Anthropogenic Global Warming is enough of a risk for us to take immediate action against it

"The Earth has been known to increase and decrease temperature, with or without human pollutants." True, but not to the rate or the expected extent that humans are causing. "Hmm... yes that may be true, but the gases are not coming from us." Then where might they be coming from? "Example?" Humans produce, while think of the net effect, the most CO2. Through burning fossil fuels, about 80% of the gas released is CO2 Even though nature releases the most, it also takes the most back in through things like plankton and trees. I'm going to talk in Gt (giga-tons) and my numbers are from NASA (http://nasa.com...) and are rounded so it won't add up. First off, humans emit 7 Gt, Oceans emit 90 Gt, trees emit 120 Gt, and volcanoes only emit .15. Seems like we must not have any effect, but guess what was 'forgotten'? Oh yeah, what all those things actually take-in! Oceans might emit 90 GT but they also take in 92 GT, so their net effect is consuming 2 GT of carbon a year. Trees emit 120 GT but consume 121 GT, so they actually take-in 1 GT a year. And volcanoes don't actually do anything much at all except for releasing .15. So humans are the main source of carbon emissions compared to nature. Where as the net effect of humans is still 7 Giga-tons a year. Now as I said the numbers won't add up perfectly as they are rounded. Humans emmit 7 GT, 2 are taken in by the ocean, 2 go somewhere else (we don't know where they are going), and 3 GT go into the atmosphere a year. Its taken fossil fuels (which are made out of carbon originally) about 300 million years (about .2 GT year) of the carbon building up underground to create those fossil fuels. Then all of it being put back up in the air in less then 200. Pretty significant amount of CO2. "Like I said in argument one, the Earth has been known to rise temperature and lower temperature at random intervals." Said, didn't prove or provide any evidence, you can do more then a one sentence response. Secondly, I also reminded you that the rate and amount far exceed past warming cycles. And what doesn't get you is the warming it's self, but the destabilization is causes us. Tornadoes could shift to parts of continents they never hit before, areas could shift from long summers to long winters, changing how much time the area has to harvest the oceans. We are strongly acclimated to the climate we have now, we could survive the warming trends, but it will do a lot of harm. "Science has shown that people have been living longer lives ever since the Earth warmed up, and same for plants." The reason why people have been living longer lives, is because we have developed medicine and more health care. And plants won't do much better in a warmer climate or in an area with an increased amount of CO2. Global warming is not likely to result in more trees, it is likely to result in more wildfires, infestations of tree-killing bugs like the pine bark beetles, and droughts that turn the midwest into a dust bowl: from Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com...): "Having drier, warmer conditions occur earlier in the year will affect snowpack, hydrological processes and water resources, McAfee said. Other researchers, including the UA's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research Director Tom Swetnam, have linked warmer, drier springs to more and larger forest fires." In the past we didn't have nearly as large of a population we have now, drier conditions didn't usually resort in an increase of wildfires, because people living in that time period didn't start as many accidental fires, because their weren't as many people. On pine bark beetles and effects of climate changes (http://www.sciencedaily.com...): "Mountain pine beetles appear to be doing more than killing large swaths of forests in the Rocky Mountains. Scientists suspect they are also altering local weather patterns and air quality. And during the medieval warm period (http://www.sciencedaily.com...): "An epic drought during the mid-1100s dwarfs any drought previously documented for a region that includes areas of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. "The biggest drought we find in the entire record was in the mid-1100s," said team leader David M. Meko, an associate research professor at UA's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. "I was surprised that the drought was as deep and as long as it was. Colorado River flow was below normal for 13 consecutive years in one interval of the megadrought, which spanned 1118 to 1179. Meko contrasted that with the last 100 years, during which tree-ring reconstructed flows for the upper basin show a maximum of five consecutive years of below-normal flows. The Colorado supplies water for cities and agriculture in seven western states in the U.S. and two states in northwestern Mexico. Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix, Tucson and Albuquerque are among the many cities dependent on Colorado River water. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in a recent report that the southwestern U.S. will become hotter and drier as the climate warms. Co-author Connie A. Woodhouse said, "We have natural variability that includes this time in the 1100s. If we have warming it will exacerbate these kinds of droughts." A new international field project, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is exploring how trees and other vegetation influence rainfall, temperatures, smog, and other aspects of the atmosphere. Plants take in and emit chemicals that affect the air, and they also absorb varying amounts of incoming heat from the Sun. When portions of a forest die, the local atmosphere can change in subtle ways. "Forests help control the atmosphere, and there's a big difference between the impacts of a living forest and a dead forest," says NCAR scientist Alex Guenther, a principal investigator on the project. "With a dead forest, we may get different rainfall patterns, for example." ">>>New Argument<<< If Global Warming was real, would you care to explain the heavy snow in last year's winter? What about this year's winter? both are/were pretty bad right now." The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place during a short period of time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change. We are talking about average global temperature. So, of course it can be cold in Colorado this winter.