One thing that even those with no real science background can do in regards to these arguments is check for the - and in this case one side is using them in the core of their argument, while the other avoids them in their primary sources.

In particular you can find:

Ad Hominim - attack the speaker, not the argument - such as saying 'Al Gore ain't really green!' and citing the CO2 levels of his office during construction - the primary reason that I am citing logical fallacies.

Undistributed Middle - using an argument that supports one proposition to support a second unconnected proposition. (Mouse is a syllable, a mouse eats cheese, therefore syllables eat cheese.) Most recently in popular media is O'Reilly's recent, umm, Tidal Proof - I am People, I don't understand how the tide works, so no one understands how the tide works!

Strawman Positing a weak argument that's purpose is to be knocked down to prove your own.

Appeal to Authority - citing an irrelevant authority in place of argument. Again, O'Reilly's recent, umm, Tidal Proof 'aaand since I don't understand it it must be God!' (Gods above and below, Stephen Colbert's response almost made be bust my gut laughing.....)

The Auld Grump

'Nuf said.

.....aaaaaAAAAAnnnndddd SCENE!

We ended up right where we started.

This is why I don't argue with climate change deniers (or in uncre8d1's case, a skeptic) because at the end of it all everyone just walks away believing what they want to believe, regardless of evidence, fact, or logical reasoning.

But allow to me throw in my opinion on the matter:

Yeah, yeah, I know I said I was out, but I just wanted to put in that I'm (as johnnytrash pointed out) just a skeptic, and only a skeptic about part of the issue at that. I'm not giving up on looking for answers; I'm just not finding (or maybe just not recognizing) answers in this particular discussion, so I'm moving away from it. Shalom.

So when is the Gore Arena comming out?

People tell me how there aren't billions of dollars behind "green" initiatives and "green" science... and I'm the ignorant one? I'm not some oil money mouthpiece here; I was fully indoctrinated at the School of Environmental Studies during the late '90s when temperatures were really going up.

I noticed someone mentioned the "hockey stick graph". There's lots of graphs out there... do a quick search... why do most of the "green" ones end at around 2000? Is there something they don't want you to see?





Why did the planet warm during the medieval warming period? Why did it cool during the little ice age? Why did it cool for decades during the post WWII economic boom? WHY HAS IT COOLED OR FLATLINED NOW FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS?! It's not the C02... it's not the freak'n car you drive... it's not your hairspray making hole in the ozone layer.... it's not which damn light bulb you use...

I know some think this is gonna lead to a windmill, solar panel, electric car utopia but it's not.... that's not where restriction of energy consumption leads.... that's not where economic stagnation or decline leads.... that's not where spending trillions of tax dollars leads....

Ya know... honestly... I think Delta Ice was closer to the point than any other thread I read hear... All the Gia mumbo-jumbo aside I think we agree. This planet is far more resilient than we give it credit.

In fact I'd say it's incredibly arrogant and narcissistic to think that humans are causing catastrophic climate change on a global level and that we can actually somehow manipulate it into some state that we *think* is correct. You really think we can micromanage the freak'n climate on a global scale? You actually think you know what the right temp or climate should be on a global scale? Really? Wow...

Lets smoke a doobie and pretend that we actually cooled the planet.... all of our windmills, solar panels, electric cars, and segways are cooling the planet at an acceptable rate. Now what do you do in... 10... 15... years when it's... TOO COLD! OMG! NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo............

Just do us all a big favor....

I've not heard of anyone credible advocating that we try cooling the planet, or control our climate.

Quite the opposite: the bulk of the scientific community are saying that we need to stop pumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere so that it stops affecting how our climate behaves.

Also, lets not forget humanities track record of trashing its environment on whatever scale it operates.
History is full of civilization scale environmental disasters that were human caused. Humanity now operates at the global level, at population and production densities far exceeding those of failed civilizations from the past. Of course we are capable of producing a global disaster, especially as so many of our waste products are either completely new or have never been produced in such massive qualities that we have no history against which to asses their long term safety.

If you want a good example, read up about CFCs and their impact on the Ozone layer. If the CFC's that were destroying the ozone layer of our atmosphere had been made using Bromine instead of Fluorine, our civilization would have been radiated out of existence long before we could do anything about it. We're just lucky that we were using CFCs not CBrCs, and that the ozone hole appeared over the least populated area of the planet (Antarctica and the South Pacific).

"How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror." - V