Alright, so what your saying is that the IPCC, along with their hundreds of qualified, independent reviewers and all the other scientists publishing research which warns about GHG emissions are false, and that whatever 2 articles you have read on something like a magnetic pole shift are right on the money... have any leads on the JFK hit or Roswell crash to go along with that conspiracy theory?

Do my research? Who the hell are you to act as if you are qualified and have evaluated the literature? There are a vast amount of published papers supporting GHGs and global warming compared to a handful stipulating otherwise. Go "do the research" yourself.

Also saying CO2 levels are "small" because they are measured in ppm is incredibly ignorant, anyone with formal education in science or engineering will know that its the effect that is important, not the direct quantity... and any ecologist or biologist will tell you that they spend a huge amount of time assessing dangers in the ppm range. Also, 385 ppm on an atmospheric scale is HUGE. And again, feel free to take your own advice and go read the literature... CO2 levels have raised to the 385 ppm mark from only 280 ppm in the 1800s and all the published sources I have read contribute most of this to anthropogenic sources... so clearly you pulled that small fraction bit out of your a**, which makes me doubt you've done any literature review at all, besides maybe 3 articles in a newspaper with flashy controversial headlines. Or maybe even something as useless as Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World", which is the most skewed and unprofessional use of "statistics" I've ever had to waste my time on.

Even if you have something against the dangers of CO2 emissions, are you going to lump the other GHGs in with it as harmless as well? I bet the huge increase in CH3 emissions from agriculture are of no concern to you either.

As for the global warming trends, stating peak temperatures for comparisons is about as "foolish" as you can get (have you ever even taken a stats course?). And looking at a timescale of 10 years for indications is just retarded. How about looking at glacier retreat over the last 100 years? That clearly shows overall temperature increases. You referencing US temperatures rather than global averages just makes me laugh.

I'd say you have to do some research yourself before you start acting like an expert. Sure we don't know the magnitude of the effect that GHG emissions will cause, but why the hell would we take the risk when simple mass balances and thermo tell us they'll have SOME effect, and models predict a wide range of possibilities. We certainly wouldn't be able to correct some drastic scenario like a change in the earth's rotational axis, but we CAN stop our pollution which definitely has some effect in the long term.

Luckily there are enough people who trust those qualified to do good research, take their results and err on the side of caution to get these green movements going. It is very unfortunate that arrogant individuals like your self read a few questionably credible sources that support your gluttonous lifestyle, and start spouting it off as the gospel truth.

An "I told you so" from my side of this debate 200 yrs into the future will be much less disastrous than one from your side.