This is an extraordinary complex issue that I'll try to boil down to a few simple concepts: 1) It is a physical fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases allow the Sun's energy to reach the Earth's surface, yet prevent the radiation of infrared energy from the Earth into space (the 'greenhouse effect'). This is a well-known physical phenomenon and is the reason that the surface of Venus is about 500 C. 2) It is a fact that levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been steadily rising since the beginning of civilization and particularly since the Industrial Revolution. However, the Earth's climate system is sensitive to so many factors and has so many feedback systems (both positive and negative) that it is difficult to accurately model all of them. This complexity makes it difficult to accurately say how much effect (if any) human activity is having upon the climate system. I have found that the best place to see a fairly thorough discussion of all of this is at: www.realclimate.org

Old School has provided a good succinct summary of the opposition's point of view. However, let me give you something that is a bit more specific with respect to the claims that Earth's systems are too complex. Much of the argument from the global warming alarmists is based on computer model predictions of what the future will hold if we don't change our ways. The problem with the computer models is that, when given data from 50 years ago, these model cannot accurately predict conditions today. However, despite this weakness, the modelers want us to believe that their models are accurately predicting what things will be like 50 years from now. I don't take these models seriously, because they haven't provided a track record of accuracy. Let me close by just giving you a few more links to investigate: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/ http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc= http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response.cfm http://www.junkscience.com ****************** "Old School: Hey, my first "Argument with the Blaylocks" posting! I feel so.....special...:-D... I will simply say that if you go to realclimate.org and put any one of the the URLs that Mr. Blaylock cites in their search box, you will find explanations as to how the other sites have their data or analysis incorrect. I will also note that high atmospheric CO2 concentrations have other (potentially disastrous) ecological effects, such as ocean acidification and invasive plant species promotion (i.e. weeds grow faster when there's more CO2) aside from global climate change." Maybe it is realclimate.org that has it wrong. Do the mention the possible benefits of global warming? It you say that higher CO2 levels will promote the growth of "invasive plant species". Did you stop to think that higher CO2 levels would promote the growth of ALL plants, including those that are used for food? Do they mention that higher temperatures will open up lands further north for agriculture. Based on your summary, it sounds to me as if realclimate.org is just another site that is only presenting the alarmist side of the argument. So, we have two different side saying that each other is wrong. It is up to each of us to decide which side we believe. I know which side I lean toward. You obviously believe the other side. The fact that we can debate this is one of the things that I like about freedom of expression.

If scared of global warming now, then in about 20 or 30 years you'll be scared of global cooling again, like people were in the 1970's... Have a nice read: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/global%20cooling.htm And you can read the original article here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf