a while, but what we need to do is conserve. People just do not care, I really think the candidates are saying this and that, for popularity and have no intentions on the problem at hand, because the larger corporations, pay fro the m to run etc etc.

First paragraph:  The key word in your analysis is "if."  My main point is we don't know for sure.  It's hard to say to people you're going to lose jobs and/or income in a major way because we think this might be happening.  And I disagree with the assessment we won't know until it's too late.  A lot of people will tell you it's already too late, so let's get the science right and not listen to the "do something now even though we don't have all the information" types.

Second paragraph:   CO2 has already increased a lot in the atmosphere; this is not a "risk," it is a fact.  If what has been said is 100% true, people's lives are already in grave danger because of this and cutting back emissions to 1990 levels is not going to change that in any meaningful way.

As for Iraq, clearly that is an entirely different subject that undoubtedly would lead to a very long thread, and should be in a different topic.  All I would say is it's very easy to say with 20/20 hindsight what should have been done, regardless of agreements/disagreements at the time and at present. 

Buying organic has nothing to do with global warming.  Although this is also something that should go in another topic, rolling back the Green Revolution (look it up) is not something we want to do. 

You suggest that people's lives are already in danger and cutting back emissions is not going to change that.  So we should just continue to increase our emissions and make things worse?  I'm sorry, but that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.  Yes, the CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere over the last few hundred years is going to stay there for quite a while, and we can't suck it all back into the ground and undo the damage.  That doesn't mean we should continue to pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere which will also stay up there for hundreds of years and increase the size of the problem.  This line of reasoning is completely ridiculous.

As far as "we don't know for sure," we as human beings, as scientists, will never, in the entire timespan of mankind's existence, know anything for sure.  See my earlier post regarding gravity, evolution, etc.  All we can do is produce data which support our theories as best we can.  The data for AGW are available.  The "theory" is very well-supported.  Do we know for sure?  No.  Is there an overwhelming amount of data to support our theory?  Yes!  We have the information, we have the science right.  How much longer do you think we should wait?  How many degrees of warming is acceptable?  Should we wait and see if the warming trend continues for the next 10 years?  25?  50?  100?  When do we decide to stop waiting and do something about it?

Guys your gonna wanna kill me for this one but...

I think we are coming from a ice age, into a tropical age.

in the early 1600's Virginia got 3-10 feet of snow every year. That was normal.

In the mid 1850's it got no-where near the same ammount of snow.

Now you cant blame us humans for that time-frame, because well, we never really used much of anything that could cause global warming. Because of that I feel that change happend on it's own. I feel it is continuing to happen.

I am NOT saying we are not speeding it up. I feel we are. But I also feel, that there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Am I saying pollute to your hearts content? Hell no.

Pollution = bad.

Global Warming = been going on for the last few thousand years without us helping it. We are just helping it along. 

I don't think you read quite carefully enough what I wrote.  I said IF what is said about global warming is true, people's lives are already in danger from what's already occurred.  It is YOUR viewpoint, not mine, that that is close to fact and beyond a reasonable doubt.  Note this doesn't mean, as you state, that I somehow support increasing pollution or something.  That is a cowardly and ignorant attack.

We don't even close to know for sure.  Of course, that is one person's opinion versus another's.  My opinion is educated on this subject as I hope yours is.  As I stated before, I respect others' opinions on this because it is entirely possible to feel that this is probably true rather than we don't know enough to say that.  You speak as though we have to wait X number of years.  Waiting is not the issue, our understanding of our climate system is.  We know temperatures are increasing, but our understanding of why they are increasing is not good enough in my view, therefore we should be careful about proposing drastic measures that cause an awful lot of pain to an awful lot of people.

You say: "If what has been said is 100% true, people's lives are already in grave danger because of this and cutting back emissions to 1990 levels is not going to change that in any meaningful way."

The alternative to cutting back emissions is not cutting back emissions, and allowing them to continue to increase.  Your statement seems to imply that since we can't undo the damage, why bother trying?  I didn't mean it as "a cowardly and ignorant attack," and I'm not trying to say you support pollution.  But the trend is an increase in emissions.  I'm saying even if we can't undo the last 100 years of emissions, let's not add to the problem.  If I'm still grossly misinterpreting you, I apologize; it's not my intention to twist your words.

The other problem, I think, stems from your last sentence.  I don't mean my problem with you, specifically; I mean the reason that society at large seems unwilling to change.  "We know temperatures are increasing, but our understanding of why they are increasing is not good enough in my view, therefore we should be careful about proposing drastic measures that cause an awful lot of pain to an awful lot of people."  Converting to renewable sources of energy is not going to cause an awful lot of pain to an awful lot of people.  It's going to cause a few companies that make a lot of money to go out of business -- an awful lot of pain to a few people.  For the rest of us, we're going to be much better off due to a stronger economy that isn't dependent on foreign and depletable sources of energy.  Even if we aren't causing global warming by burning oil, there is a finite supply of oil on this planet.  Our economy will be much better off if we have a renewable energy infrastructure in place before the next oil crisis, and building that infrastructure will create at least as many jobs as are displaced in oil refineries.  Again, see my previous post on economic growth.

I am undecided in the overall impact of humans on the global warming. In fact, like a few others in this thread, I am undecided on whether it is even occurring. Are you going to label me as some sort of crazy "skeptic", compare me to WW2 nazi's and tell me I'm obviously anti-human and want to world to end? Unfortunately for me, I do not get a paycheck from big oil. I walk to work, I drive a new sub-compact fuel efficient Honda Fit which has a LEV-2 (low emissions vehicle 2) rating. I try and buy locally grown organic foods. I recycle everything that I can. I use low energy light bulbs and make sure the only things turned on are those that I am using. I am however, unwilling to blindly except the in your face "truth" that is being pushed just because someone tells me to.

Now, having said that, here are a few other points I think should be brought up:

First, co2 is not a pollutant. I don't know why people keep referring to it as such. Reducing pollution and reducing co2 are two different issues. Co2 itself is a naturally produced gas by pretty much everything on the planet that isn't a plant. You produce co2 every time you breath out, so does every other animal. Plants on the other hand, use it as a food source. So please stop acting as if those people who are against the theory of AGW are PRO POLLUTION...its just not true.

Second, do you feel that developing countries should be denied the right to industrialize? Should China and India be forced to halt all new advancements and be told they have to buy our "green" products instead? What about Africa? For the millions of people that don't have electricity, should they be told that "Sorry, nope, you can't use that easily obtained coal lying all over the place in africa, instead you need to buy solar panels and nuclear plants and wind turbines from us, at a premium of course".

Third, how can anyone say what a few degree's will do? Everyone talks about worse weather, more droughts, dying crops, increased natural disasters...but why? The average global tempurature is considered to have been just as high, or maybe a bit higher, during the medieval warm period. However there are no reports of massive storms or droughts. My point here is, for every person trying to be Nostradamus, there is a 50% chance they are right, and a 50% chance they are wrong. We can't see the future until we reach it.