Congress Passed an energy bill yesterday

[GnRguitarist]

Congress passed a bill yesterday that would require limits on polution that global warming is blamed on (if I'm getting that wrong I'm really sorry). I work at Wal-Mart, and at least 10 times while I was working customers came and were complaining about how this bill will destroy jobs, tax us even more, and completely screw us over and how it's just one more example of how Obama is trying to take away our rights and make us his slaves (I live in Arizona, in a primarily conservative desert for the record). I read this article on the bill:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_an/us_climate_bill_future_analysis

Which says that this bill has the potential to make America more environmentally friendly ("thats a buncha college bullpoop right there!" -Wal-Mart shopper), and would in fact create a lot more jobs and a cleaner environment. Discuss this bill, and whether it is a bunch of large bundle of sticksy liberal arts bullpoop thrown at us by that socialist prick Obama or something that can potentially help America.

[Against Miik!]

This bill will just make energy more expensive to the average consumer, and will have a huge multiplier effect, seeing as how just about every business operates, at some level, on electricity. So not only will it cost more to run our homes, but it will cost for for businesses to produce things (if electricity is involved anywhere in the process). It won't actually help to decrease pollution levels. Polluters will just pass the cost along to the consumers, and we won't really have a choice on whether or not accept.

This is pretty bold considering the arguments for man made global warming from greenhouse gases are pretty flimsy.

This is purely a political move. It's the simplest solution, not to any actual problems, to but to getting people off our backs when they say we aren't doing anything to promote environmentalism.

I'm waiting for someone to deny that anthropogenic climate change exists.

Even if it does, this bill doesn't help anything, for the reason I just explained.

Also, the passing of this bill coincided quite nicely with the death of Michael Jackson wake up sheeple!!!

[gregulus]

the arguments for man made global warming from greenhouse gases are pretty flimsy.
I'm sorry? Do you keep up with the research done on climate change?

[Freiheit]

this won't do anything

[Against Miik!]

I'm sorry? Do you keep up with the research done on climate change?

I try but its irrelevant to the point.

[gregulus]

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsd0cumentation/d0cumentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622370.800

These articles only deal with the influence of solar variation on climate change. The general theme of these collectively is that the sun certainly played a role in climate change during the pre-industrial era and even well into post-industrial times. However, the climate change observed in the past 20-30 years cannot be attributed to solar variation, as the rise in temperature does not coincide with the trends in solar variation. The extent of influence solar variation does have on climate change is still being investigated. However, even the scientists who argue that the sun has a great influence on climate change do not deny that anthropogenic climate change is still occurring via greenhouse gas emissions.

[gregulus]

I try but its irrelevant to the point.

Maybe. But I don't really understand what you think "flimsy" is. It's fairly well established that anthropogenic climate change is occurring to some significant degree.

I'm not defending this legislation, by the way. I have yet to read about it. I'm simply wondering what you mean by "flimsy."

[Against Miik!]

Maybe. But I don't really understand what you think "flimsy" is. It's fairly well established that anthropogenic climate change is occurring to some significant degree.

I'm not defending this legislation, by the way. I have yet to read about it. I'm simply wondering what you mean by "flimsy."

I mean it in the way that atheists say it is up to theists to prove the existence of God. The burden of proof is on those who believe in anthropogenic climate change. Some of the more common arguments used don't hold a lot of water. That silly chart that Al Gore uses, for example:

http://www.czerniec.com/2007/04/27/an-inconvenient-truth.jpg

(man I wish we had img tags)

The study that has produced this has been debunked as flawed, and if you take a closer look at the graph, you will see that the rise in CO2 levels precede the rise in temperature by a few hundred years. It is only when you zoom out that they look to fit in the way that Mr. Gore postulates.

Also, we talk about melting of the polar ice caps, which true, in some places. And yet, we have also observed the ice caps thickening in other places, most noticeably more inland.

Also, a very recent study has determined that ice caps on Mars have also begun to shrink, showing that this phenomenon is not isolated to our planet.

I am sorry I am not a scientist, so it is difficult for me to put into words the more complex arguments. However, I can find the flaws in these very basic arguments, and I am also very capable (as it is more my area of expertise) of seeing how easily the global warming issue can become politicized, which it has, for example with this bill.

While it seems unfair to not allow a response, on the same token, I really don't want this to become the topic of this thread, as it has been debated to death. The point is that this bill would not fix a man made global warming problem, and will only further burden an already suffering consumer base, which has been admitted by President Obama himself (please watch):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

[McP3000]

against miik took the words right out of my mouth

[Raayl]

global warming won't harm anyone unless we have a runaway greenhouse effect like venus (which is highly unlikely)

human beings exist in a tiny sliver of a warming period during an ice age. I think that's something most people would find difficult to comprehend - that fact that we live in an ice age. A recession and warm period, but an ice age none the less.

If any climate disaster will eradicate life, it will be global cooling. Not global warming. Count on that.

[gregulus]

I mean it in the way that atheists say it is up to theists to prove the existence of God. The burden of proof is on those who believe in anthropogenic climate change. Some of the more common arguments used don't hold a lot of water. That silly chart that Al Gore uses, for example:

http://www.czerniec.com/2007/04/27/an-inconvenient-truth.jpg

(man I wish we had img tags)

The study that has produced this has been debunked as flawed, and if you take a closer look at the graph, you will see that the rise in CO2 levels precede the rise in temperature by a few hundred years. It is only when you zoom out that they look to fit in the way that Mr. Gore postulates.

Also, we talk about melting of the polar ice caps, which true, in some places. And yet, we have also observed the ice caps thickening in other places, most noticeably more inland.

Also, a very recent study has determined that ice caps on Mars have also begun to shrink, showing that this phenomenon is not isolated to our planet.

I am sorry I am not a scientist, so it is difficult for me to put into words the more complex arguments. However, I can find the flaws in these very basic arguments, and I am also very capable (as it is more my area of expertise) of seeing how easily the global warming issue can become politicized, which it has, for example with this bill.

While it seems unfair to not allow a response, on the same token, I really don't want this to become the topic of this thread, as it has been debated to death. The point is that this bill would not fix a man made global warming problem, and will only further burden an already suffering consumer base, which has been admitted by President Obama himself (please watch):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
Scientific research has gone way beyond An Inconvenient Truth. I'm not sure why you expect an increase in CO2 levels to immediately effect tropospheric temperature, though. In using the ice cap argument, I'm not sure if you're denying the observed temperature increase or the questioning the cause. I'm inclined to assume that you're denying the observed temperature increase. This is very curious, as the temperature increase is taken to be fact in the scientific community (as it has indeed been observed). The only debate remaining is the cause. Even in regards to the cause, the role of anthropogenic forcing is recognized to some degree across the board as having a role in the observed temperature increase.

I'm not as much concerned with the politics of the issue of anthropogenic climate change as I am the science of it. I do tend to get upset when people allow their political ideologies to distort the science, however. Science should be a tool to aid in political decisions. It shouldn't be the other way around.

[Against Miik!]

Even if the end result is a global rise in water levels, or something like that, well, I don't think the planet necessarily cares that we like to live in Miami. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that something like that could happen (a rise is in ocean levels), that is perfectly within a range of normal activities. To think that the planet lives on our terms and not vice versa is kinda of foolish.

Scientific research has gone way beyond An Inconvenient Truth. I'm not sure why you expect an increase in CO2 levels to immediately effect tropospheric temperature, though. In using the ice cap argument, I'm not sure if you're denying the observed temperature increase or the questioning the cause. I'm inclined to assume that you're denying the observed temperature increase. This is very curious, as the temperature increase is taken to be fact in the scientific community (as it has indeed been observed). The only debate remaining is the cause. Even in regards to the cause, the role of anthropogenic forcing is recognized to some degree across the board as having a role in the observed temperature increase.

I'm not as much concerned with the politics of the issue of anthropogenic climate change as I am the science of it. I do tend to get upset when people allow their political ideologies to distort the science, however. Science should be a tool to aid in political decisions. It shouldn't be the other way around.

If someone told me that global temperatures have recently risen and that it is detrimental to our current way of life, I would not necessarily argue with that. I agree that the only question we have is the cause. However, I don't think the verdict is in, and I don't appreciate this lackluster legislation being passed based on these theories, legislation that will only be more of a detriment to every day life, especially when this legislation is so politicized.

As I said, cap and trade is an easy way out, and won't fix the problem, even if it is fixable.

[Raayl]

Scientific research has gone way beyond An Inconvenient Truth. I'm not sure why you expect an increase in CO2 levels to immediately effect tropospheric temperature, though. In using the ice cap argument, I'm not sure if you're denying the observed temperature increase or the questioning the cause. I'm inclined to assume that you're denying the observed temperature increase. This is very curious, as the temperature increase is taken to be fact in the scientific community (as it has indeed been observed). The only debate remaining is the cause. Even in regards to the cause, the role of anthropogenic forcing is recognized to some degree across the board as having a role in the observed temperature increase.

