Global Warming: Which side are you on?

The global warming debate seems to be growing increasingly contentious. One side sees very clearly that man is responsible for global climate change and the consequences will be dire if big changes aren't made starting right now. The other side argues that average temperature fluctuations are normal and natural and that the Earth knows how to take care of itself. Which side are you on?

A great deal of the recent evidence seems to point to the fact that the global warming we have experienced recently is a natural result of a solar cycle. It is theorized the sun has a great deal more to do with warming than industrial activities, and the climate's history seems to support that.

I would say the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age and that is why we are not in a ice age any longer.

That's a pretty cogent summation.  There have been some ups-and-downs in temperature ranges since the Ice Age but nothing that was a calamity of the level of the Ice Age.  Interestingly, the periods of warming are periods of relative abundance and good times.  The colder periods are much more difficult because they result in less farmable land and poorer crop yields, plus they require more energy use. 

 The evidence for both a natural fluctuation and human contribution are both valid. That being the case there is no reason why humanity should continue to enhance the reality that the earth is warming. I think the notion that man should live "lightly" on the planet doing as little as possible to pave it over has been lost in greed and a notion that man is the "master" of all he surveys and that "progress" does not need to take into account the effects of desimating the rain forests or pumping untold amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.    

There's a lot to your point of view. I agree that none of should do egregious things that could worsen the climate. My feeling is much too much is being said about carbon dioxide emissions, which may or may not even matter in the overall scheme of things, and much too little is being done about "conventional" waste and pollution. Putting caps on industry, agriculture and development, which stand to injure the least-advantaged of the world's people more than anyone, should be weighed against the potential benefits -- if any -- of limiting CO2 emissions and trying to control climate change. 

 I think it is happening, and that we probably don't have all the answers as to why.  What seems more important, how will the human race respond?  I think the most prudent course is to assume we can't stop the warming, try to predict what effects the climate change will have and spend our resources looking for ways to adapt.  If we predict higher ocean levels and stronger hurricanes, maybe we look to move our populations out of harms way now rather than continually rebuild in foodplains and hurricane allies.  If California winters will be wetter but warmer, forestalling our "natural" summer water storage in snowpack, maybe we should think about ways to capture water in other ways.  By all means, put your homes on stilts, New Orleanians, and keep plywood around to cover your windows, Houstonites, and conserve water with dry landscaping and lo-flow toilets, Sacramentoans - but we need major, long term solutions to the effects of climate change.  Spending our time and energy trying to stop something that may well be unstoppable just doesn't make sense to me.  If the thermometer were swinging the other way, and scientists were of accord that another ice age would be upon us in the next ten years, and who knows for how long, how would we react?

Also, take note that about 33 % of US carbon emissions comes from the burniing of gasoline of cars and light trucks such as minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick up trucks, and jeepneys bed liners). Sad to know that cars with poor gas mileage contribute the most to global warming.