We cannot accurately predict our local weather,what chance have we of predicting the complexities of of our own planet's energy exchanges?Face it,at best we are using educated guesses.The trends of the last 50 or 60 yrs mean nothing,since climate changes over thousands of yrs.

It is better to have global warming than cooling because this makes the cooler regions more habitable.Cooling will cause monumental catastrophies of food and energy shortages thus wars and extreme poverty.

Our best estimates tell us that we are not really sure,and our worst estimates are based in pure conjecture.Who would you believe?

Arjay>"The trends of the last 50 or 60 yrs mean nothing,since climate changes over thousands of yrs."

Do you have any idea what an ice core sample is?

There are two points about the whole global warming debate that I would like either the author or a poster to answer:

1. Why is there so much fuss about global warming? As far as I can see peak oil is going to kill that stone dead in the very near future.

2. By how many degrees does the average temperature have to fall for us all to agree that global cooling is a fact?

I'll answer as best I can as a non-scientist.

1. I believe it has something to do with the sheer size of the catastrophy combined with the irreversibility of the problem.

2. Who cares? If there is a scientific basis for those conclusions, scientists will warn idiots about it who will not listen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

I'm with xkcd on this one

http://xkcd.com/164/

Constructive neutrality is the game.

I know that Q&A has used Wikipedia as a reference to climate change but there are others here taking their lead from wicked pedia propaganda. Perhaps you may like to know how one individual engineers the debate at wiki and shapes it to his views. What does this say about AGWers reciting their gospel where any reference at wiki that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to this one individual's bidding? It certainly says something about the freedom of the www but more, .... how Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source on many topics in the world which speaks volumes for its ability to control information regardless of it being a balance coverage. Of course we don't need to go past our own national broadcaster, the ABC, to understand that standards of balanced coverage have no relevance when it comes matters of science.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337