Bullet, I don't recall ever having this discussion with you in the past, so I'm going to assume you're arguing in good faith, and address your issues one by one in the hopes you are actually interested in such a discussion.

Quote:Sounds like your leap of faith the evil oil companies are causing the planet's temperature to rise.

I have never used that kind of language on this messageboard, nor do I intend to. It's clear you're projecting a narrative onto me that I haven't presented, and I would ask you only respond to things I actually post instead of arguments I have not, nor would not, make.

Quote: There is substantial evidence that we are on a warming trend, but that isn't even "proven." The causes of global warming are a theory with no proof and no way to test it.

That totally depends on your definitions of the words 'proven' and 'test'. We certainly can show a trend of warming since the industrial age, with periods in which that warming was slowed down due to outside factors (volcanic eruptions, aerosol usage, etc), but with the trend staying constant. We can also use geological data to show similar trends in the past that correlate to the levels of greenhouse gases, and along with that, we can do all sorts of tests to properly understand how greenhouse gases interact with heat, and apply those principles. We can also observe other planets with other known greenhouse gases, and use our predictions concerning those greenhouse gases to see if they are accurate concerning their temperatures. The idea that we can't "prove" a scientific theory is one that isn't really tenable to those within the scientific field, instead they look at the overwhelming weight of the evidence and it shows that anthropomorphic global warming is occurring and a variety of our actions are causing it (CO2, Methane, etc).

Quote: A lot of climate scientists were saying in the 70s, all that oil and coal would cause the next ice age because the 60s and 70s were cooler than the 50s.

This is something that is often stated, but you'll notice a distinct lack of sources. Certainly some scientists did predict a cooling, however most of those were doing so due to the effects of the aforementioned aerosol gasses being released in high quantities at the time. Relatively few scientists claimed CO2 would cause a global cooling, and a review of the scientific literature during the 1970's shows that despite the fact climate science was a burgeoning field at the time, the overwhelming results pointed to the climate warming due to CO2.



And this goes even further than that, with articles cherry picking quotes out of older research articles that go counter to what the research itself shows. For instance, the article Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled uses this quote from the National Science Board to defend it's position that the science pointed towards a global ice age -

Quote: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."

When in reality, this is the entirety of the text of that report

Quote: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"

That report was in 1974.

Quote:The climate change egalitarian church unquestioning true believers fail to understand there are two very distinct issues:
1) Is the globe warming? and
2) What is causing it?

While there are certainly those who believe in climate change for poorly rationalized ideals and beliefs, they exist in every group, this goes against everything I have ever read or discussed with anyone educated in the field itself. And quite frankly, painting your argument against the lowest common denominator of your opponent doesn't really bode well for your understanding of the issue itself. But rest assured, both of those issues are well understood and documented in the actual literature.

Which brings me onto the most important point; what you read in the news is not indicative of the actual research being done. This goes for the articles both for and against Climate Change. You know what doesn't make the cover of the NYT's? The title "Climate Research shows steady increase in temperature which could have far reaching effects in particular sublimates over the next century". That get's changed to "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL END LIFE IN NEXT CENTURY!" or something equally as different from the actual results of the studies itself. The more outrageous the claims being made, the more likely they make the news. This goes for anything scientifically related, but it's very pertinent here also, and it's something you simply must understand.

Quote: They often seem incapable of grasping that natural planetary cycles have caused warming and cooling trends many times over the planet's history and that humans had absolutely nothing to do with that in the past.

I can assure you that those variables are most certainly taken into account in actual research, though I cannot speak to the average "climate change egalitarian church true believers" knowledge of those matters, but I need to ask; are you reading the research on those subjects? Are you taking the time to sift through the actual data itself, and comparing the whole of climate change research into account, or are you simply accepting the information of another person choosing which information to present to you on this subject matter? I will easily admit that I am not interested in sifting through that sort of research, I have enough research to look through on my own to not add that to the pile. If you actually are reading the original research and came to this conclusion on your own, then that's fine and I have nothing that I can say to change your mind on the matter because you're getting it from the source itself and I can admit I'm not. But I have taken the time to look into who actually supports the concept of anthropomorphic climate change, and the list is hard to argue against. Not because science cannot be wrong, it most certainly can, but because any of the usual subjects claimed to be the cause of this intellectual conspiracy do not line up with that list. When the national scientific bodies of the US, England, Sweden, Israel, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Africa, China, Japan, Taiwan, and France all agree on this issue, along with the International Energy Agency and OPEC themselves agree that anthropomorphic climate change is occurring and is due in part to CO2, then I question anyone who thinks there is some overriding conspiracy involved here.