Ah, sharing the science of your gut feelings is it? Very rigorous. Your gut doesn't beat scientific models which make predictions which have so far agreed with the data (and are also tested by making sure they can predict past changes in the climate too). http://arstechnica.com/science... http://arstechnica.com/science...
" Oh by the way, more CO2, more for plants to breath, better crops."
This is hopelessly naive. Yes, crops can photosynthesise more, but there are other implications on crops and the environment more generally. Specifically, nutrient levels are reduced in tests:
"Effects on human nutrition are likely as well. In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5â"14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008). Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008)."
so it's a mixed picture. But that isn't the real issue with crops. Some regions may have gains in production, but a larger share will lose production: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... pg 488
A major issue for crops is that an increasing frequency of droughts etc is having and will have an increasingly major impact on food supplies:
and those areas affected by droughts will be hit even more (particularly Africa) http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... . Of course, this is still one narrow area of the impacts from climate change.
"We WANT the greenhouse effect."
The greenhouse effect is the warming that follows an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. You managed to balls that up and confuse it with the increase in CO2.
"Dr Schnieider was warning of the dangers of global cooling" He wrote a paper speculating that the effects of aerosols would be greater than that of global warming. His was a minority view and he was wrong.
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
Firstly, Ehrlich is a biologist, not a climatologist. Secondly, he was talking about overpopulation, not climate change.
"Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000"
But that's a prediction about the future, not now. Global warming wasn't reverse by the year 2000 and Bangladesh in particular is going to face a lot of difficultly this century.
"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration,
"let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore" Al Gore is a politician. A politician is only as reliable as the information he gets and has no particular expertise. "The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly" Nope http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... There is a lot of variability, but the trends are pretty apparent and the lowest extent was in 2012.
Here the Washington post have a visual of the same thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... . Again there is variability but the trends are pretty obvious. Nothing to justify saying it would be clear (as far as I can see) by 2013, but the trend is still there.
Edit: Same post but with the formatting fixed.
Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde