One of the major problems we have when investigating something like global climate change is the scale of the problem.  We are talking about the whole world and the changes that are occurring through geological time periods which last well beyond the life span of individual or even historical records.  Another issue is trying to find a cause and affect relationship between observed changes - increases in greenhouse gasses and increases in global temperatures.  Some see a direct cause and effect, others see a circumstantial correlation - they both are rising, but not necessarily one is causing the other.

Added to the mix is the economic issue.  Oil is big business.  The auto industry is big business.  Most all aspects of our economy in one way or another are related to these two industries.  Top this off with the suburban life style many of us choose to enjoy, the larger houses we seem to be building, the increase in commercial development (i.e. strip malls), the decrease in agricultural land and deforestation, etc... it is not hard to see that there are strong economic interests that would be harmed if it were proven that global climate change could be directly linked to human activity and if we changed our activity, we could perhaps help stabilize the climate. 

I watched a show last night about what might happen in the future should the oil run out.  There were all sorts of dire predictions, but the most meaningful comment for me was when one of the contributors said that we will eventually run out of oil in the future if we keep using it at the current rate.  That was a no brainer, finite resource will be used up eventually, but what he said next was really what struck me.  We can either start to wean ourselves off our addiction to oil now or we will have to go cold turkey when the oil reserves peter out.  It is this statement that sums up the two rather different approaches to the problem of oil in particular, but more importantly to the issue of global climate change.  We can see the train wreck that is coming and start to do something about it or we can ignore the warning signs and pick up the pieces after the wreck.  Global climate change regardless of the cause will lead to changes in our life style.  Can we start the process of working toward adapting to the changes now, or will we be forced to change later? 

It is going to take a lot to change the way people think about the world and their place in it.  The, "We have always done it this way.... and I don't see any problems...." mentality is difficult to change.  We are standing at a point in history where with the knowledge we have and technology available, we can start weaning ourselves off of our addiction to oil, the burning of huge amounts of coal, and begin to exploit other sources of energy such as geothermal, wind, solar, wave and tidal, along with the use of significantly more energy efficient appliances, electronics, etc...  There is no reason we cannot change our life styles.  Just going to more energy efficient appliances and light bulbs will save a lot.  More fuel efficient cars along with just using 10 or 20% ethanol will make a difference.  Even something as crazy as hooking up a generator to an exercise bike or stair climber can generate enough energy to run an Ipod or TV while we are exercising.   Little steps now will turn into larger steps later, but we need to take the first step.

The last thing we need to do is stop turning this issue into a political liberal vs conservative battle.  The welfare of the planet and the legacy we leave for our children should be our concern, not who is right or wrong.  We all can be winners if we work together.
 

Yes, there ARE natural warming trends, and yes we are in the middle of one. It is also a fact that WE are supercharging this natural event, to an unprecedented rate. Do some research on the scientists that dispute man's role. Most work for companies that would be most financially impacted by the sacrifices we may have to make. I don't believe as a whole, that most of society will have to "sacrifice". but they WILL have to adjust. Let's take compact flourecents for example. A slightly higher initial investment ( prices have gone down ), and a little effort on my part. The only "sacrifice" is on the power company, as they get less of my money. There ARE extremists on the "green" side that advocate MAJOR lifestyle changes. Such changes will not happen, but small changes ( most of which will SAVE you money ) on EVERYONES part can have a large impact. To put our heads in the sand, and do nothing is foolish, and may result in more drastic changes over which we will have no control. New technologies will become more available, and more affordable, only when we demand them ( by how we spend ). When (and only when) the consumer proves that we WILL buy the new, will industry be motivated, and COMPETE to provide it.
 
Luvin,
 
There is nothing anti-religous about the arguement. God has always given mankind free will, and free reign on earth. He has always, as well allowed us to suffer the consequences of our actions. It is true that he alone will choose the time, and manner of man's demise. But he very well may allow us to be the instrument of that demise.
 
To those that say we don't have that kind of power. Keep in mind that TWO people via the transmition of a few codes, can bring about the destruction of earth in a matter of hours.

In Virginia, the electric power company actually partially subsidized the cost of the high efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs.  When I was down there over Christmas you could go to the Home Depot stores and buy the bulbs for a huge discount.  The idea was the electric company wanted people to buy and use the more efficient bulbs.
 
There are lots of ways we can save energy like Spoon said will actually save money down the road.  A few examples are:
 
When you replace your furnace, install a high efficiency model.  They use less fuel and pollute less.  Use a programmable thermostat to control the household temperature.  Cut the temperature down at night and during the day and have it turned up when you are at home.
 
Be sure to have enough insulation in your house.  Replace old windows with new insulated ones.
 
When you replace kitchen appliances, buy energy efficient ones. 
 
Take shorter showers.
 
Replace old hot water tanks with efficient ones.
 
Use the compact fluorescent bulbs.
 
Unplug TV’s and other electronic devices when they are not on.  A simple way to do this is to plug all you electronic devices like TV’s, sound systems, DVD players, etc…. into power strips.  That way you have one switch to kill the power to all of them.
 
Get rid of old refrigerators.  A lot of people put an old refrigerator out in the garage or basement and keep it running just in case they need it.  Often these sit nearly empty, but sucking up power.  If you don’t really need it, get rid of it, or at least turn it off when you are not using it.
 
Try to find the most fuel efficient vehicle that meets your needs.  If you don’t need a gas hog, trade it in.  I traded in my pick up truck for a car.  My gas mileage went from 15 mpg in the truck to 28 mpg in the car.  I almost doubled my gas mileage and I have not really missed the truck.
 
Plan your trips to the store.  Don’t take a lot of small trips.
 
Recycle.  Compost your grass clippings and leaves if possible.  Use less lawn treatments.
 
Most of the things listed are not all that difficult, but collectively will save quite a bit of energy.  I am not suggesting that you run out and replace all the appliances in your house along with the hot water tank and furnace, but when these items need to be replaced, choose ones that will meet your needs but are also more efficient. 
 
If everyone does a little bit, the overall savings will be huge.

 

Oh spoon, that was a good one....

How much methane is "that much"???
Speaking of methane, if the ocean temps increase to the point of releasing the frozen methane on the ocean floors, we could all be in trouble.  Dont light a match!

"What I said specifically was this: "The problem with the current usage of "Global Warming" is that it is loaded with anti-religious, anti-human sentiment."

There are regular environmental reports blaming ecological problems not on the misuse of resources, but on the very presence of humanity. To be anit-human is to be anti-God since God created people and loves humanity.

I didn't actually say in my response that scientists were saying this, but if memory serves, there have been many scientists whose personal opinion was that humans should be limited in their spread in order to stop the human effect on earth, rather than develop solutions involving people. "

Just my opinion livin, but I dont see this as anti-human and anti-God.  You talk about a mis-use of resources, but it is humans that are mis-using them, so there lies the problem, overpopulation. 
I dont believe the suggestion of population control is anti-human. Isnt the common goal to save our species? And, if that means slowing reproduction as a potential means to conserving our resources, and hence prolonging our existence, I view that as an affirmation of human life and thus God.

ORIGINAL: luvinbluegills

ORIGINAL: tippy-toe

Interesting, I never heard any scientist blame the mere presence of the human animal as a cause of global warming. I have only heard theories based on scientific data regarding the emission of greenhouse gasses by man as the cause for the recent global climate change.

If you would post some of those regular reports blaming the existence of man on the planet for the current change in climate, I'd like to read them...Thanks

I didn't actually say in my response that scientists were saying this, but if memory serves, there have been many scientists whose personal opinion was that humans should be limited in their spread in order to stop the human effect on earth, rather than develop solutions involving people.

Most scientific studies which I've seen that actually give facts and figures researched over centuries deny the phenomena which many today are calling Global Warming.

Here is one of the troubling stories that has come out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/24/scigwarming124.xml

Here is an interesting debate with some good links.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070125114234AAxhwWE

I'm not on my home computer and am a bit pressed for time so I regret only offering these two. I want to thank you for the civil debate though. I respect that. A lot of people get pretty hyped when someone disagrees with them, but I'm open to being proven wrong by a civil person with better evidence than mine! :)

In the first link you have the guy talked allot about reducing the human "footprint" which I agree with. Then he went on to mention population control, which I could see upsetting some of the more religious people.  I think global warming and over population are not directly related, or at least don't have to be if we can learn how to reduce the individual footprint. 

Both are a concern though, if we don't control the population (not saying we should) nature will... usually in a violent and harsh way. Any species on this planet that outgrows it's resources will die off, just a fact of nature.

We can and should however get a grip on what we are pumping into the atmosphere and be smart about our role here on the planet or all species will pay the price.

Thats my opinion. You can disagree, but I think it is the simple truth.

I pretty much agree with what you said Tippy, but I do think global warming and overpopulation CAN (not are) related. I'm not saying this is the reason for global warming but could certainly be a contributor.  I personally think that it is the individuals responsibility to control the amount of offspring they produce. I know this is probably an impossibility but I'm just philosophizing(if thats even a word).

Water = hydorgen, but when you burn it you get water back again...  We just have to keep enough water around for the fish...
 
Population does have an impact on the energy needs, land use, pollution, food production, water needs, etc...