I vote its fiction. There was a medieval warming period in the 14th century and it didn't last too long, i'm betting this is just another warming period. check this graph, its kind of shitty but it shows the temp getting higher than going back to normal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I don't really know for sure whether global warming is real or not. Mostly because I haven't read anything to support either side.

But, one thing I do know is that people consume resources and create more pollution more then any other species on the planet. The continued rise in world population is simply unsustainable and will result in our own self-extinction no matter how much we cut back the resources we use. We cannot ever get our consumption level to zero.

So, my solution is quite simple, people need to reduce resource consumption and pollute less, but we also have to focus on educating people on the issues of growing population on a fixed sized planet. Everyone talks about recycle, reduce, and reuse... But, very few governments (if any) are encouraging their population to decrease over time naturally.

Would you rather live on a planet with about 250 Million total people that sustains the planet properly or do you like living on a planet of >6 billion where poverty, strife, and suffering is increasing everywhere? And by the way, population growth isn't really slowing so it will continue to get worse.

Here's the explanation for the CO2 lag:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html

"So, CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, Greenhouse Gas forcing was the largest factor in the ultimate change." 

I'm sorry, but whether you believe in anthropogenic global warming or not, "An inconvenient truth" is not a good way to support your arguements.  That movie was  a waste of time and absolutely unworthy of winning an academy award or sickeningly enough a nobel peace prize.  Al gore is a hypocritical jack ass and I hope he stumbles in his mansion and breaks his neck.

That movie did nothing to enlighten anyone.  Half his facts were wrong and the rest was so inspecific as to be useless.

If those people who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming were willing to actually ahve a discussion, I might have more to say, but since anyone who doesn't follow the party line gets castigated, whats the point.

 You're correct that temperature does fluctuate throughout history since there has been an atmosphere to facilitate it and that there is no evidence that is indeed detrimental. But you are wrong in saying that there is no evidence in saying that it isn't unusual. That is the reason for concern, it's not that it just 'getting warmer', it's that it is doing so at an unusual rate relative to cycles of past.  Looking at this through a macro-scale, we are currently on the warming 'side' of the cycle. During this cycle, there are, of course, micro scales, of which we are currently in a warming period as well(since the 'little ice age'). So to say that this increase in natural is obvious in academia, but so much research is not being done for something that is so necessarily obvious. Sure, you could argue that many of the researchers could care less as long as they recieve funding, but I'd doubt that so many of them would be so shallow with their principles.

In reference to your tie in with politics, I'm sure there are shameless attempts to gain political power as many socialist party members in Canada alone, base their platforms on climate change without portraying hardly any sincereity on the subject. However, I believe while these interests undoubtedly filter into some research, there are still many purists out there who research and display their results with as much academic honesty as anyone should expect. One such person was the man I studied under at MUN. Never once has he said that man was necessarily the cause of this unusual warming, he even left it to us to determine if it were unusual. 

Solution to global warming(plus other ways the Earths getting damaged) = Extinction to 8O% of the Human race.(or more as i mean an extinction like what happened to the dinosaurs.)

Are you volunteering to be part of the 80%?

 We're unwilling to have discussion?!? I must've imagined have the articles I've read for 4 years debating this very issue. Party line?? Please, stop acting like everyone has an agenda to push with this. Simply because some people may, does not mean we all do. I haven't read anything so arrogant in a discussion on this topic in quite some time.

@ nerevar: What are you, Hitler!?!? do you really think they're gonna kill 80% of people??

Which people will get picked first, Poor people and criminals?

Who will be the 20% that survive? The rich and the powerful?

p.s. I know you aren't really considering this, your just saying that this is the only real solution! don't think i took you seriously about your plan.

p.s.s. this is my 400th post.

The problem is that AGW has stopped being a scientific issue and has become a political issue.  Doing that changes the entire way its viewed.  Scientists become less willing to speak out against it because funding IS on the line, as well as reputation and sometimes your position at whatever research institute you belong in.

You talk like we're saying scientists are lying through their teeth.  Thats not it at all, just that those scientists that may have opposing views are just not saying anything, least they lose funding for whatever projects they are pursuing or in extreme cases their reputations are smeared, they're accused of taking money from "big oil" and they lose their jobs (and can't get another one).

Face it, in todays world, say you're doing research on X to discover how its being affected by AGW, and you'll probably get money.  Saying you're doing research to disprove AGW and you'll get nothing, and maybe get fired.