I’m not so convinced you understand what you type there Chachi.

“Every post you make means fewer people believe in AGW”

Ha ha ha.

For humans living on the coast–possibly; for humans that rely on the nortern icesheet–possibly; for humans living in 3rd world economies that are located in flood prone areas–possibly. I could go on but the fact is irrefutable; global warming if true negativly impacts HUMANS!! and a few other animals but the earth will continue to survive and prosper. The past shows that animal life of all kinds prosper in an iceless earth and strugles in an ice age. If I had to chose an end in fire or ice I chose fire. I don’t believe we are in a global warming situation that will be problematic for some people the CO2 levels now are still a far cry away from levles that would undeniably bring about drastic change all you have to do is go back to the caboniferous era when life thrived moreso than at any other time in earths history and you see a lower O2 level with a much higher CO2 level.

“The fact that we are here to discuss this is sufficient proof of this statement” – I assume by “we” you mean homo sapiens. When did “we” appear? Was it a) 4 billion years ago, or b) about 200,000 years ago?

hunter (the insane one) – clearly you didn’t remotely understand the point. No change there, eh? You are too thick to understand that ‘dominated’ doesn’t make any sense in this context. The repeated use of exactly the same meaningless wording here, time and time again, is strongly suggestive of some kind of mental illness. It certainly gives us no evidence of any capacity for learning. That you apparently can’t see any problem gives plenty of information about your own intellectual capabilities.

A hundred years ago my grandmother enjoyed this same beach — we have a picture of her as a young girl sitting just about where I was a few nights ago. According to the scientific data, a hundred years ago the sea level was about 20 cm lower than today. A hundred years ago the bulkhead that protects the houses was a bit lower than it is today and a few yards further to seaward. Perhaps the rise in sea levels caused my ancestors to build a slightly higher bulkhead sometime before I was born. I know that the height of the bulkhead hasn’t changed in the last 50 years because I’ve been around longer than that. Some of the timbers have been replaced but the height of the structure is the same as when I was a small boy. As I sat there sipping my wine, it occurred to me that 50-60 years from now my grandson, now in his fifth year, might be sitting here and, if the AGW crowd is right, the sea level at high tide might be 15, 20 or more cm higher than it is today.

What insurance policy is going to help him finance the building of a higher bulkhead if the current one is overwhelmed by a rising sea? Won’t he need what my grandmother needed — income sufficient to replace obsolete infrastructure? Is the “insurance” provided by the cap & trade scheme now in Congress likely to provide the resources he and his generation will need should the worst of the AGW predictions result?

What they will need to combat the possible threats of global warming is a vibrant, healthy, growing economy and an economic system that celebrates and rewards innovation. Anything we do today that gets in the way of that is a disservice to future generations.