I can't respond to all your "claims", since you don't reference even one of those "million" people, but:

- We have direct temperature measurements going back about 150-200 years, to go further back, we use a huge number of "temperature proxies", not just tree rings, but sedimentation data, ice-core data, pollen data, etc, etc - Geologic time has very little to do with this, we *know* climate has varied in the past, for many reasons and over many timescales, but that in no way "proves" that we are not the cause of the current changes - does the fact that it has rained naturally in the past make it completely impossible for somebody pissing from his roof to piss on your head?

- I don't fully understand what you mean by the "gulf stream" quip, nobody claims we know everything, but I'm pretty sure the scientists know way way more about it than you.

- Measuring the amount of ice in the arctic is not easy, but we have been doing it quite accurately for at least 30 years (turns out the US Military was doing the measuring, but didn't share the data with scientists for a long time) - and we know enough to say that in those 30 years, and particularly in the last few years, the ice has been decreasing in ways that we are quite sure have not ever occured in historical times.

- The most recent data is *not* saying global warming has temporarily halted, that's a canard the "deniers" are spreading (the idea is that repeating a lie often enough makes it appear true). Just this point alone shows you are getting your information from very very biased sources.

And on the idiotic reference to manifold/string theories : if one of those theories had been making predictions for 150-odd years, predictions which turn out to fit the data very very well, and the other side was just shouting "blah blah I can't hear you" all the time, then they would be very much right in telling them to 'shut up'.

When you can come up with a decent, evidence-supported argument, nobody will tell you to shut op, when you come with vague FUD and thoroughly debunked idiocies, shutting up probably should probably be considered the smart option.

Maybe you don't realise, but the price of "gas" is factored in in pretty much everything else you buy... That video game, how do you reckon it's transported to the store? That dinner, how do you think its ingredients are harvested, and possible, with what it is cooked?

Price of oil/gas rises --> price of all manufactured goods & services rises --> cost of living rises... This effect is far, far bigger than the "very small part of your recurring bills" that is you directly buying gas...

Ah, there the answer is pretty simple: Climate is the running average over 30 years. Questioning climate models is probably only reasonable if an inverse trend continues for several decades. In fact, Climate Models *predict* that we should quite regularly expect a 10-year decline in temperature to happen, only it will happen less often than the 10-year temperature increases, and over 30 years and more, the trend is predicted to be upwards.

Which is one of the reasons why the people screaming "negative trends" after the past 10 years of relative stability (note: there has *not* even been a negative trend, average temperatures have plateaud a bit, but at a level that is quite a lot above the long term average for the preceding 30 years).

That "stability" could go on for years more without it actually meaning the predictions are wrong (and before anyone says "how convenient" - I'm sorry you don't like the way science, modelling and statistics work, but that's *your* problem, not reality's)...

The IPCC does *not* fund most climate research, what you are saying is false...

It's like saying the International Astronomical Union "funds" astronomy research... it doesn't, it's an assembly of scientists working around a subject.

The IPCC is an International Panel of Climate Researchers, they take the results of climate research and turn it into general reports on the state of the science.

The funding into Climate Research is provided by countries and other organisations such as the EU.

The IPCC is the result of that research funding, not the cause...

And from your rather idiotic outburst, it's also quite clear that you do not believe reality should influence your political convictions and launch into a tirade which has *nothing* to do with my simple statement that what you claimed is untrue.

So, basically, since the claim that the "IPPC is the primary sponsor of all AGW research" is a *lie*, can we just ignore everything else you say about this subject?

I just bought a second hand portable that can do all that, and I bought it for 150...

Uhm, during a solar eclipse, the moon only blocks the sun in a spot a few tens to a few hundreds of km in size. So he's right, you're wrong...

And for your satellite example, if your satellite is a couple of meters in diameter, all you need to do to "unblock" the star is to move a few meters to the side.