http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/912_liftoff_atm.html

link to nasa for earth's atomsphere

Point 1:  If you adhere to the scientific method then when your measured results DO NOT MATCH your predicted results then you must revise your hypothesis.

Since all the "global warming" predictions of the 1990's have been proven false (ie since 1998-2001 depending on data set) ergo the Earth is now cooling you might want to stick to the approved scientific method.

This has happened in the past as well for example [quote]The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online July 13, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

[/quote]

In addition the observed warming of planets Mars, Jupiter and Pluto and the same time as the Earth was back when would tend to lead one to at least consider solar activity (Habibullo Abussaamatov St Petersburg research) as the main driver particularly considering it matches with the past ie the Maunder Minimum a period in 1645 when those astronomers did not detect a lot of sunspot activity and it does coincide with the Little Ice Age.

(Also to consider is axial tilt and wobble of the Earth itself generally thought to be a contributing factor in various Ice Ages).

For a journalist (ie scientifically ignorant and mathmatically challenged) not have bad and fairly well written:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

So given that 99.96% (see nasa link) of the Earth's atomsphere IS NOT CARBON DIOXIDE.  In fact the greenhouse gases only account for 3% of Earth's atomsphere (volume) and are water vapour/clouds (97% of the greenhouse gases), the rest are carbon dioxide, ozone, NH4, N2O

So shaving with Occam's Razor and using the scientific method it would seem that only the willfully delusional or pro-slavery/pro-tyranny statist could say with a straight face that "global warming is settled science".

As far as the current trend of either the ignorant or statist to substitute "climate change" for "global warming":

Sure you are going to regulate the Earth's climate doing X - oh and next week I believe you will stop the Earth spinning on it's axis, ban the electromagnetic force and change the nature of gravity.

Above bit of sacrasm pretty much shows how delusional any human activity is going to control the Earth's climate change in view of the fact of the amount of energy we receive from the sun (please liberals guess at the amount), the various strata of the atomsphere with different thermal, chemical, and material properties, not to mention all the ocean currents, jet streams, volcanoes, Earth's core, heat capacity of various oceans, emissivity of various areas of land and so forth.

As a final note could any "global waming advocate is caused by Man and Mother Gaia is mad at us" even take a stab at how you would set the boundary  conditions from space (conduction, convection, radiation & chemical/molecular reaction) thru the various strata of the atomsphere and appropriate flow / convection coefficients ?

Tyler214:  If you think the increase in CO2 is truly causing 'global warming", then perhaps you should stop exhaling because according to your logic, you are contributing to the problem.

pduncan2000:  Your debate skills are lacking and you have committed a cardinal debate sin - you have contradicted yourself.  Pity.  You denouce the scientists who wrote the article 30 years ago but you have faith in them now.  Although I'm sure that several have passed, I would bet money that many of those 30 year ago scientists are still out there.  The same scientists that are crying wolf today.  Perhaps you should stop exhaling too.  You are also contributing to the problem.

Well, pduncan2000, read your first paragraph, perhaps more than once. You're saying the "scientists" were wrong then, but they're sure as heck right this time.

Then you back up your statements with conspiracy theories. You'll be able to spout some more soon as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 (no 1960s science there, eh?).

Here's the conspiracy: scientists have no income other than grants. Climate change is the biggest generator of government grants in history. But god help those who don't tow the government line. No hypotheses for the political agenda (the grantor) means no grants means no income means no real science. Open up your eyes!

Or, just sit back and have another Jack...