Wow, you're smart.

The Earth's top 5 warmest years since the 1890's:
1. 2005
2. 1998
3. 2002
4. 2003
5. 2006



Source: nasa.gov

Oh, and yeah...
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 2007 to be 'warmest on record'

Dee dee dee...

But I guess if you want to listen to people who are on the payroll of oil companies instead of the vast consensus of the scientific community, then I guess that's your prerogative, too.

Not to rain on your parade...
Why does the chart show temperature increases preceding C02 increases?
Could it be that warmer temperatures cause CO2 to be released from the oceans just as a cold can of soda fizzes when exposed to warmer temperatures?

I cannot say that the chart proves warm temperatures cause an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Nor can I say that the chart proves increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased temperatures.

I can say the two are associated to one another, but that is all I can conclude.

Also, Artic ice is drifting. We all know that floating ice, when melted does not increase water levels because the floating ice displaces an equal amount of volume as would liquid water. As for Antarctic ice... at -40 degrees farenheit I don't see how a couple of degrees in temperature rise could possibly cause melting. I mean even a 10 degree swing would still put the Antarctic Ice at -30 degrees, so I will sleep well tonight.

Many valid points.

My main point is why do people assume that the Earth is supposed to be perfect?? Is it not supposed to change?? Was it meant to stay at a constant temperature??

I agree with you RHS. There is proof that the earth has been an "ice ball" and had seas much higher than we have now. Here is a estimate of sea level rise if the ice sheets melt. The earth itself is perfect in a way, it's just that the life forms on it sometimes aren't compatible with what the planet is doing.
We are dependent on the planet for life, not the other way around.

We got a Hell of a lot of work to do to clean up this mess.

consensus Is Still Politics, Not Science!
people Are Pressured To Not Rock The Boat.

So, let me get this straight....

First you say there is no scientific consensus.

Then I prove you wrong, and show that there IS a scientific consensus.

Then you change your tune and say, wait, a consensus doesn't mean dick, and it's just politics.

Wow, you really are a Republican!!!!

Your proof is very weak. "Consensus" needs to be of qualified people. Fully 90% of the "scientists" who signed a letter that was frequently cited by the Clinton-Gore administration as evidence of scientific consensus on global warming are not qualified to be called experts on the issue. The letter circulated by the environmental group Ozone Action, ofers the names of some 2,600 alleged experts on climate change, only one of whom is, in fact, a climatologist. Among these so called experts on global warming are a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, one hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven linguists, and even one person whose academic background is in traditional Chinese medicine. So much for their consensus.

gmeyers is proof of what happens when you listen to Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh too much. Serious brain damage can occur.

Who cares. Inuit milk is the most toxic in the world. Their diet consists pretty much from whatever they find in the ocean. There are *DEAD SPOTS* in our ocean where nothing lives. The PBC count is insane. There are garbage islands floating around. Toxic clouds emanating from China. Corporations fighting for the right to further damage our environment under "Free trade" laws. These are all facts. Don't believe in global warming? I don't care. I've got enough evidence to show you that we're harming the very thing that sustains us because of ignorance and greed. We have an effect on our environment and it's currently negative. It's not unreasonable to ask that it be positive.