Actually leo, it's not quite as simple as that. My area of expertise is quaternary geography and in most of my research while I was in school showed that while many places are experiencing what you are saying, others are experiencing the opposite, or other combinations. Some areas are actually becoming cooler as a result of this phenomenon. As ice melts it adds large amounts of cold water into our ocean currents. Take the Labrador Current for example. It has become both cooler and saltier recently and as a result greatly affected many local climates adjacent to it.

We'll all be living in shelters like the "Night Seekers" from 'I am Legend' in the next 40-50 years, the UV exposure will burn us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

"Currently there are seven national and supranational parties participating in the ITER program: the European Union (EU), India, Japan, People's Republic of China, Russia, South Korea, and the USA.^"

"The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus [JET]. In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec."

"The program is anticipated to last for 30 years — 10 for construction, and 20 of operation — and cost approximately €10 billion (US$14.6 billion), which would make it one of the most expensive modern technoscientific megaprojects. It will be based in Cadarache, France. It is technically ready to start construction and the first plasma operation is expected in 2016."

"Although ITER is expected to produce net power in the form of heat, the generated heat will not be used to generate any electricity."

"There would be no acute danger ... The 12 year half-life of tritium would at least prevent unlimited build-up and long-term contamination without appropriate containment techniques ... most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100."

"Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years."

"Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power all have a relatively low power output per square kilometer compared to ITER's successor DEMO which, at 5000 MW, should have an energy density that exceeds even large fission power plants.^[31] If fusion ever becomes commercially viable, greenhouse gas emissions from electric power generation could be almost completely eliminated, with minimal environmental impact and without long-term nuclear waste issues."

--

All of these have sources listed, within the article.

There is only two actual facts in the overall THEORY: The world is warmer, we're polluting.

Other than this they cannot implicitly prove that the pollution is actually causing the warming, the cause is a mystery and anybody who says they know is either being lied to or stupid.

The theory is on green house gasses but as of yet they can't prove or disprove their affects on larger environments such as the earth.. Given they've never done a large scale test there's a lot of missing information that can be skewed either way.

Fact is the earth has a cycle and a constant change over the years if you believe anything you've read in science, why does it have to be someones fault? Can't it just be the natural cycle? The earths waves move heat and cold around trying to balance itself out who's to say the introduction of that heat to the Northern areas isn't having an effect finally after hundreds of years?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

So that's just every study ever that sees a sharp rise in temperature correlating with CO2 emissions (which we know have increased dramatically starting 1800? But not you? OK.

You're correct that there is a correlation, but how about thestudies that show there is a large lag after temperature rises before CO2 emissions(and CH4, N20, etc.) rise? There is a lot of evidence that temperature is the cause and not the effect of emissions.

Note that in this graph the the x-axis represents time further back form the present.  That is the right side is further in the past. 

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html

god,i get yelled at by Al Gore,now this? Isnt it to late anyway? geez,i say lay back and get a tan

lol here we go again...

I think i made my point in that old thread, and also think that this game won't result in anything and who doesn't believe won't believe and who does will not give up on his views and neither will prove anything.

Best we can do now is discuss ways to stop polluting.

Also i bet 10 vg$ this post will go unnoticed and dissing will continue hardly. More 5$ that i will take part soon... jk

Global warming is a fact... But the people who don't believe it after XXXXXXXXX studies never will so why bother arguing with them?... It's just like trying to tell a Christian that there ain't no god or vise-versa... If u know what i mean...

Global temperatures have been increasing over the past couple of decades, but there has been no evidence demonstrated that this warming is unusual, long term or detrimental. Most of the more alarmist research is based on computer generated models which can be discredited on the data they choose or the methodology without any deeper look into their conclusions; this is similar (in an odd way) to the sub-prime housing crisis, where all the risk management models failed to accuately determine the risk because of bad data fed into them.

"Global Warming" has become the cause of radical socialist groups in an effort to gain political power and (for the most part) they use "Global Warming" as a blanket cause to push forward political ideals that have (historically) been in opposition to the societies that they live in. They're very agressive in their attempts to marginalize anyone who disagrees with them because their underlying values require consensus before action can be taken; if you spend time around what I would term "neo-Environmentalists" you will see how heavily they talk about "tollerance" while at the same time stereotyping, scapegoating, and preaching hate about any group that disagrees with them.

What should be done is simple, the over use of energy resources is a massive global problem for environmental (there are tons of issues besides "global warming"), geo-political, ecconomic and sustainable development reasons. Most of the energy we use is unnecessary and can (easily) be scaled back using modern and emerging technologies. Governments should stop "helping" people by offering rebates on their energy bills because it discourages people from becoming more efficient.