Yes, I do accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming. There are a number of things we know for definite: 1. Light from the sun travels to earth. Some of it is absorbed by materials on the earth's surface and they get hot. These hot objects radiate heat back into space. Our atmosphere contains greenhouse gases that prevent some of this heat being lost. Hence the earth and the moon have very different average temperatures. 2. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We've known this since the 1850's when an Irish physicist named John Tyndall examined the properties of atmospheric gases. 3. Human activities (burning fossil fuels, for example) release huge quantities of CO2 into our atmosphere that wouldn't have been present had we not released them. The figure is currently close to 30 billion metric tonnes per year. Although some might dispute this specific number, the figure is definitely in the tens of billions of tonnes. 4. CO2 cannot just vanish. So the global warming theory is simple. If we pump gases into our atmosphere in large quantities, and we know some of those gases are greenhouse gases, and we know all that CO2 doesn't just vanish, then the laws of physics tell us our planet will get warmer. The problem with the skeptic view is that they must explain why, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're pumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere, it is NOT having the warming effect the laws of physics tell us it should. This how science works - you don't just speculate but show the flaw in the theory. Skeptics pick away at graphs or papers or particular analysis methods but never deal with the actual issue they need to address - what is wrong with the laws of physics? They would have us believe that it is coincidence that CO2 levels are rising right when we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. They would have us believe that a natural cause is causing our planet to warm right when we're pumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They'd have us believe that it is coincidence that the naturally occuring CO2 increase and naturally occuring temperature rise just happen to APPEAR exactly like what we'd expect if human activities were causing it. What they haven't shown is a. what are these natural causes and b. how do these natural causes fit the temperature and CO2 concentration data. Or they simply think thousands of scientists are lying to them (why would they lie about something that affects their own wallets? Scientists pay taxes too ...) Finally, in response to previous posters, there is a myth circulating the web that 'global warming has stopped for the last 15 years'. This is nonsense. The planet has warmed by 0.1 degrees in the last 15 years. The last 15 years were amongst the warmest in the last 130 years. What led to this claim was cherry-picking the data - if you isolate a few points close together on a curve they'll look nearly flat, whereas if you take lots of points (ie over a greater period of time) you'll see the actual curve.