OK so I'm probably getting a little lazy, but I'd like to point out an ongoing debate I've had in Ian's blog in Nation Thailand - a newspaper I've had articles published (one on the front page) in before - regarding the evidence for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. See it here. I point there simply because I've already supplied a large number of relevant links and responded to many of the counter arguments by the: "It's definitely, definitely anthropogenic" crowd.
To summarise my own position, I believe -
1) Some of the temperature increase is down to co2 emitted by human activity but...
2) Most of it is not. The temperature increase due to man will be less than one degree over the next century.
3) The rest is due to various factors, of which I believe the biggest is simply Earth going through a natural cycle following the little ice age.
4) We have to tread very, very carefully with the steps we take to correct this, or we could end up doing more harm than good. It's not as easy as saying: 'reduce carbon emissions'. Where does this leave developing nations? Who will pay for their healthcare and education when we deprive them of one of their few profitable activities?
5) There is a mountain of misinformation, misunderstanding and downright hypocrisy on all sides of the debate.
Also note the list of links I've provided on the side. A good day's reading for anyone.