You rely on these agents to know what you want, and you miss on all the other search results you might have seen, and which sometimes are far more relevant than the one on top.

Had the amount of CO2 risen by 300 ppm since pre-industrial revolution, it would be more than a doubling.

The Earth average CO2 concentration is about 392 ppm at the moment, compared to about 280 ppm pre-industrialization, and it is rising about 2.2% per year over the past decades. It looks like it were about 310 ppm around beginning of the 1960's

Increase in ppm per year:
1960 0.54
1965 1.02
1970 1.06
1975 1.13
1980 1.73
1985 1.25
1990 1.19
1995 1.99
2000 1.62
2005 2.52
2010 2.42
2011 1.88

Source NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) and Wikipedia.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)

I should rephrase it. The Earth as we know it is fucked.

The planet as a whole will survive, but the ecosystem is being upset, and while the climatologists are debating the extend of the change, they are unanimous in their conclusions that change is happening.
Weather is getting more severe, and that is what we'll see more of. For instance, More severe storms, rainfall, drought. Take Spain. Most of the central part of the country, while it has always been hot, is starting to show signs of growing desertification. The direct consequence of climate change, be it rain or drought, is a stressing of out fresh water supplies, as well as loss of fertile land to grow crops, though the greatest threat to supplying the world population right now is not from the climate, but war and population growth.

Only a fool thinks we can upset the atmosphere this much and not get an adverse reaction.

I never claimed I were a scientist, so I have some freedom in the choice of how I phrase my sentences.

The climate change is a fact, the overall temperature of the globe is rising. CO2 content of the globe is rising, though not as fast as it should considering how much we pump out into the atmosphere, so something is retaining it. That is not necessarily a good thing though.
CO2 is a green house gas, and its increase is affecting the heat retention of the atmosphere, ask the developers of the US Air Force heat seeking missiles, they have to take this increase into account when they make their targeting systems I've been told.

So anyone telling you that CO2 is not responsible for the temperature increase of the globe is lying. It may not be the only factor, indeed it is unlikely it is, bit it is not helping us.

If anything he were just a tad under the mark, it is slightly warmer than he predicted if I recall.

No. Scepticism is what happens when a biased news world out for the next scandal cherry pick stolen emails and forget to read them the way scientists do. Vocabulary and terminology used in science is slightly different from what regular people use. so instead of reinterpreting the mails as they saw fit, they should have read them as the scientists who wrote them meant. It is not a legal debate where you can twist words to suit your own agenda.

Hiding the decline and the nature trick were referring to the method of merging old tree ring data to new more accurate temperature measurements. Especially since tree ring data started to deviate dramatically from measured data around the 60's and have gone awry ever since. Historically that data have been proven to be accurate, but I guess pollution and certain now banned chemicals were to blame for the trees to start behaving erratically.
What they do is fading out the tree ring data that is no longer needed as they have better instruments, that was the trick discussed. The decline they are hiding is the decline in that the current tree ring data shows that it is getting colder, while instruments tells them that it is not.

- "I bet the majority still drive a gas powered car (instead of diesel or electric)"

Nope, using public transports.

- "waste and fail to recycle regularly, "

Partially true I'm afraid.

- "leave lights on instead of trying to minimize electrical/gas use. "

If anything I use too little light.

But you have the right point. People rant over wasting resources, yet most here are in the demographic that wastes the most.
One person can't make a difference, but if they join their effort, a billion can.
The problem is that most of that billion don't even acknowledge that something needs to be done and instead make excuses such as "batteries pollute too" or "recycling cost more energy than making new". Some may be partially right, but recycling prevents the waste to end up on a garbage heap, that in itself is a goal.

"I'm a physics guy" is a resounding recommendation, of course I'll believe you over what all the climate scientists who are devoting all their time to the subject have to say.

I've looked at some of the data too, and while there are mistakes made in their prognoses over time, the trend is inescapable. Unless we do something now, the world is truly fucked for the foreseeable future.

Is unpopular decisions that are going to be very expensive. We can't just sit back can cry over the expenses and hope the problem goes away, we can no afford to NOT fix the problems.

Instead we see NIMBY's stopping just about every technology that can help us out, coming up with stupid excuses as to why they are not the ones being idiotic. Sure, some of the tested technologies are not paying themselves back as much as we could have hoped, but they are still better than no action, as even a failed experiment yields useful information.

Instead of building sustainable energy, the ones wanting to build have to waste their time in courts fighting ignorants over conjecture and details such as "will it spoil my view from my bedroom window in the morning".
Instead of building CO2 neutral power, we are decommissioning existing power plants, with the only alternative being coal or gas, which is NOT CO2 neutral. True, some of the decommissioned plants were unsafe, but not all are. But the easily scared population want them gone, just because one have a mishap in Japan after being exposed to forces in excess of five times the expected worst case scenario. People forget the fact that most nuclear power plants are NOT in the risk zones of quakes that bad.

Instead of looking into alternatives. people flatly say no when they hear some buzzwords. That is the damage the "green" movements have done to the efforts to get GREEN energy.

The abuser rarely think they are abusing. Their victims rarely agree.

I don't know, I'd say Scandinavian countries are among those spending the most on the "pointy, shiny bang-bang stuff"...

It is funny though. as they can already pinpoint any cellphone to an accuracy of less than 100m with the technology available from the beginning of cellphones.
And they can do so as soon as it is switched on, they can/and do get the information as soon as you hit dial..

My trusty OLD Nokia 6150 from 1998 to the rescue :P

In some countries there are laws prohibiting the provider from maintaining a perpetual lock.

The idea in Denmark for instance is that they can at most maintain a sim lock for the initial minimum contract period, which can not exceed 6 months for regular cell phones, and I think 1 year for the more expensive smart phones, and then only if you buy them at the providers' discount, after this they have to provide the unlock codes and assist the user in performing the unlock, free of charge.

Some providers here don't even lock the phones any longer, you are after all still legally obligated to maintain and pay for your initial contract period.