Define "natural side". Propose a theory and test it. The false theory can be proved false. Keep adjusting the theory until it cannot be proved false. But you have to propose a theory, either the established mainstream theory or an alternative. You can't just say "natural side" like that is an explanation of something. Specify.

Theory: the observed warming is due to increased irradiance of the sun.

Testable hypothesis: satellite measurements of solar energy will show an increase.

Result: false. Hypothesis is not supported. (Theory is incorrect. It is either flat-out wrong or needs an explanation.)

Theory: the observed warming is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect

Testable hypothesis: the stratosphere should be cooling as the troposphere warms

Result: True. Hypothesis is supported. (Theory is not proved, but not proved wrong.)

Theory: increased CO2 leads to enhanced greenhouse effect which leads to warming of the environment.

Testable Hypothesis: Troposphere temperature will continue to increase as atmospheric CO2 increases.

Result: happening long-term, but tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened over past 15 years. Hypothesis is not supported.

Revised Theory: Prevalence of La Nina pattern over the past 15 years has caused ocean to take more heat from the troposphere.

New Hypothesis: Ocean temperatures below 700 feet is increasing. Hypothesis is supported.

Revises Theory: Particulate pollution is increasing and causing global dimming.

Hypothesis: Ok, here I don't know off-hand what research has been done, but the idea is to construct hypotheses that can be tested and either supported or show a need to further adjust the theory.

Where we are at now is that the atmosphere is definitely warming and human causes both fit projections and have not been eliminated by testing, meanwhile no theory of natural causes has been developed that can explain the warming. There might yet be some yet unknown natural forcing that is contributing to the warming but so far none is known.

All this comes back to my initial request for you to define your theory of "natural side". Whatever nature forcing you are referring to it has likely been tested.

Baccheus gives the best explanation by far, but you can also see how failing to grasp the fundamentals of the scientific method presents issues in resolving the conflict between the natural side and the human side. The most obvious issue seems to be grasping pre-science concepts; that local does not mean global and, on a little more complex scale, cause and effect. Even here in the answers to these questions you can see how failing to understand these most simple concepts leads to conclusions that are ludicrously illogical and completely subjective, presented as fact. For the simplest and most straightforward example, some people point at the recent rise in CO2 levels and what is called the 'statistical insignificance' of average global temperature increases, failing to take into account 1) natural variances and 2) that increases do not occur immediately or globally, that regional weather takes time to reach equilibrium after the inputs.

So Baccheus gives you the important information about how hypothesis works, and I look at the 'conflict' in terms of human behavior and how failure to grasp basic concepts of the scientific method helps lead to conflicts in society as a whole. Definitely an interesting course of study regardless of the narrative...society vs. science has a long history. For a further look at human behavior in a very interesting and similar vein, read Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' and see how mobs develop as people react to fearful situations. There are similarities to the issue of climate change.

In order to establish if Climate Change is a threat or a boon you will scientifically have to define it first in a scientific or legal manner. To my knowledge, that hasn't been done. In other words, for the environmentally handicapped, honest scientists could sit down at a table and describe a set of circumstances and determine that is was Climate Change or not based on that definition.

Lately, the greenies have scared us with AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). It sounds impressive, doesn't it? However, just think about it.

Bikash says, "Day by day,the climate is changing due to global warming and greenhouse effect." And that is the common thinking of many students of the subject. But then these same people point toward weather conditions to back up their claims. Like Al Gore claimed that the latest hurricane was due to Global Warming. Like they never had hurricanes before the industrial revolution? It just doesn't make any scientific sense.

Now in order to have true AGCC you would have to have a GLOBAL climate change, not just a local. And can you point to any of that? No. Case in point, I was born in the Eastern part of South Dakota, pre WWII. There has been no substantial change in weather patterns or climate in all those years. Yes, they have had their wet years and their dry years but that was going on when Sitting Bull roamed the area and even before. I can speak for several other areas,also, but I hope you can get my point. In order for there to be GCC the climate would have to change over the whole earth and stay that way for thirty years, and that is just not happening.

The Climate Change you have been taught at school is nothing more than a bogyman. Its figure is by design shadowy. That is because, once you are convinced there is a bogyman, anyone can scare you with a bogyman. That bogyman may be a shadow of a tree, or a goat's bleat, or even a hermit living under a bridge. It could be anything. And once you are scared of something irrational, chances are, you will act irrational.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ― and hence clamorous to be led to safety ― by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

The reason you can't get your head around the scientific method is that Climate Change, just like a bogyman, has no tangible features.

The scientific method hasn't been used much lately for climate change studies. Just a lot of regurgitated data analysis.

IF man change the climate (NATURE) then all life on and in earth would die. NO LIFE. Mike

The scientific method use to be based on the "runaway warming effect" of CO2 warming. This is based on the hysteria of the science. True scientists understand that this can't happen. CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas", but it doesn't create a "runaway effect". This is where the debate is now (i.e. How much warming does the extra CO2 emitted by humans cause?).

There's plenty of evidence to show both sides of the answer to my question in quotes (). I base my thoughts on Bryce Johnson's take on it. Read here if you want to :

http://climateclash.com/the-limits-of-ca...

---------------------------------------...

"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat...

---------------------------------------...

I also base my findings on the size of humans and the possibility of us effecting the planet. It takes a bit of conceptualizing (fathoming) the idea, but it is my belief that human existence is miniscule. Sizing it up, I see that humans are very small here (6 cubic feet per person x 7 billion people = 42 billion cubic feet of people. A cubic mile = 5280x5280x5280 which equals 147.197952 billion cubic feet) and have very little effect on the planet. Our best asset is our communication system. It's easy to transmit to each other.

If you want to figure how much available living space around the whole planet, then 4(pi)R(squared) will give you the surface area of the planet (remember that there are undulations (mountains and hills along with valleys). All you have to do is find out the radius. I'm thinking that 4 miles high is the available living space for people so you'll have to multiply your answer by 4.

It's OK to bring in new information, but you have to know that there are aggressive scientists who have a belief and there are a couple of them here at Y/A. Enjoy!

---------------------------------------...

Just another note : "CO2 is not a poison, but is a vital part of all living things!"

Day by day,the climate is changing due to global warming and greenhouse effect.The main scientific method is only the plantation.

If the scientific method would have been employed by the rent seeking alarmists climate scientists, we wouldn't have wasted hundreds of billions on this scam.

Have you seen these?

The Great Global Warming Swindle