It is what it is, no matter what you call it.

Why? It would take only one scientist to falsify AGW. All we need now is the evidence.

All that stuff in science textbooks has been the consensus of scientists for years. How else are you going to decide what to put in a textbook beside consensus? Just put in your textbook things you would like to believe are true?

The problem seems to be with drivers who were born between 1893 and 1897. If the DMV existed with computerized records in 1960, these people would have been in their sixties and probably still have drivers licenses. Apparently their records are still in the system.

Everything is nothing more than an honor system. You trust the operating system to accept only the password you chose when someone tries to log in to your account. You trust the compiler not to secretly install backdoors into software. You trust the hardware manufacturers not to implement secret knocks to allow backdoor access. You trust your browser to handle SSL certificates appropriately. If you don't like it, you can build your own hardware and software from scratch and feel safe in the knowledge that it's secure. That is, if you trust that you didn't make a mistake.

I don't think they have agreed it's the most cost-effective solution. I think the bottom line is that they agree that the effects of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius are so bad that we should try hard to avert it. We don't have the technology to remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to meet that goal, so the only option is to reduce emissions. Now, if you have a better idea, please speak up!

We don't have any way of storing energy efficiently? Really?

Governments around the world have agreed that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's the plan. If you have a better plan, write to your government and let them know what it is.

We're putting 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. At that rate, every person on Earth would be responsible for creating nearly 5 tons of tree each year to eat up all that carbon dioxide. I don't think there's enough space on land for that, even if everyone could plant trees that fast.

"They" didn't change "it". Global warming means exactly what it sounds like it means: the Earth is getting warmer on average. Climate change means all of the associated changes in the climate that go along with increased temperatures, such as increased drought in areas that are prone to drought. And you're right that global warming doesn't mean that it will get warmer everywhere, because at first some places will become cooler. However, as global warming progresses, it will eventually be hotter on each place on Earth than it was in the early 1900s.

Why would the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica be melting if the earth is cooling?

What predictions would those be? I've seen the temperature rise, the sea levels rise, and ice in the Arctic, the Antarctic, and Greenland melt. Those were all predicted before they occurred.

You're assuming that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will necessarily "hobble the economy". I've never seen a coherent explanation of why that would be the case. Could you explain?

No, the point of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is absolutely not to halt all climate change. We couldn't do such a thing if we tried! The problem is the rate of change of climate. We want to reduce our effect on the climate so it isn't changing as rapidly. If it changes more slowly, we can adapt to the change much more easily.

The whole point of my post was to see all of this horrible misinformation in favor of AGW being spread regularly, and it has uncovered... nothing. I just don't know what the deniers are even ranting about these days. Their arguments are just gibberish.