PLEASE, IN THE NAME OF ALL THINGS HOLY, please stop talking "unreality"
Look at the graph half way down this page.

ok, so the argument is that it is merely a fluctuation opposing the more general trend .
yep , just like that which is occurring in the rest of the solar system and has occurred thousands and millions of years before man was around , let alone the industrial revolution .

90% correct! When ALL the know cycles are taken into account - eg solar output, galactic oscillations etc, there is still warming over and above what we would expect the temperature to be.

SO FAR, the only variable found that can explain the current rise is CO2. There might be something we don't know about, such as some strange loss of expected cloud cover, but, the best and brightest have not found it.

the weight of this co2 variable has not been established .

SO FAR, the only variable found that can explain the current rise is CO2. There might be something we don't know about, such as some strange loss of expected cloud cover, but, the best and brightest have not found it.

Climate and mass human mortality

Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argues that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century.[20] He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years.

He further predicts, the average temperature in temperate regions will increase by as much as 8°C and by up to 5°C in the tropics, leaving much of the world's land uninhabitable and unsuitable for farming, with northerly migrations and new cities created in the Arctic. He predicts much of Europe will become uninhabitable having turned to desert and Britain will become Europe's "life-raft" due to its stable temperature caused by being surrounded by the ocean. He suggests that "we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can".[20]

He partly retreated from this position in a September 2007 address to the World Nuclear Association's Annual Symposium, suggesting that climate change would stabilise and prove survivable, and that the Earth itself is in "no danger" because it would stabilise in a new state. Life, however, might be forced to migrate en masse to remain in habitable climes.[21] In 2008, he became a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, which campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to a sustainable level.[22]

In a March 2010 interview with the Guardian newspaper, he said that democracy might have to be "put on hold" to prevent climate change.[23] He continued:

"The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing...We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's wrong to do it."

James Lovelock

Personally, l'am still up in air

about it.

Imagine 98 medicos from different fields said to you:
"You have gangrene and a 50% chance of dying within a week unless we amputate your foot today or your leg tomorrow."

Now imagine another 2 medicos said to you:
"This does not look like gangrene. Take these antibiotics get some rest and see me in a week."

What do you do? This is not a joke. This is the question you need to answer.

Imagine 98 medicos from different fields said to you:
"You have gangrene and a 50% chance of dying within a week unless we amputate your foot today or your leg tomorrow."

Now imagine another 2 medicos said to you:
"This does not look like gangrene. Take these antibiotics get some rest and see me in a week."

What do you do? This is not a joke. This is the question you need to answer.

BTW, did you notice that global warming is now referred as "climate change"? Any thoughts why?

I dont go along with exact predictions especially because exact predictions are not necessary. I think the science holds up that there will be massive change and that that is all that we need to change our polluting ways. We have no idea how severe it could be - and why should we change because it is highly easily and we owe it to the earth and to our children etc.

And anyone who cant see that cant see that is a dope.

yes i'm anti pollution too.
.....just one tiny problem though a/c , CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT !