Well, there are certainly both sides to the issue. I personally think that based on objective information (water = stability in temp, more CO2 = more plants and less CO2, etc.) that the earth's temperature merely cycles every so often, and that global warming is not caused by humans. The 'denialosphere' seems to have the better argument.
But yeah, the information is out there if you just look for it.
EDIT: What I meant earlier is that all the global warming proponents seem to have is the temperature data supposedly recorded over the last 200 years, which also supposedly shows a temperature increase. I place more trust in physics than in people, so for me the global cooling argument has far more weight.
EDIT 2: Just noticed that previous post about Venus being hotter than Mercury, as proof of the severe effects of CO2 on the climate. I would like to suggest that Venus may be hotter than Mercury, not because of the CO2, but because Mercury has no atmosphere and is thus unable to retain any heat. Earth, which only has ~15% CO2 in the atmosphere, would very likely be as hot as Venus if it were placed the same distance from the sun.
Well, first of all, the statement "I trust more in physics than in people" seems oddly to ignore that you are receiving your knowledge of physics from, y'know, people. Interestingly enough, this particular interpretation of physics comes almost exclusively, not from something like the jornals of meteorology or climatology, whome I would give a great deal of leeway to, but from people who, if they are trained scientists, are geologists, working for the petrochemical industry.
If I am a scientist, however personally honest, receiving my money from an industry that makes billions of dollars from a practice, you should nonetheless give me a fair hearing when I state that, to the best of our knowledge, that practice is safe. 98% of the scientists not receiving money from that industy say "No - it's not.", then you may want to consider the possibility my viewpoint is biased. If I'm still shouting off about it, and the subject is verifiable outside my field of expertise, then you should definitely consider the possibility that my viewpoint has moved from viased to flat out dishonest.
But unless you happen to be a trained climatologist, then your knowledge of physics, as it is applied to the worldwide climate, is no more advanced than mine is. We're both smart people, but we have to rely on the opinions of people that are trained in the way physics interacts with the world wide climate. Those people are called climatologists.
Climatologist have journals. Their journals show, quite clearly, that the theory of man made global climate change is accepted by such a large majority that the dissent is a matter of statistical irrlevance.
Then we get to rationalization #2: The cyclical nature of the climate shows the earth is cooling - ie - "The cyclical nature of the warming cooling cycle shows we're entering a cooling cycle, therefore global warming in wrong!".
Well, yes, there are issues with the Earths orbit and axial tilt that show we should be entering a cooling cycle. Yet the objective measurements show quite definitively that we are not.
Which means, to me, that we are not only not in a cooling cycle, but that the amount of warming we have induced is overwhelming not only the natural compensation mechanisms, it's overwhelming them despite the active effects of long term mechanisms that would tend to give them extra weight and power.
Yet, for some people, this seems to be interpreted in the same light as "Sure, the thermometer shows the temperature on my floor of the apartment building is 140 degrees and rising, and there may be some smoke. But we know, for a *fact* it is in fact winter outside, which *proves* that the building *can't* be on fire. So, I'm unplugging the fire alarm and going back to bed."