"temperatures have risen by about 1.8-2 degrees in the last century. Is that right ?"

No:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:24/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend

The increase is about 0.7C

"Sea-levels have risen by about two inches in the last century. Right ? Wrong ?"

Sea level rose 1.7mm/y during the 20thC:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/jcoastres-d-10-00157-1.pdf

That's about 6.7 inches.

"world temperatures have not risen significantly over the last fifteen years. Is this true or false ?"

True. In fact they have probably fallen.

While the author makes a cogent case backed by credible argument? He seems to miss the most glaring reasons for the bemoaned inactivity?
Namely, the record debt burdened American economy, teetering on the brink of collapse and a new and possibly more disastrous Great Depression?
Almost a gold plated guaranteed event, if Corp raider Romney gets in and proceeds to asset strip and downsize the American economy, with the instrument of an asinine austerity program?
Suppose we were to accept all the postulations and prognostications inherent in the article, and I do?
And proceed with the precautionary principle, which I advocate!
We still need a growing and robustly performing economy to be able to transition towards an endlessly sustainable economy, that actually "serves" all of us, rather than just a privileged few, or just the environment, as inherently important as that is!
What we need now are credible workable solutions, rather than a restating or reworking of the inordinately obvious!
The very best solutions, will be ones that walk out the door and gain universal acceptance, but particularly amongst the poor and or emerging economies; and indeed, create jobs and wealth creation opportunities, as they're rolled out!
One can flog an already seriously overloaded donkey all day, and only ever succeed in driving him to his knees, when what is needed is a lightening of the load and a few tempting carrots!
There are eminently affordable solutions out there, which when rather than if adopted, will quite dramatically reduce the cost of energy and the amount of carbon, we add to the atmosphere!
We just need to remove the ideological blinkers, get smarter and less uncompromising, not LOUDER!?
Rhrosty.

@John Bennett,

<<As for SPQR's assertion that the UN's mission is to extort money from USA: If only USA paid in full the bills it is currently ignoring! >>

Err... tell us Mr Bennett, what does the USA’s *FAIR* share of UN funding come to?

Ahhh, look, as it is not doubt no where to be found on the Greenpeace queue cards you’ve been reading from –I’ll help you out:

“The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget.”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/us-funding-of-the-united-nations-reaches-all-time-high

No wonder they’re disputing the charge!

UN dues must be worked out according to one of those nifty IPCC/AGW percapita formulas

Dear Loudmouth,

Facts are facts, but the question is what you do with them.

For the government and their allies, these facts are not a reason to worry (though that's what they will tell you if you care to believe them), but an opportunity to rejoice:

* temperatures have risen - bring in more taxes.
* Sea-levels have risen - bring in more building regulations.
* world temperatures have risen - fly over to extravagant international conferences (on tax-payer money, burning lots of carbon on the way).
* Australia has experienced many cyclones - make further health & safety regulations.

As for those facts (which Cohenite and others dispute, but I won't go into that, so let's assume for argument's sake are correct), this is just the beginning of enquiry - the next steps are to ask:

* If so, are those events bad?
* If so, are they man-made?
* If so, do humans not deserve those events?
* If so, can humans do anything serious about it?
* If so, would the cost of trying to avert those events not be higher than accepting the facts?

In any case, I used to side with the ecology, I did my best to help the environment without being asked, but now that the government uses it for its own power and glory, I find myself on the opposite side, and the loser is... the environment of course!

Julian, you had no hope at all to try and cover these issues here, this site has been taken over by the same types for people you are referring to in the US.

Note the first poster, he probably has no science training at all, yet he believes that anybody who believes humans are causing the climate to change are ignorant of science. Let's cover that again, most of the world’s scientist are ignorant about science and Jon J isn't proof is in the form of a link to a blog. There is another place you hear comments like that.. Creation science, another right wing attack on reality.

Julian you should turn your focus closer to home and try to understand what has gone wrong with the conservative movement here. The moderates on the right are being drowned out by the tea party types here as well.

Yes, i agree with the sentiment of this article.

All Western democracies, along with all other societies, must do much more to devise a new policy mix that has less to do with more of the same emphasis on economic growth with not enough attention given to environmental implications.

Of course, this is easier said than done, but that is another story.