Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

but the key question is

is the carbon and methane theory the only possible cause or could there be other causes as yet undiscovered

Climatologists have explored other causes, principally variations in solar output and natural variability in climate (things like micro-Malinkovitch Cycles etc.).  There is some discussion about solar output here and there, but the "consensus" seems to be that isn't enough of a factor.  One rather interesting, but not widely accepted concept, is that "we" are headed into a cooling period that is being offset by warming due to CO2.  I have no opinion on that one except that it isn't widely accepted.

It's science. Very few things are ever "the only possible cause", but the job of science is to try to best understand the world and determine what the most probable causes are based on evidence, experimentation, logic, and study.

Is there another possible theory? Of course. Give me a 12-pack and I'll spin out a couple dozen possible theories.

Right now, greenhouse gas theory that best explains what we see, and the more we study, the more that its predictions seem to be being fulfilled.

But I'm sure if you are in the position where you don't want to accept that, you can pin your hopes on it being something else "as yet undiscovered."

Please flick that chip off your shoulder

Yes Im skeptical that 120 ppm is causing the majority of CC but I have no hopes one way or another

bottom line no one has proven that man made co2 and methane causes CC only that it appears to be the case

when science proves it then Im on board

That's not really how it works.

"Science" is merely the most likely explanation based on the available evidence.  If you're waiting for more evidence, that's fine, but unlikely to happen anytime soon...which makes it a convenient holding pattern opportunity.
.
One fact that is evident is not that the planet doesn't ebb and flow temperature-wise, it's that since humanity started making it's contribution to the skies, the rate of temp change is unnaturally fast.  Nature adapts slowly and we're hitting the fast-forward button.
.
There's nothing wrong with waiting for more evidence, but only if it's done in good faith.  And just to be frank, longhorn, anytime you mention skepticism, I'm skeptical of you.

oh well its a heavy burden but Ill just have to try to go on living

do you have any idea just how small 120 ppm is

its like adding 1 oz to 78 gallons and expecting that to make a difference

so yes until some kind of proof comes along Ill just remain skeptical

bottom line no one has proven that man made co2 and methane causes CC only that it appears to be the case

when science proves it then Im on board

"Proof" is an interesting word in science. It's mostly used when you can run experiments in closed systems, removing as many extraneous variables as possible, in order to isolate an effect that you're looking to demonstrate. 

We *know* that "greenhouse gases" trap infrared energy. That is 100% proven in closed system experiments. 

However the Earth is not a closed system. We can't run an experiment with 50 identical Earths where we emit different amounts of CO2/methane and watch the results. We only have the one. It's a complex system. We can't easily remove extraneous variables. So "proof" is basically off the table. 

What we can do is observe, and try to build the model of what happens to the output with certain inputs, and then what we can do is predict what will happen if we keep adding those same inputs. Right now, what we're seeing is that the predictions are matching the model. 

So you'll never have 100% proof. The question is what level of confidence you need to have to make behavioral changes. 90%? 95%? 99%?

Well you sure can't argue science against feelings.

"Proof" is an interesting word in science. It's mostly used when you can run experiments in closed systems, removing as many extraneous variables as possible, in order to isolate an effect that you're looking to demonstrate.

We *know* that "greenhouse gases" trap infrared energy. That is 100% proven in closed system experiments.

However the Earth is not a closed system. We can't run an experiment with 50 identical Earths where we emit different amounts of CO2/methane and watch the results. We only have the one. It's a complex system. We can't easily remove extraneous variables. So "proof" is basically off the table.

What we can do is observe, and try to build the model of what happens to the output with certain inputs, and then what we can do is predict what will happen if we keep adding those same inputs. Right now, what we're seeing is that the predictions are matching the model.

So you'll never have 100% proof. The question is what level of confidence you need to have to make behavioral changes. 90%? 95%? 99%?

Has anyone even tried to do this with a manufactured earth like atmosphere?

So you'll never have 100% proof. The question is what level of confidence you need to have to make behavioral changes. 90%? 95%? 99%?

This.
.
"Proof" is simply enough evidence to convince enough scientists to come to a consensus conclusion based on existing evidence.
If no amount of evidence is "enough" for you, then longhorn can claim skepticism while simply covering his eyes and ears to the general consensus.
But we know what it actually is.