New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[Redgineer]

Is your argument against human-caused or human-enhanced global warming that the Earth has changed in the past without humans, therefore its doing it again?
Because that's just silly. Have species gone extinct before humans were here? After? Have some gone extinct because of humans?
Also, be careful with wikipedia. I just edited the entry to say that Mars is 11% smaller than my butt.

That's been fixed evidently, they police the sites petty well.

Didn't you know there are references too.
http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf

[Ragin4U]

Do you think that things can only happen in the absence of human activity? Or only in the presence of human activity?
I'm not sure what's confusing. Global temps are cyclical because of changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in atmospheric composition, changes in the composition of the biosphere, changes in solar output. Adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere will increase the global temp. Diminishing ice and snow cover decrease albedo, which increases surface temps, which increases atmospheric temps. And you have a feedback loop.
Your grass will grow whether you are there or not. Adding fertilizer to your grass will increase its growth rate. I am fond of the analogy.

[CajunRed]

So what you are saying is that you don't have to prove humans cause warming, you can simply say we enhance it...and that is that.

[Ragin4U]

Or I can say humans dont enhance it and that is that.

Seems pretty simple. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere line up pretty well with increased global temps.

I also get that our understanding of the universe is in constant flux. What we view as permanent and fixed today can certainly change tomorrow. It was "science" that the Earth was the center of the universe and those bishops refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

[CajunRed]

Or I can say humans dont enhance it and that is that.

Seems pretty simple. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere line up pretty well with increased global temps.

Then what was the cause before green house gases?

If I say that we'd be covered in a glacier as part of a new ice age IF NOT for the effects/benefits from human activity, wouldn't you ask me to prove it?

[Ragin4U]

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are normal. Present levels of greenhouse gasses are not.
We need the greenhouse effect or the Earth would be too cold for life. But to continue to add those gasses could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. See Venus.

[CajunRed]

"Could lead"? Shouldn't you be saying "will lead"?

[Ragin4U]

"Could" is correct. Not many 100% locks in science. Especially climate science. Earth processes and extremely dynamic and interdependent.

[ManAboutTown]

"Could" is correct. Not many 100% locks in science. Especially climate science. Earth processes and extremely dynamic and interdependent.

Not a lot of 100% locks in science? "100% locks" is the entire point of the scientific process...

[Ragin4U]

Not a lot of 100% locks in science? "100% locks" is the entire point of the scientific process...

Nope. Not even a little correct.