maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5] Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6] "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7] "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8] "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Hmmmm... ran across a thought provoking article [no FC you don't have to read it if you don't want to]. If volcanoes have caused cooling every time in the past why would man-made emissions cause warming? http://thetruthwins.com/archives/re...013-is-catastrophic-global-cooling-dead-ahead
[QUOTE The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it... [/QUOTE] Now all you have to do is explain why the climate has changed all the MANY times before evil man had anything to do with it. You see, if this was the very first time that the climate had changed, you might be on to something. As it is, you got nothing but specualtion. You might also want to ring up your friends in China, Russia and India because the fact of the matter is we here in America could scrap every car, shutdown every refinery, close every power plant, and it would have little to no impact so long as those other countries continue to belch out pollution as record levels, assuming that your theory about man being the primary diver is correct.