Before I start, I will be using the word 'theory' often in my post, and I want to clarify something. A scientist (or any person) saying they have an idea that might explain something is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. A theory is what you get after a hypothesis has gone through a number of experiments by one or a number of people that are meant to disprove the hypothesis. So a theory is a hypothesis that has failed to be disproved. So when I say theory, remember I am referring to things that have gone through many scientific experiments that failed to disprove it. Thank you

I understand why people don't believe in global warming and why others do. Both sides have released some BS points to support their side that makes no sense. Like the holes in the ozone layer. The ones to released that obviously did not know that global warming is not theorized to be due to holes. The world has natural greenhouse gases that are meant to keep the warmth of SOME of the rays that get bounced back off the planet inside the atmosphere. According to the global warning theory, the temperature has changed due to the increase of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. This increase in the gas keeps more energy from the sun inside than natural, causing the increase in heat. This is not just from pollution being put in the air. The significant decline in forestation, which is caused by humans (some jungles have been practically whipped out), results in less plant life producing fresh oxygen by respiring those gases. We cannot deny that plants breath in C02 and other gases and breath out fresh oxygen. So we cannot deny that the significant destruction of plant life is done by humans, so we cannot deny that we are causing a decrease in fresh oxygen being produced and an increase in other produced gases due to not being put through photosynthesis.

I also disagree that saying the planet goes through severe climate changes naturally by using the Ice Age as an example. Though many don't believe it, the most believed and supported theory of the Ice Age was due to meteor impact that caused a blanket of particle clouds to surround the planet, resulting in a dramatic cold shift. Though this is not mans fault, it cannot be classified as a natural temperature shift because it was caused by a variable coming from an outside source. The hypothesis that the Ice Age is due to the Earth's position from the sun is considered a joke to most experts.

It is true that according to data over the climate that has been tracked for years dating far before this dramatic temperature increase, the average increase in the Earth's temperature slowly increases decade after decade. What is not explained is how the average temperature has jumped FAR not only the trend, but the standard deviation due to natural causes. There are hypothesis for sides supporting greenhouse gas and for those that don't support it.

I, like some others have stated, am indifferent to the theory of global warming. The reason why this post mostly gives examples that support greenhouse gas theory is because so few do, which does not provide much of a debate (which is the category of this forum). So have fun with this, but please research things that combat my examples instead of pulling things from the top of your head that you kind of remember reading or hearing about. Otherwise, some people might not take your point seriously even if you have a valid position.

Lastly, I was wondering why anyone (either on the global warming side or not) be against going green. No matter what side you are on, you can't deny that our current method of energy is based off of sources that are limited. Coal, oil, petroleum, fossils, and all like sources are not unlimited. One day, they will die out. Why not be for using sources that are not so limited. We will always have wind and the sun for as long as the planet is alive, so why not being for using it. It will end up being less expensive in the long run when our current sources are close to gone. Also, why be against recycling? I think that reusing what we are done with is much better than increasing our dumps and landfills. Even though we are not as much affected by it, a lot of areas are. Look up tech landfills in other countries. It is making them live horrible lives. Also, why be against using things that last longer (like lightbulbs)? Though they are expensive, it is cheaper than buying 3-4X more cheaper lightbulbs that don't last as long. Yes, mercury is a problem, so complain about that to make them fix that problem. All going green can do is improve things by using things unlimited in supply, reducing our dumps, and disturbing less wildlife. Can't we at least all agree that those are good things?

rcarter2 : Yay, science!

I would, however, like to see your background sources for the part about the Ice Ages... you only mention the last one (the "Great Ice Age") which was indeed caused by the meteor impact. But what about the other ice ages the planet has gone through, or the mini ice ages like the one in the Medieval period or the one we are supposedly in now? What about the theories of the relation to low occurrences of sunspots or increase in volcanic eruptions?

I only mentioned the Great Ice Age as a response to another post earlier in the thread that seemed to blame it on the Earth's positioning to the sun, so I was clearing that up. As far as the rest, I know that there are younger kids likely reading this, so I stuck with basic information that most middle school/high school students knew (the function of plant life and how thinning them out drastically can increase greenhouse gas). I didn't want to get into the details you are discussing just so I don't start to lose others. Also, my last post was already long, so I didn't want to bring up even more points. If you would like some sources on sunspots and volcanic activity within the last 2 decades, here are some links. The problem is, these are primary literature sources from my university's library archive. So I am not sure you can access them. If not, I'll give you some information on the name of the studies as well as the authors of the works so you can try to find them. I also took the global warming side to give the minority of this thread another person, so it would be great if you used the sources here to make your own posts
http://0-www.bioone.org.www.whitelib.emporia.edu/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001323
sunspots
http://0-www.bioone.org.www.whitelib.emporia.edu/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.28.1.81?prevSearch=increased%2Bvolcanic%2Bactivity&searchHistoryKey=
(theories of volcanic activity in the last 20 years)

rcarter2 : And I am glad to have another member on team Global Warming, there are surprisingly few of us. I just like reading the research, and am sad to report that the links won't let me access them. I wish I still had access to my university database so I could look up stuff... I might be stuck until I get into grad school. But the names and articles might be good to see what I can find online at least.

NotJon : I agree with you in almost every way. The graph you displayed clearly shows how the earth's temperature has fluctuated a lot during  its existence.  Most people on either side of the fence usually wont acknowledge the other sides evidence. What i mean is some one who believes global warming is man made purely believes it is caused by man, well most of them as I stated. And vice versa .It is undeniable that the earths temperature changes, in those stages your graph shows, but it is also undeniable that man kind produces alot of co2. This is where we get the predicament. One can argue that mankind can stop the majority of its production of CO2, but at this point in time that means reverting to pre-industrialized ways of life. It would be fair to say most people would not be willing to do this. Ask any one if they are willing to live with out their cars, without electricity, with out a lot of the luxuries we live with. They will most definetly tell you they want to keep their life style. Especially when given the fact that the earth will change any ways.There is obviously a big release of CO2, in a relatively short period of time compared to how long it takes to build up. And it is going to occur whether we like it or not. What will decreasing co2 ommissions really do? buy us an extra 100 years before the co2 dump? 200? 2000?Since the co2 release is inevitable , it is my opinion the best thing to do is prepare humanity for the drastic temperature change that is going to occur. We should be more worried about the earth cooling than the earth warming, as we are almost at the peak of the cycle and it will soon ( if you can consider hundreds of years as soon) become a great ice age.

well i was under the impression we were to cut down on things because every little helps (wise words of tesco) but yeah i ever since i learned that the earth has always had fluxes of climate change liek the ice age or in this case global warming i thought it dosent matter how much little things we do it wont change the big picture and we onnly affect like 0.01 of the total carbon emissions produced on earth the main source of the emissions are volcanoes and shiz even back in caveman days its not like they had any massive industries but an ice age still occured it wasnt like they told everyone to stop chopping wood to make huts to help climate change it dosent work like that. after much debate about it im glad other people are also agreeing that this is just a load of poo poo