And good onya for doing so.  And I'm with you in being completely against coercion (taxation) in the name of a (literally) non-existent threat.  Al's got enough money.  Just ask BO ("At some point, you have enough money.")

We can't even figure out what the weather will be tomorrow.

To look ahead and say, we can predict this, and then it doesn't happen as you predicted, makes me question the ability of scientists to look at something today and understand the past from it as well. 

I'm very skeptical.

Gah... I try to avoid the argument all together with...

"Pollution is bad, stop polluting."

Take care of the easy things 1st I guess.

Regardless, go read "Sea Sick" if you really want to see what the impact of pollution is having. It paints a pretty grim scenario with the ecosystem buffers because of stupid human nature.

Basically, we can create enough pollution right now to damage the oceanic eco-systems directly, but the natural buffers temporarily mitigate that. The problem is that the buffers are an accumulating deficit, so when they are breached we are well past the point of no return. Human nature is that we generally do not take action until we notice a problem. (for the economy etc...).  

Omnivore plants live forever.

http://ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/vuositilastot 

The data is in Finnish and from Finland. From this data it's obvious that there is at least local (country level) warming trend in Finland. Extreme weather is also more common now days than it was in my childhood, as a personal observation.

It is often predicted that melting ice caps counter the global warming effect. That might or might not be true; what is true is that Greenland will soon be worthy it's name: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html. 

Doubtful.  As the temperatures have not gone over freezing.  And unless you know of a way for 10th century vikings to farm permafrost, then Greenland got its name legitimately and was warmer during the MWP.  However, if you have a theory on how midevel farmers could farm permafrost (explaining the historical data from both the Vatican and physical evidence left by the former occupants), I think the scientific world would be fascinated to hear how it was done.

There is no hypothesis that describes such a scenario.  Indeed, the worst case scenario of the alarmist is that the ice cap on Greenland and Antarctica (which is actually growing colder over the past few years) would melt completely and raise sea levels by about 60 feet.  However, that hysteria fails to take into account that Greenland is actually bowl shaped, and more likely, if the entire cap melted, would create one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world.

According to folklore, which is believed to be correct, Grænland got it's name as a marketing device. Greenland has been for the past 100.000 years mostly frozen, in fact most of that ice is over 15 million years old.

Jiping Liu's (and METOffice UK's) scenario is quite often referenced when talking about current winter conditions. 

Climate Change by - Baud2Bits   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm9bV5_hEeI

Climate change isn’t all that complicated except for all the political opinions offered as somehow meaningful. Do you really care about the modeling in the face of the data collected? The simple fact is that we are altering the earth’s natural hot/cold cycles and that is undeniable, beyond that it is a flip of the coin. Is our ‘interference’ delaying the inevitable or quickening it? What is taking place now is due to what we did 50-100 years ago, not what we are doing now. That will become apparent much later in this century and because we are on an exponential curve here, the effects will be much worse (its accumulative). Most of what I hear is based on humanities survival which would be greatly inconvenienced by 5-10 degree change in global temperature but survivable but what will stabilize it then? Unfortunately most of the plants and animals on earth aren’t so adaptable which is why ~99.9% has already gone extinct. As a species we are newborns on the geological time scale and our survivability has yet to be determined. But the surest way to fail (IMO) is to ignore the impact on the ecological foundations all life on earth is dependent on … the food chain. The planet will survive and recover because that is nature’s way, but if we want to be here to experience it; well nature doesn’t GAS how intelligent we think we are and will have no problems adding humanity to the long list of species failures. The bottom line is that if we continue to do what we are doing now we will be totally screwed in the not so distant future. Don’t know where the point of no return is but I know we don’t want to get there.

Don't you think that you should determine what the problem is before you start prescribing remedies?  The best way to kill a patient is to prescribe medication that does nothing for the disease.

Except the earth's climate is much more complicated with both positive and negative reinforcing factors that have yet to be identified much less quantified.

Perhaps you should learn about the null hypothesis and the first step in any scientific postulate.

You mean like this? http://policlimate.com/tropical/

or this? http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/tornadoes-close-to-record-low-level/

Or this? http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph-big.png

Or maybe this? http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2013/Hurricane-Atlantic-2013.htm

Or perhaps the fact that only 3 hurricanes  have hit the US in the past 5 years (but 26 hit during the term of one Grover Cleveland, 125 years ago).

I see a lot of changes too.  But I like some of the changes I see.

Since appeal to authority is order of the day, I suppose these guys are all just ignorant rubes.

Everything you pointed out is selective. You're selecting single or specific years in most of your cases and noting specific weather events as opposed to climate. Once you realize that certain cyclical factors like solar activity and el nino are in play maybe you will realize where your thinking process is failing you.

So what exactly are you saying? That your disagreement with carbon taxation leads you to have doubts that 7 billion (and counting) humans could possibly effect changes in climate? The last estimate I saw for co2 emissions from the use of carbon based fossil fuels worldwide was approximately 2.5 million pounds per second.

And if you are truly concerned about ending poverty maybe you should look up the word "drought".

You pointed out US hurricane landfalls for one specific high point and another low. Thats quite specific. Now I could be very specific on the other side of the argument if I wanted too. How about last years midwest drought? What about this years drought in Brazil? Maybe Ill add more specifics like the increased incidents of severe flooding in Venice. Pick today all you want. How many glaciers are melting slower today than 60 years ago? 

You were as narrow-minded as an ant. You looked exclusively at "weather" events as opposed to climate.

Chances are worldwide they have increased. That is generally the trend with higher temps. But then again we all know that climate change mean more droughts for some and more floods for others. Probably even means fewer extremes for other locations. In my locale for example we now increasingly have more precipitation in summer and less in the winter. Substantial differences compared to 40 years ago. The changes are quite noticable. 

It really doesn't matter which side of the fence you live on. We are all subsidizing both sides. And BTW US co2 emissions are currently declining.....Amazing that a "do-nothing" congress can actually get some things done.