For anyone interested in the actual physics of this and not just the politics (1% of 1% of you...) The idea that CO2 traps heat is scientifically sound and proven. Ultraviolet radiation that our planet's magnetic field isn't capable of blocking (nor CO2) strikes our planet, which then acts as a black body and re-radiates that energy in the infrared frequency, which is then blocked by that CO2. Other greenhouse gasses have other effects, and we've observed human-caused climate change because of this. For instance, back when the US was big on burning coal, sulfur emissions were a huge problem. Acid rain would destroy life for miles around the plants. After the clean air act went into effect, these emissions were drastically reduced. In a somewhat ironic twist, this actually made things worse in some ways. While the acid rain ceased, the fact that sulfur clouds reflect ultraviolet radiation wasn't taken into account, and the radiation the sulfur clouds were sending back into space now struck the planet, was re-radiated in the infrared spectrum, and captured by CO2, thus increasing global heating. This same effect can be seen in areas following volcanic eruptions, in which the sulfur released acts in the same way sulfur released from coal plants do. There are some who have even suggested that minor ice ages in our past can be attributed to this phenom. [b][i]That being said...[/b][/i] There have been instances as of late that show the correlation between increased CO2 emissions and increased global temperature is breaking. Rather than assume that the model of CO2 trapping heat is wrong (ie assuming physics is wrong) it would seem more reasonable to assume that there may be another factor at play. The video I've linked presents the argument that the weakening of our planet's magnetic field (and a lower energy output from the sun) may be the factor we are looking for, and a factor that is being unjustly disregarded by the scientific community. Unfortunately, due to the politicizing of the climate debate, it may be impossible to have a dialogue about this in the scientific community, as you'll be ostracized as a "global warming denier" just for suggesting that other factors may be at play. I don't necessarily agree with everything this guy says, and I think his conspiracy conclusions (which fortunately aren't really in this video) aren't well-founded (I think you can explain it much more easily as a result of science being politicized than as the result of a global conspiracy to guilt you into submission). That said, after watching him for a few months, I can say that his research is meticulous and honest, and I truly think this is a factor that should be discussed more. If you're interested at all in this debate, I would suggest watching this video.