I'm not as much concerned with the politics of the issue of anthropogenic climate change as I am the science of it. I do tend to get upset when people allow their political ideologies to distort the science, however. Science should be a tool to aid in political decisions. It shouldn't be the other way around.

No, I disagree with you on the point of the only debate remaining is the cause. We also need to have a serious conversation about the actual dangers of warming - as opposed to global cooling, which is the inevitable realistic danger. Using venus as a template - the only way we'd experience real cataclymic effects via global warming is to either have massive solar activity or massive volcanic eruptions on an unprecedented global scale. Super volcanoes included. Carbon emissions are a contributing factor, but, like I said - using venus as a template, it is unrealistic to assume that fossil fuel burning will lead to global catastrophe. If anything, it will provide a boon and support to combat global cooling, and who knows - that balance very well may be what extends human civilization to the longest possible lifespan.

[McP3000]

No, I disagree with you on the point of the only debate remaining is the cause. We also need to have a serious conversation about the actual dangers of warming - as opposed to global cooling, which is the inevitable realistic danger. Using venus as a template - the only way we'd experience real cataclymic effects via global warming is to either have massive solar activity or massive volcanic eruptions on an unprecedented global scale. Super volcanoes included. Carbon emissions are a contributing factor, but, like I said - using venus as a template, it is unrealistic to assume that fossil fuel burning will lead to global catastrophe. If anything, it will provide a boon and support to combat global cooling, and who knows - that balance very well may be what extends human civilization to the longest possible lifespan.
id rub this into every liberal tree hugging assholes face if this ending up being true

[Raayl]

id rub this into every liberal tree hugging spatulas face if this ending up being true

I was first turned onto the concept of global cooling by one of my history professors in my pre-law program. I then emailed my old earth science teacher regarding it and global warming, and these were his main points. Scientists who are serious about the issue can use venus as a template - because it has experienced a "runaway" greenhouse effect. We, in effect, have a real world example of what it takes to destroy a planet with global temperature increase. It takes MASSIVE amounts of energy expunged into the atmosphere. Also - the consensus of his study was that human fossil fuel emissions, in the grand scheme of human existence, come to about 3% or less of the total atmospheric deconstruction of the ozone layer. Meaning, we really aren't a realistic threat.

This is using venus as a model, however - there are variables. It is my opinion after discussing it with my professor who I believe to be an intelligent and competent scientist, that global cooling is the real threat. Ice ages have been proven to exterminate life. Global warming, has not. In fact, its just the opposite - global warming promotes life.

[McP3000]

I was first turned onto the concept of global cooling by one of my history professors in my pre-law program. I then emailed my old earth science teacher regarding it and global warming, and these were his main points. Scientists who are serious about the issue can use venus as a template - because it has experienced a "runaway" greenhouse effect. We, in effect, have a real world example of what it takes to destroy a planet with global temperature increase. It takes MASSIVE amounts of energy expunged into the atmosphere. Also - the consensus of his study was that human fossil fuel emissions, in the grand scheme of human existence, come to about 3% or less of the total atmospheric deconstruction of the ozone layer. Meaning, we really aren't a realistic threat.

This is using venus as a model, however - there are variables. It is my opinion after discussing it with my professor who I believe to be an intelligent and competent scientist, that global cooling is the real threat. Ice ages have been proven to exterminate life. Global warming, has not. In fact, its just the opposite - global warming promotes life.
thats really interesting because ive never heard that before.

Does Venus's proximity to the sun make its global warming/greenhouse effect more drastic than say if this happened to Earth?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

how much was it

did they pay it on time

[Raayl]

thats really interesting because ive never heard that before.

Does Venus's proximity to the sun make its global warming/greenhouse effect more drastic than say if this happened to Earth?

That is the key variable. However, keep in mind that the planet also had an ozone layer, and much more intense seismic, and thus volcanic, activity. The massive volcanic energy release is what destroyed the atmosphere causing the ridiculous heat and destruction.

But even if we dont use venus as a template, we can still use the earth. Global warming periods are in fact the only times when life actually flourishes. So to say that global warming will be our end, I mean I honestly do not see the relevance or significance of such a claim. Ice ages and global cooling kill.

[Against Miik!]

