Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

This is a pretty big question. One that many seem to think is "answered." All the scientists agree, anyone who disagrees is in the pockets of the oil companies or, insane.

I may be insane, but I am certainly in nobody's pocket. It seems to me this is not a cut and dry case. There are debates on both sides, and, virtually all of the science supporting climate change being caused by increased CO2 emmissions, specifically human caused CO2 emmissions seems to be the result of computer simulation.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or computer scientist) to realize that a model is only as good as the algorithm that it's generated from. Even models that agree in the direction of the temperature of the earth vary quite a bit. Just keeping in mind the remote possibility that for the sake of funding and future funding the results of these models might be a wee-bit skewed to support the hypothesis, its worth noting that its much easier to get funding when you are pro global warming.

My off the top analysis of the whole thing goes something like this:

• According to this atrociously scientific video, 350ppm is the safe amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• We are currently at about 387ppm, which is too high.
• Therefore, a change of 37ppm of CO2, or about .0037% of the atmosphere is what we need to be "safe" from climate change. (Or higher, if we are worried about the upward trend, but even a generous number here is below .005%)
• The earth has had major fluctuations of temperature over its history, long before Henry Ford came along.
• There is a nuclear burning ball of hydrogen that accounts for over 99.8% of the mass of solar system mere light minutes away from the earth.
• The Sun isn't having any reported effect, while CO2 (aka, what plants breathe) is having effects on the temperature of the earth well beyond its relative density the atmosphere
• Not even taking into consideration the billions of dollars in grants for the sake of curbing global warming, carbon credits will actually monetize the 'right' to emit carbon dioxide.
• Wall Street stands to profit big from carbon trading

So, the IPCC is pretty much where everyone points when they talk about the settled issue of global warming. Its worth noting that about 80% of the people on the IPCC have no prior experience in dealing with the climate.

There were at least some on the IPCC that disagreed with the findings of the report, one (at least) who literally had to sue to get his name off the list.

Also, and this is really the kicker, there is a petition at petitionproject.org where over 31,000 American Scientists (Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.) have signed the following petition:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth"

Oh, and don't forget the other gas that plays a much more important role than CO2 in the greenhouse effect: water.