Other Answers (9)

• What debate? There is research and there is consensus. I am not aware of any debate. We know the IPCC%26#039;s consensus finding, including references to thousands fo supporting papers. Exactly what is the opposing theory, and where are the supporting papers?
  
  The only alternate theory I%26#039;ve seen for what might be causing the warming is the sun. Here%26#039;s the current status on that one (supporting paper below):
  
  http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/...
  %26quot;blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation. %26quot;
  
  So yes, if the so-called %26quot;debate%26quot; has no viable alternatives currently in the running, no theory, no scientist promoting it, or no peers willing to certify that it is science, not some crackpot science fiction, the debate is over by default.
  
  Your funny rule of requiring someone to assign a percentage is pointless and proves nothing. Would it matter if greenhouse gasses were (for example) only 70% instead of 90% responsible? No we%26#039;d still have to do something about it. It%26#039;s known to be a significant factor. That is enough to go on, whether people care to acknowledge it or not. A numerical number is unlikey to ever be assigned, so it makes no logical sense to hold our breath until one is produced.
  
  If you want to deny, just do so and get on with you life. You don%26#039;t need to justify your choice to ignore valid answers to your question. People can deny simply for the sake of denying.
  
  ---
  http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...
  %26quot;There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.%26quot;
  If you do,you might consider moving away soon.
  Here is a list of scientists that have other studies that may point to different causes of warming
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_...
  Try this link for a great discussion about GW.
  http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/t...
  The number of scientist that believe something is not a reason for saying the debate is over.
  Darwin was in the minority for some time.
  Scientific theories evolve over time as data and technology point in different directions. Finding correlation between events (co2 and temp change) does not mean co2 causes temp increase. If you follow that logic there are many graphs that show several correlations between the sun and Temp, Cosmic rays and temp, cloud formation and temp, earths orbit and temp. There are also graphs that show c02 FOLLOWING temp increase historically.
  The idea the debate is over is absurd. those that believe that have no idea what the scientific method is!
• If man spreading over the earth and prospering is the problem, and the debate is over, then why are people still having babies? Why are we spending so much resource on saving lives, stopping disease, etc?
  
  If the debate is over, then it is obvious the conclusion was that it is natural and there is nothing we can do but deal with it. I don%26#039;t see any significant changes in any society on earth that will cause the effect needed to reverse it. The fact is most people do not really believe it. Most people I know do not even really believe there is Natural warming.