That is the key variable. However, keep in mind that the planet also had an ozone layer, and much more intense seismic, and thus volcanic, activity. The massive volcanic energy release is what destroyed the atmosphere causing the ridiculous heat and destruction.

But even if we dont use venus as a template, we can still use the earth. Global warming periods are in fact the only times when life actually flourishes. So to say that global warming will be our end, I mean I honestly do not see the relevance or significance of such a claim. Ice ages and global cooling kill.

I hate to have such a hopeless outlook, but when you say that life flourishes, certainly that cannot mean ALL life. After all, we fear often that 99.99% of all species that have ever existed, currently do not. Some of them died out during period of global warming.

So would it be fair to say that humans, who have become so adjusted to this current climate (within a range obviously), are not one of those species that would be benefited by global warming? We are different than the rest of the animal world in many ways, but it the most basic ways, we are not, and we vulnerable to the same basic threats presented namely by global climate. Again, not to sound hopeless, but would be insane to think that we cannot "play God", and extend our existence when the planet does not call for it?

We have all heard of Gaia Theory, which says most basically that the Earth will fight back against forces that attempt to change its preferred homeostasis. The specifics of this theory get a little crazy, but basically, I think that it says that the Earth will do what it wants, and if we cannot sustain ourselves in its plan, then we will cease to exist. We will, as have all other species, at some point cease to exist. For every other species, this extinction was relatively natural, and is their any reason to think that ours wouldn't, or couldn't, be the same?

[Raayl]

I hate to have such a hopeless outlook, but when you say that life flourishes, certainly that cannot mean ALL life. After all, we fear often that 99.99% of all species that have ever existed, currently do not. Some of them died out during period of global warming.

So would it be fair to say that humans, who have become so adjusted to this current climate (within a range obviously), are not one of those species that would be benefited by global warming? We are different than the rest of the animal world in many ways, but it the most basic ways, we are not, and we vulnerable to the same basic threats presented namely by global climate. Again, not to sound hopeless, but would be insane to think that we cannot "play God", and extend our existence when the planet does not call for it?

We have all heard of Gaia Theory, which says most basically that the Earth will fight back against forces that attempt to change its preferred homeostasis. The specifics of this theory get a little crazy, but basically, I think that it says that the Earth will do what it wants, and if we cannot sustain ourselves in its plan, then we will cease to exist. We will, as have all other species, at some point cease to exist. For every other species, this extinction was relatively natural, and is their any reason to think that ours wouldn't, or couldn't, be the same?Okay, you're discussing something different than I am.

When I say life flourishing, I mean simply that - the cultivation of life as a whole. We see a rise in species growth during periods of warming, and a serious decline in periods of cooling.

Global warming may pose a threat to our civilizations, but not us as a species. There is a massive difference.

[gregulus]

No, I disagree with you on the point of the only debate remaining is the cause.
Then you're denying that the earth's temperature is, in fact, increasing? I'm curious as to why.

We also need to have a serious conversation about the actual dangers of warming - as opposed to global cooling, which is the inevitable realistic danger. Using venus as a template - the only way we'd experience real cataclymic effects via global warming is to either have massive solar activity or massive volcanic eruptions on an unprecedented global scale. Super volcanoes included. Carbon emissions are a contributing factor, but, like I said - using venus as a template, it is unrealistic to assume that fossil fuel burning will lead to global catastrophe. If anything, it will provide a boon and support to combat global cooling, and who knows - that balance very well may be what extends human civilization to the longest possible lifespan.

A global catastrophe isn't necessarily what's on the minds of people arguing that anthropogenic climate change does exist. At least it shouldn't be. I don't think many of the scientists who work on climate change have "omg, global catastrophe pending" on their minds when they publish their research. What's not unrealistic is the fact that anthropogenic climate change will force a rapid shift in the equilibrium established by the earth between incoming ultraviolet radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This shift in equilibrium will lead to an increased tropospheric temperature and will have some adverse effects. Will it cause all of the ice caps to melt and the ocean to completely consume huge chunks of land? Probably not. That's not to say it will be inconsequential, though. Especially to earth's ecosystem.

There are no current indications of a looming cooling trend. In fact, climate models predict that if left to solely natural forcing (solar variation, volcanic activity, etc.), the earth would currently be in a slight cooling trend. This, of course, is not what is observed.

