Many folk still believe GW is alarmist theory or not man made - what evidence are they holding out for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global Warming is no more then a theory. Yes, we inevitably contribute to it. If you look at the facts though, the eruption of Mount St Helets, a completely natural occurence caused more global warming in that short amount of time then humans could have done at the time in a year. The single fact that we breathe out CO2 could be enough to cause the effect in the long term. It was always bound to happen, even if this isn't the cause. Other planets are even warming up a lot more then average. But if the cause is CO2 gases and Chlorofluorocarbons, we can stop this effect, if not prevent the thing from starting.

It's called Societal Inertia. It's like the situation of the Ostrich and the Lion. The ostrich thinks that as long as it buries it's head in the sand the Lion doesn't exist because he can't see it. The Lion won't exist for the Ostrich until it starts to gnaw on it's skinny little neck. But tnen it's too late for the Ostrich.

It's the same way for the powers that be. They refuse to LOOK at the scientific literature, as long as they don't examine it, the problem doesn't exist. At least until New york starts flooding from the rising ocean levels but, by then it'll be too late to do anyuthing about it. The effects of GW that we're seeing now are the result of the greenhouse gases that were emmitted before most of you were even born. The current level of greenhouse gases in the atmoshpere will not be measureable with regards to climate for another 20 to 50 years.

Evidence of causation. It's been warmer, when CO2 levels were lower, for multi-century periods many times in the past, including twice since the last Ice Age. That's not including periods when it warmed but not quite to this level, as in Roman times.

The Alps have been ice free and forested within human history but long before the advent of the automobile.

Does that prove it's not us this time?

Of course not.

It DOES mean you can't just infer that it's us this time.

And that inference is all you have.

The next question is whose burden of proof is it?

In a free society it has to be borne by the side that wants to limit otherwise free activity.

That would be your side.

So come back when you can prove that the activities you seek to curtail cause the harm in question.

For many skeptics here it's clearly a matter of belief. An analogy.

It is impossible to convince a man who truly believes in a 6000 year old Earth as a matter of religious faith. Any scientific evidence will be dismissed as something created by a Higher Power to "test his faith". No getting around that one.

I do have some hope about those who are skeptical based on conservative principles. I mean the idea that if liberals, environmentalists, or, worse yet, Al Gore says something it must be wrong. And anything that requires an international solution must be denied. More and more conservatives with unchallenged credentials are coming to know that global warming is real.

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

You are incorrect. The most that humans could be responsible for of the almost 400 parts per million is maybe about 50 parts per million. Your problem is confusing cause and effect. The temperature warmed and resulted in increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not suggesting that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or that it doesn't moderate the temperature. I am suggesting that it is not the most important factor. Of far greater importance is the sun, clouds, and water vapor. You can go wait in a bunker if you want to but don't expect the sane among us to join you or pay for it.

Oh Bob, what's wrong with you? Were you beaten as a child? Guess what, Einstein, Edison, the Wright Brothers; all Christians.

If the intelligence about Global Warming proves to be inaccurate, can we impeach Al Gore?

I think the skeptics just don't want to believe there is a problem. A BIG problem that they helped create (along with everybody else). I don't think they want to deal with the possibility that maybe something will happen to the planet that can alter our current way of living. Many people don't like change, and a possible change like a climate change scares people. But hopefully it happens and it'll help clear out all the idiots.

Explain to me how man caused global warming before man got here. Didn't happen, isn't happening now. I don't question that the earth's temperature may have risen on average .65 degrees in the last 100 years, but to say that man caused it only serves an agenda, not the truth. One other point: You (or anyone), could not prove in a court of law that global warming is caused by man because speculation would not be acceptable evidence. The court of public opinion is another matter. There, facts are not required.

Simple. The has been NO direct link to human activities established.

The temperature has risen 2 degrees in the last hundred years.

The earth has had heating/cooling cycles since it formed.

30 years ago, there was the same 'sky is falling' mentality when it was thought the earth was going in to an ice age.

Here are several reasons why many consider it alarmist theory.

Acid rain

Y2K catastrophe

Bird flu

Ebola Virus

Every year we get some new 'threat' to humanity

Al Gore is the figurehead for global warming. If HE was really concerned about it, wouldn't he take steps to reduce his $30,000 a year utility use?

Change is inevitable, and humans will always adapt.

The "they" with the most to lose are industries that would have to spend money on measures to restrict their emissions. If they admitted there was global warming they would lose money, and cut into all those executive salaries. So they spend less on fancy commercials showing us how "green" they are.