The basic argument in the climate change debate boils down to whether you believe that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has the effect of absorbing radiant heat from the ground and warming the air thus allowing us to live. This is the basic science of atmospherics and climate and if you accept it as true then you must believe that climate change is happening or will happen. The rise in carbon dioxide in the past century or two is well documented and if it is a greenhouse gas then there is only one logical conclusion to make and that is that a rise will warm the planet.

How do the sceptics get around this? Do they not agree carbon dioxide works as a greenhouse gas the way climate scientists say it does? It is a long held theory that has been accepted for a long long time now. Do they find some mitigation to all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now? Some sink or counterbalance maybe? All I have seen from them lately is strange talk of sunspots and a few arguments that recent years have been cooler than 1989. Where is their scientific rebuttal of the basics behind why scientists think there will be global warming?

Mikk,

The problem with Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is that it can't be boiled down to one issue i.e. CO2. Although some skeptics claim that CO2 is natural therefore natural is only partially true.

The truth is the issue is far more complex. One has to take into account a whole raft of issues they include deforestation, pollution levels. Not only In the atmosphere but where abouts in the atmosphere. Both in a height and in what part of the globe. To mention a few of the factors involved.

It is IMHO the this all becomes a problem because of issues like human nature and vested interests and to quote from a 60's song "many can't hear because they have beens in their ears" (have beens, living by past examples) things/scientific knowledge has changed but many find it difficult to acknowledge that what was once known has a sting in the tail (a yes but). e.g. powered flight was once considered impossible.
Quantum physics challenges Newtonian physics ad nauseum

mikk/you have simplfied the issue so clearly[...lol..]..simplisticly comes to mind..[yep its a greenhouse gas..[but so is the methane comming from your rectum..and your compost heap..[and that chemical used to clean the solar-cells..on your tinfoil hat/roof]

[that latent heat..came from the sun..[before the co2 could''..warm the air allowing us to live'''[get it...[the sun is the heat-SOURCE[the co2 the vector..that transmits it..[in part]into the air..[im sure other gasses also do their bit..

[but often you global/hollowcost..prophits of doom..love the kiss principle..thinking ..to keep it simple..for us ignorants..but in reality dumbing it down so much..as to be revealed to be absurd

but here is a thing..for your simple-mind..[get some dry-ice..[pure co2]..and let it mist in a bowl..[notice the mist flows over the edge[and crawel's accros the floor..[mate thats because the 2 oxigen molicules are joined to a carbon molicule's..[making co2/heavier than air..[ie its too heavy to float..up into the sky]

but..while you got your co2..in the bowl..blow some bubbles onto the dry ice bed..[see how the bubble FLOATS on top of the co2 mist?..[go figure eh..[who would have thunk it]..co2 is heavier than air..[thus cant ever go into the atmosphere..[unlike your compost bins methane]

but what am i explaining things/to one as clever as you...[mate just stop breathing so excitedly..[your excited heavey-breathing is putting the whole planet in danger..[your excitment/plus your methane emiting excriment..from your com-post,..reveales the heights of your own short thinking delusions

you want to pay the tax..then go for it..[but mate your not speaking for me..[you think the sky is falling..your found the blame..that leaves you blameless...great one kid..[go study the real science]..

stop listening to those rich guys..[mainly econimists]..in suits,..needing to put the blame/on the people..needing guilt via faulse science..,.to bring in their new guilt/tax..

to allow the commodities/speculators..their new-carbon cash-cow..[for them to buy/sell..[with bonus]..[and set the price of..[so business can sell their..free..credits..govt gifted/extra..carbon-credits..for our cash/tax..

[a compulsory tax..deduction on everything..we buy..for the rest of time,..or untill the climate stops changing..lol]...so they got the cash/to rebuild/their bankrupted in-dust-ry,..build even more poluting industries,..

pretending their capitalistic/model..[deception]..is suss-stain-able[only as long..as we tax-payers subsidise..ever more of its cost,with our tax dollaRS

The most basic of people can see that even with an increase in carbon emissions, temperatures have dropped over the last decade. Until the story tellers can explain that they should shut up and stop making up fairytales.

This argument should be resloved in the next few years.We are in La Nina now,whereby the oceans are said to be absorbing heat energy.When El Nino returns we will some indication of trends.The believers have invested too much credibility and money in this religion to admit any wrong.The energy balances of our planet are extremely complex.We cannot even get our financial systems right,what chance have we of predicting climate change?

Remain sceptical and use your own common sense since there are many interest groups invloved with their own personal agendas.

Mikk's simplistic understanding of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere highlights how people with almost no science education can be conned.

Mikk obviously honestly believes that they understand the whole theory. Trying to explain the logarithmic nature of radiation absorption by CO2 is unlikely to be terribly effective.

They will not be looking for better information, when they all ready believe they know it all, & telling them they are wrong, or stupid, will not attract them to another point of view.

OK, there's the problem, who's got the answer?