bullshit.

From extreme drought, heat waves and floods to unprecedented tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, wildfires and winter storms, a record 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each caused $1 billion or more in damages — and most regrettably, loss of human lives and property

http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/

You are quite mistaken on cause and effect.

Actually, the theory of greenhouse gases was understood over 100 years ago, and scientists like Arrhenius made some early predictions that increased CO2 could increase the climate. This was long before we were able to measure a significant increase in global temperature.

If you have an explanation for why increased CO2 would not have a greenhouse effect, please submit your results to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.

Are you deniers still trying to push that "Greenland was green" nonsense?

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

Get a clue!

yes - a solar based year that is actually solar based!

Here in Wisconsin we used to be represented by Senator Feingold, one of the poorest senators. He came pretty close. But he was defeated by a TP dude.

an increasingly dense atmosphere of turtles, to be precise.

Agreed. This comment:

If the government were not in a position to grant special favors to companies because it is regulating everything in sight, then business would have no use buying off politicians.

cuts two ways: businesses would not need to buy off politicians because they would control us directly.

Yes, its clear that you don't understand what the climate scientists have been predicting. They are NOT predicting a strictly monotonic increase in sea levels over small time frames. They ARE predicting a long term trend.

Apparently the paper has not been published yet. So we'll have to see.

FTBBCA

Prof Phil Jones, the CRU scientist who came in for the most personal criticism during "Climategate", was cautious about interpreting the Berkeley results because they have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published," he said.

Following your metaphor, The first priority is for the pilot to safely land the plan. Meanwhile, you'd probably want every single plane of the same model to be inspected before flying.

If there is 20 years of solid evidence that your fuel is making the engine explode, you'd be pretty stupid to keep using that fuel.