Geez, I thought there'd be at least a few of you who would be on my side. One by one then:
wicked: That "documentary" had attracted massive criticism because, well, it's a swindle itself, and presents wrong or misleading information. See
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism for reasons why. And please, do yourself a favour and at least balance your viewpoint with a documentary about how global warming is real.
noss: We may be nowhere near that threshold you mention noss, but consider this: wikipedia says that 0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. Sure! This is tiny! But all that means is that it is easier to double the amount. The absolute amount of CO2 we release may seem small on the global scale, but it is the relative amount of CO2 in the air that's the real issue. Earth today evolved with a certain ratio of gases in the air: we're changing that ratio.
Also, global warming doesn't mean all places get warmer; it's a bit of a misnomer. The increased temperature of the earth disrupt existing weather patterns - hotter for some, colder for others. And the sun takes millions upon millions of years to change. It's energy release is measureable, and constant.
Langers_87: what eurisko said. Blame the coal, not the car. We should be moving away from coal. And in any case, are you certain it would produce more CO2? Electric engines are far more efficient than combustion ones, and steam turbines powered by burning coal are probably more efficient as well.
oldn_tired: you are right about how much biomatter is compressed into fossil fuels. I can't understand why people don't think the sudden release (on earth timescales) of these materials will have no effect on the place.
Colby:: saying coal is too cheap to not use is a pretty weak argument. Dumping pollutants directly into a river rather than treating them is cheaper for industry too, but they don't do that because it is illegal because it is bad for the environment. Cheap as free energy is what has created our extremely energy dependent society - a step for the worse, in my opinion.
eurisko: That funding argument is a bit of baloney. Surely there are easier ways for scientists to get money than trying to convince the entire world that global warming is real when it (supposedly) really isn't?
Also, laying the blame on "big business" is just moving the blame around in circles. Who runs big business? People! How do you think big business will change it's ways? When the people who run it decide it's more in tune with society's needs (and hence society's involvement with the business) to take environmental action. How do we do that? By demanding change on an individual level.
SAIUN: Wikipedia: "Carbon monoxide (CO): a product of incomplete combustion, carbon monoxide reduces the blood's ability to carry oxygen and is dangerous to people with heart disease." CO is bad on it's own, and is the result of imcomplete combustion, and as a result is
actually a small part of exhaust emissions. And with regard to your iceage prevention strategy: so you would substitute a frozen future for a melted one?
A final point for me: assuming global warming does occur and is going to lead to significant climate change in the future, it is going to mean that people of generations to come are going to have a harder time living than we did. Something I read somewhere went something along the lines of "if our ancient ancestors had been able to use more energy than they did, they probably would have". We owe our wellbeing now to the fact that we are stealing it from future generations. Our destructive actions today are precluding our children from enjoying the same standard of living as we did, and I personally cannot justify that. It seems ethically and morally wrong, like I'm freeloading off the back of the future.
Bah, long post. But at least each point is short