Wow.  

A handful of researchers pooh-pooh anthropogenic forcing as a cause of global warming. One of the most notorious skeptics, Dick Lindzen of MIT, also believes that no scientific study has yet demonstrated a conclusive link between smoking and lung cancer.

What can you say about such nonsense?

What I say..is call it global climate disaster.  that is what we can do about this nonsense.

Increasing hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, rising ocean levels, droughts, crop failure, fires.

Banking and insurance industries under pressure from huge payouts due to weather related disasters, and fedral government expenditures for disaster relief, especially in key electoral states like Florida.

I think global climate disaster is the real terminology that ought to be used.

There are a number of errors in Terms of Enfearment.  The greenhouse effect does not act like a blanket (or a greenhouse), although the end result is similar.  The hockey stick is a climate reconstruction, not a model.  While it has been attacked by GW "skeptics", it is generally accepted by scientists, and has been independantly confirmed.

This whole article is kind of offensive to me.  It seems to just be a set of sophomoric puns about a problem that could very well wink out civilization as we know it.  More so even than, for example, the black plague.  Is this really a subject that's the best choice for witty banter?  Perhaps your next article could be about the practice of lynching in the Southern United States at the turn of the 20th century.  Lots of yuks there....

On an even sterner note, (if that's possible) the author shows of his lack of technical and scientific accumen to even discuss the subject at the level of parody.  I'm am not criticizing the author per se, but I think this is an indication of the level of understanding about this stuff held by our politicians, and how they just don't get it.

So reading this made me sad.  But maybe I'm just being a sour puss and didn't pick up on the subtle sarcasm or whatever.  It wouldn't be the first time.

If you idiots would just quit breathing the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere woule be reduced by millions of tons.

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch).

In 1421 a Chinese Imperial Navy squadron sailed right round the Arctic and found no ice anywhere. At that time there was less of an icecap at the North Pole than there is now, particularly in summer. Yet the polar bears survived. Though there has been much discussion of the supposed threat posed by the warmer Arctic, the polar bears are thriving in the current warm period. Eleven of the thirteen principal known families are prospering as never before.

Middle Ages were warmer than the present, and that there is little cause for alarm at the current melting of Greenland glaciers because they are very likely to have melted to more than their present extent during the mediaeval warm period.

Proponents of the idea that mankind causes global warming are just arrogant and presumptuous to believe that they can have anything more than an insignificantly tiny effect on global climate and the forces of nature. There is no such thing as "greenhouse gas".  CO2 in the air does not make a barrier that holds in heat like the glass of a greenhouse does. There is no "greenhouse effect". There is no "blanket" of CO2 keeping heat in the air. Heat is in a continuous state of flux and equilibrium being absorbed from the sun and radiating to and from the atmosphere and the oceans. Dr. Paal Brekke, official with the European Space Agency, concluded that the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for "steep reductions in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions", is a misguided and ineffectual attempt to control the earth's climate.

Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling.  Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises.  And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2 -induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet.  In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2.  Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2 -induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.