I was first turned onto the concept of global cooling by one of my history professors in my pre-law program. I then emailed my old earth science teacher regarding it and global warming, and these were his main points. Scientists who are serious about the issue can use venus as a template - because it has experienced a "runaway" greenhouse effect. We, in effect, have a real world example of what it takes to destroy a planet with global temperature increase. It takes MASSIVE amounts of energy expunged into the atmosphere. Also - the consensus of his study was that human fossil fuel emissions, in the grand scheme of human existence, come to about 3% or less of the total atmospheric deconstruction of the ozone layer. Meaning, we really aren't a realistic threat.
What I have read indicates that the number is around 5%, but that's not terribly important. The destruction of stratospheric ozone is attributed to haloalkanes. Obviously, since stratospheric ozone acted as a shield against some of the UV radiation from the sun, a depletion in the amount of stratospheric ozone could contribute some to global warming. Depletion of stratospheric ozone is not the same thing as an increase in carbon dioxide levels, though. I'm confused as to why you mentioned them as if CO2 levels were causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone. If I missed the point, please clarify.

This is using venus as a model, however - there are variables. It is my opinion after discussing it with my professor who I believe to be an intelligent and competent scientist, that global cooling is the real threat. Ice ages have been proven to exterminate life. Global warming, has not. In fact, its just the opposite - global warming promotes life.
Global warming can promote life. It can also have some adverse effects on the balance of the ecosystem. This isn't the same thing as a Day After Tomorrow type of catastrophe, but would be undesirable nonetheless.

I feel like I should clarify this now. The global cooling "trend" in the 1970's was never a prominent scientific theory. Only a small portion of the literature actually predicted long-term global cooling. The popularity of the idea of global cooling is the result of the media jumping on something that they didn't fully understand. The cooling observed after the second World War is largely attributed to an increase in the level of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to production methods just prior to this observed cooling trend as well as an increase in volcanic activity.

[gregulus]

Raayl, I really think you're overplaying the "global warming is going to kill us all" idea. Al Gore might think that, but that's certainly not what the scientists necessarily believe.

[Raayl]

Raayl, I really think you're overplaying the "global warming is going to kill us all" idea. Al Gore might think that, but that's certainly not what the scientists necessarily believe.

No - if you read my recent posts, you'll notice that I wrote that global warming poses no real threat at all. Perhaps to our civilizations and cities, but not to our species. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I supported Al Gore's interpretation of the data.

Also - read my posts more carefully. I do not deny global warming, I merely offer a new interpretation of it. Proposing the theory based on planetary models that global warming is not, in fact, bad - but actually the converse. I may or may not be correct. I believe myself to be correct, but who knows.

[gregulus]

No - if you read my recent posts, you'll notice that I wrote that global warming poses no real threat at all. Perhaps to our civilizations and cities, but not to our species. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I supported Al Gore's interpretation of the data.

Not supporting. It seemed more like laughing in his face and attributing that idea to everyone who believes in anthropogenic climate change. That's what I was trying to combat.

Also - read my posts more carefully. I do not deny global warming, I merely offer a new interpretation of it. Proposing the theory based on planetary models that global warming is not, in fact, bad - but actually the converse. I may or may not be correct. I believe myself to be correct, but who knows.
Venus is a rather extreme example. Carbon dioxide almost exclusively makes up all of Venus's atmosphere. Of course this is going attribute to a runaway greenhouse effect. It's more like a greenhouse effect approaching the speed of light, to be honest. The major concern with global warming, more specifically anthropogenic global warming, is a disruption of the earth's equilibrium that may have adverse effects on earth's ecosystem.

[Raayl]

Not supporting. It seemed more like laughing in his face and attributing that idea to everyone who believes in anthropogenic climate change. That's what I was trying to combat.

It seemed like I was laughing in their faces? I thought I presented my perspective rather humbly.

[gregulus]

It seemed like I was laughing in their faces? I thought I presented my perspective rather humbly.

Not in an arrogant way. In a more subtle, "look at these assholes who think that we're on the brink of destruction" kind of way.

[Raayl]

Not in an arrogant way. In a more subtle, "look at these spatulas who think that we're on the brink of destruction" kind of way.

Well that wasn't intended, I do apologize. Like I said, I may or may not be incorrect - the data simply seems to indicate that global cooling is a much bigger and more realistic threat.

[gregulus]

I'm not sure I'd call global cooling realistic. At least not anytime soon.

[Iskandar]

No - if you read my recent posts, you'll notice that I wrote that global warming poses no real threat at all. Perhaps to our civilizations and cities, but not to our species.Wait this isn't a real threat to you?

[Raayl]

Wait this isn't a real threat to you?

To me? Perhaps. To our species? Absolutely not.

[Raayl]

I'm not sure I'd call global cooling realistic. At least not anytime soon.

A realistic threat to our long term survival on planet earth, yes - in fact, much more so than global warming.

[Iskandar]

To me? Perhaps. To our species? Absolutely not.Okay but that's not really the question. Who was saying our species was threatened. Al Gore talked about stuff like rising sea levels and **** not the extinction of all life on earth.

[Raayl]

Okay but that's not really the question. Who was saying our species was threatened. Al Gore talked about stuff like rising sea levels and **** not the extinction of all life on earth.

I'm not talking about Al Gore - the great majority of the rhetoric regarding global warming is cataclysmic in nature.

[Iskandar]

I'm not talking about Al Gore - the great majority of the rhetoric regarding global warming is cataclysmic in nature.It is?

[gregulus]

A realistic threat to our long term survival on planet earth, yes - in fact, much more so than global warming.

We have other things to worry about currently, like anthropogenic warming that will upset the balance of the ecosystem.

[T8js6q]

We can all trust Al Gore, after all, he invented the internet...:p

[Raayl]

We have other things to worry about currently, like anthropogenic warming that will upset the balance of the ecosystem.

global warming is a naturally occurring phenomena and there are many hypothesis for why it occurs

long story short - it occurred for millions of years before human civilization - hence, the environmental danger posed by it really isn't that dire

[gregulus]

global warming is a naturally occurring phenomena and there are many hypothesis for why it occurs

long story short - it occurred for millions of years before human civilization - hence, the environmental danger posed by it really isn't that dire

Right, but it occurred previously via naturally occurring mechanisms. We're essentially upsetting the cycle. I've presented many of the scientific arguments regarding anthropogenic vs. natural forcing already in this thread, including publications.

Maybe you're still thinking of the doomsday scenario that isn't the common position on global warming. I'm simply saying that human activities artificially forcing climate change could have adverse effects on earth's rather delicate ecosystem, as earth has established a tightly regulated equilibrium that we're acting to shift. This isn't an apocalyptic viewpoint, it's a rather pragmatic one. The situation may not be "dire," but it's certainly not good either.

[Raayl]

Right, but it occurred previously via naturally occurring mechanisms. We're essentially upsetting the cycle. I've presented many of the scientific arguments regarding anthropogenic vs. natural forcing already in this thread, including publications.

Maybe you're still thinking of the doomsday scenario that isn't the common position on global warming. I'm simply saying that human activities artificially forcing climate change could have adverse effects on earth's rather delicate ecosystem, as earth has established a tightly regulated equilibrium that we're acting to shift. This isn't an apocalyptic viewpoint, it's a rather pragmatic one. The situation may not be "dire," but it's certainly not good either.

I simply havn't seen enough relevant data to justify this strange obsession with blaming humans for climate change. I'm not trying to be a stubborn denialist or a fringe-crazy. I sincerely am not frightened by the concept of global warming. Cities below sea level and certain islands in Oceania may suffer, yes - but in the end, that doesn't really mean I have to embrace this scapegoat mentality and awkward "blame people" perspective.

[Light Flantastic]

all the important countries can afford sea defenses we cool

[gregulus]

I simply havn't seen enough relevant data to justify this strange obsession with blaming humans for climate change.
I posted scientific publications and links to organizations studying the effects of the sun earlier in this thread. The general consensus is that anthropogenic forcing is the best explanation for the recently observed temperature increase. This is only one aspect of the debate, though I do think it is the most hotly debated (anthropogenic vs. solar forcing). If you would like to present arguments against these studies, then go ahead.

[gregulus]

To show that carbon dioxide levels are higher now than at any recent time in the past:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/pdf/315045a0.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/full/406695a0.html

Of course, the levels of CO2 being higher does not directly indicate that humans are to blame, though the increase over the past 2 centuries does coincide nicely with industrial growth. Further studies have been done analyzing the link between solar variation and observed temperature change. The exact extent of the influence that solar variation has on climate change is as of yet unknown. However, very few of the scientists who study solar variation rule out any effect of anthropogenic forcing. The only thing that changes is the degree of anthropogenic influence. The majority still hold that the temperature increase observed from about 1980 to the present. Strangely, in the 20th century, the rate of temperature increase almost doubled in the latter half of the century.

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

From the last link:
The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

Even studies that put great emphasis on solar variation influencing climate change do not wholly discount the role of anthropogenic forcing.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html