Huh?  It sure hasn't around here.  Where are you getting this information? 

Even though our oil supplies are finite, we definitely won't be running out in 5 years. 

Obviously you haven't attended many science courses, then.  The environment is designed to sustain certain levels of greenhouse gasses and, like a liver being destroyed by an alcoholic, it can only soak up so much so fast, leaving the rest to deal damage until it can catch up with the "backstock." 

The carbon cycle is rather delicate, and relies on the ability of the oceans and soil to absorb carbon, and both of those reserves can only hold so much carbon before it become an issue.  We cannot force much more carbon into the oceans because it has an open exchange with the atmosphere.  Carbon can move rather freely between the two.  Plus, we'd probably kill sealife it we tried.  We can stick it in the ground, but if it's stored there it'll espace in any sort of natural disaster and if it's used in soil enriching projects (which actually help the environment twice over, and should be supported more heavily) then you can only use so much before the soil becomes saturated and will hold no more.

The Earth can process X amount of carbon, when we make Y more carbon enter the atmosphere than the Earth can process, Y more carbon stays in the air until the Earth can catch up to that amount.  It just keep building up on us, because we have knocked things out of balance and not given nature enough time to catch up.  And environmental scientists have already stated that even if we cut pollution to practically 0 today we may not feel the full effects of what we have done up through today for another 50 years.

Think about that.  Not only are we dealing with a precise, even sensitive, piece of machinary we don't fully understand (out planet), but the reprecussions of our misdeeds will almost certainly not be brought upon our heads but the heads of our grandchildren.

Regardless of whether or not the danger is as severe as THE PENTAGON says, when it takes 50 years to get results I'd say you're better off safe than extinct.

There is a goddamned concensus on the matter.  Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar, and anyone who rejects the idea outright is worse.  Global Warming IS real and we DO have to fight it. 

You really need to examine your own sources.

First of all you sited 4 government sources with this line:

"If you google the topic you are going to get a bunch of websites that claim what you are saying... they are lying or wrong. This is the UN, the IPCC, the US government, and PNAS (the official science Journal of the UN)."

So the UN (political body), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...a committee that is part of a political body) , US government (political body), and PNAS(the science journal of a political body) all have no political agenda then? Truthfully your entire post boiled down to claiming I was wrong and provided nothing in the way of an argument but instead providing links to a bunch of sites with political ties..ironically the numbers I cited are built from numbers aspoused by groups like the ones you cited.

As for the signatories on the Kyoto Protocol, the reason those developing nations are signing up is because the Kyoto protocol is built as a global socialist program. The developing nations without huge emissions are able to sell their carbon credits to large nations like the US who would have to purchase them to avoid massive fines. In short its a huge boon for those countries not a hinderence.

You and others who support actions against global warming, have to understand that when people say

"Global warming is a myth!" ,

they shouldn't be taken literally, because what they're trying to express is that there is an agenda exaggerating the size and the risks with man-made global warming.

So, let's agree that there is a strong concensus that man-made global warming is a fact.

But then what? How big of a factor is the man-made part of the green house gas effect compared to natural reasons? Is there concensus on that? No.

And if and when there is concensus on how much man is contributing to the global warming trend we have, then what?

What are the consequences of the warming on the planet and on us? How many degrees will the global average temperature rise in 10, 30 and 50 years? How many meters will the ocean level rise, and in what time, and what will the consequences of that be on the US, the EU, the rest of the rich world, and the developing countries?

You don't have an idea, do you? No one has, and there are no facts about that, and certainly no concensus. But you have tons of all sorts of people almost hysterically crying "Global warming is a threat to mankind! We must act now! We aren't doing enough!" as if they had facts.

Stop this madness.

There are no 'facts' but there is general concensus that 1. The climate is changing, 2. That mankind is significantly adding to this climate change, 3. That said climate change is going to cause an increase in natural disasters and significant economic damage.

With those three things in mind, shouldn't we be doing what we can to stop it? I'm not claiming that climate change is going to cause a mass extinction (though it seems humans are keen on doing that through other means) but rather that its easier to spend billions of dollars on greenhouse gas reduction now than the trillions of dollars in the future, not to mention the cost in human lives.