As for your first claim above that “global warming is happening at an increasing and unhealthy rate”, this simply is not true. The worldwide average atmospheric temperature has not increased AT ALL since 1998. Exactly how does that qualify as an “increasing and unhealthy rate” when it has been steady for a decade? A large part of my skepticism on this stems from the fact that many of the same people who are now screaming about global warming are the same ones painting doomsday scenarios about global COOLING during the 70s.

As for your point #2, this is where the hype comes into full flower. Human activity is thrown out as a “possible” cause without sufficient proof. Then, based on little but this speculation, we are told we have to cripple our economy to prevent the “possibility” that things might get worse unless we “do something”. This plays right into the hands of the socialists in our midst who long for government to “do something” about everything from food prices to hangnails. Too often the “cure” in these instances is worse than the “disease”!

As for your 3rd point, carbon emissions have NOT been proven to cause climate change. At best, there is a small degree of CORRELLATION (which is NOT the same as causation.) One of the first principles learned in classic logic is the danger of the post hoc fallacy: “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” – “one came after the other, therefore is was caused by it”. Ain’t necessarily so… and any serious scientist knows this!

My main point is that anyone who is truly honest admits that we don’t yet really know all the factors that go into climate variation. False claims of “consensus” used as a battering ram to silence all questioning and/or criticism is not science… it is dogmatism masquerading as science.

1) We aren’t causing global warming.
2) We can’t do anything about it if we are, so why worry about it?

Well, that seems like a bit of a cop out, but I won’t argue against you. In any case, I think you need to keep in mind that no one, Al Gore included, thinks that humans are solely responsible for global warming. I think it’s safe to assume that without our influence, the earth will see more fluctuating weather patterns throughout the future. But that’s not really the issue. What’s important to note about the global warming argument is…

1) It seems as if global warming is happening at an increasing and unhealthy rate. Not unhealthy for people thousands of years in the future, people who are alive today.

2) It seems that our influence on the global environment is not the sole cause of this rate increase, but a potentially strong factor.

3) Even if it is not the case that our carbon emissions are affecting the climate in a profound way, it is certainly possible, if not probable, that decreasing carbon emissions may cause a delay in a situation that may or may not be inevitable.

Personally, I think that, even if we are not the direct cause of an increase in the rate of global warming, it is a problem and it is one that needs to be dealt with. It doesn’t matter what is inherently responsible for global warming, humanity will be affected by it negatively and in turn, it would be in our best interest to do what we can to slow it down.

For me it’s not about who caused it, it’s about what’s going to happen. I hate finger pointing, and in the end, it’s useless. Does it matter really, whether humans or the sun caused it? No, because either way, we’ll either survive or we’ll be F***ed.

Also a couple of your points are moot IMO (if you meant something else, please explain, and I will reconsider). #4, Mars’ situation is entirely different to Earth’s. Mars has almost no atmosphere and is really a completely different system. Atmospheres provide protection from the sun, and they trap heat. If the Sun was getting warmer, Mars would experience a much larger effect than we would, because we have that wonderful atmosphere to block much of the energy. As for #6, you might want to dig up a number of how many scientists concur on Climate Change, I don’t know this number, but I do know that there are 20,000 Reputable American Climatologists, and many more foreign ones. The 17,200 therefore makes up a pretty small number. Another thing to question is the reputability of the 17,200 “scientists” are they peer-reviewed? Are they considered reputable in the larger community of scientists? These are questions you should ask. Most scientist view the IPCC report on Climate Change as one of the most un-biased, well researched, and thorough documents produced examining the problem. It’s an interesting read.

As for #2, this is called Lag. This can be seen across the board when studying temperature increases and other climate changes. Usually following a large disturbance or trigger, it takes 10 or so years for full effects to be seen.

Also, lets just think for a moment about numbers 1 and 9. The animals living then were different from us, the landscape was different, and all sorts of things were changing and developing then. I for one would rather not have lived in those times. The CO2 was a biproduct of the extremely frequent volcanic activity. Remember, humanoids as we know them have only lived for 35,000 years. Would we have survived in an atmosphere so choked with carbon.

#7: Carbon Credits are ridiculous. Kyoto is better, but won’t solve the problem. I don’t have a solution to the problem, but I don’t think that’s what we should worry about. I think we should be worrying about what to do after the Earth has settled into whatever new equilibrium it finds.

As for the Bonus Point, Al Gore’s an idiot, and that’s all I have to say about him.

As for me, I am a supporter of global climate change, I am not entirely sure about human induced, but I think that rather than focusing on how to stop what I see as an unstable machine, we should focus on how we can survive through the machine and try to also help our planet’s flora and fauna to adapt as well.

Also, I don’t mean to spark an argument, rather I only mean to get people thinking, I look forward to you response.