We should take action against Global Warming

"Globally, we have had about 100 years of warming." Are you kidding me? We've have global warming and cooling for thousands upon thousands of years. 30 thousand years ago the earth was covered in sheets of ice. http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com... "for significance, if it had dropped 1 degree C, this would be an ice-age." That's fine if researchers want to call a 1-degree change in temperature an ice age. If true, it only demonstrates that an "ice age" is easier to come by than expected. According to the graph in your own reference we almost reached an "ice age" in 1860 and again in 1910. So I guess it says quite a bit about significance of a 1-degree change-- no big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Up until 100 years ago, CO2 was 280ppm of air. We burnt forest, coal and oil in vast quantities. Air now contains CO2 is now over 385ppm." A lot of things (natural and man-made) have happened over the last 100 years to increase CO2 output. Scientists disagree not only on whether this affects weather, but on how much of the additional output is caused by man. We put out forest fires that would otherwise burn for months. We farm lands that would otherwise be barren. And if we are responsible for a 38% increase in CO2 output in a 100-year period, a .6 degree increase in temperature only shows how subtle the greenhouse effect actually is-- AND THAT IS ONLY IF WE CAN PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT CAUSED THE INCREASE. That fact that so many respected scientists oppose the green-house argument is proof that it is but a theory, and not a known fact. But you won't hear about these scientists unless you do your own research( http://www.speroforum.com... ). Otherwise, enjoy your media-imposed ignorance of opposing viewpoints. "As Issac Newton demonstrated, an object either sits still, or continues moving in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. The Earth's atmosphere also obeys the laws of physics." That's why, as your chart shows ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) the earth's climate has changed directions so many times in the past. Yes, change does require force. And natural forces have always been there to act upon earth's temperature. There is no reason to believe it won't happen again, naturally reversing the current trend. Do you know hat in the 1970s and 1980s scientist (and politicians) were trying to convince the public that we were well on our way to another ice age due to global cooling? They too said they saw no signs the trend would reverse itself. Skeptics in this case were also brushed off for not being part of the "consensus." For god sake, science IS skepticism. "It's sensible to act when one has knowledge of a threat. We have this knowledge. We know the trend. We know that greenhouse gasses are largely responsible. http://en.wikipedia.org...... We know of few negating factors and many (many) positive reinforcing factors e.g. the melting of the highly reflective Arctic and the thawing of tundra that will release yet more greenhouse gas." You use the word "know" quite a bit, yet nothing is really "known" at all. I thought we were in agreement on this and debating only on whether we should act upon unconfirmed suspicion (albeit backed by alluring arguments from just one side of the issue). About 72% of leading scientists are agnostic or atheist because their is no conclusive evidence of god's existence-- even though the ID crowd has come up with some pretty clever arguments. Since even the pro-global-warming scientist will tell you they cannot definitively prove their global warming theory, science-minded Americans should take a similar (agnostic) stance on global warming argument. By the way, how do you (and nobody else) "know" the global-warming crowd has it right?