[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I don't need to be a specialist to follow Logic 101. The burden of proof is on the asserter. Negatives cannot be proven. No argument can change these facts.

The burden exists on the other side to disprove the assertion rather than just ignore it, especially if they consider it important. That's the scientific method. Scientists have presented data on changing ocean currents, on CO2 levels, on changes in animal migrations and plankton levels, and so forth. Those who deny global warming aren't presenting data to rebut these claims, or aren't doing so in enough numbers to convincingly put the issue to rest. The least we can say is that the jury is still out.

[thoughtomator]

The burden exists on the other side to disprove the assertion rather than just ignore it...

Wrong. ANY scientist will tell you that the burden of proof is on the one who aims to prove a positive fact. It is logically impossible to prove a negative; challenging someone to do so either shows a serious deficiency in basic reasoning skills or demonstrates an intent to debate dishonestly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you still need to take Logic 101.

Scientists have presented data on changing ocean currents, on CO2 levels, on changes in animal migrations and plankton levels, and so forth. Those who deny global warming aren't presenting data to rebut these claims, or aren't doing so in enough numbers to convincingly put the issue to rest. The least we can say is that the jury is still out.

Those who dispute the hypothesis of man-made global warming have presented plenty of evidence that rebuts these claims. Historical variation in solar radiation, for example; also statistical analysis of the "hockey stick" chart shows that the basic theory of man-made global warming - dependent on assumptions derived from that chart - is ridiculous. Furthermore, it is beyond plausible to suggest that until we started burning fossil fuels, there was no change in ocean currents, CO2 levels, migration patterns, or anything else.

The world is in constant flux; global temperatures have gone up and down since the beginning. It does not follow to say that because ocean currents and CO2 levels change, that it is man who is causing it. Any study of the data shows the opposite - that the world will warm and cool regardless of human activity on its surface.

Where's the evidence showing that known factors that have historically led to global temperature changes (in the absence of human activity) are not sufficient to explain the current rise in temperature?

[Dat Mon]

I'm just passing through here..so don't mind me.

My off the top opinion on global warming is that the Kyoto people have four hills to climb.

1) You must show that there is a real warming effect globally, using solid global data, statistically correlated and analyzed.

2) You must establish what the nature of the variation is. Is it a monotonic variation, or a periodic variation, or some quirky nonliner variation with inflection points.

3) Having done 1 and 2, you must now climb the highest hill, and show causality, and relate the cause to actions taken by man.

4) Having done 1,2,3 you must now prove that the actions can be reversed, assuming that developing nations are going to be using more oil and gas for their developing economies in the coming years.