Your theory of time scale deception doesn’t cut it either. You explanation doesn’t cover why there has been warming when man wasn’t producing C02. This also follows your answer about warming in the dark ages. There was nothing of any scale to produce enough CO2 to make the changes. Yet we have proof of cycles, just like we have been experiencing the last 100 years.
Including the 1940′s. You say it was just a decade scale. Ok, it took 40 years for the CO2 to take effect? And CO2 went down for a long time. I can see several years of a delay, but not 40.

Although I am a little suspicious on the whole ‘drill here, drill now’ thing. Cost of transport via large ocean liner is relatively cheap both financially and environmentally if done right, and the largest North American potential fuel deposits are in tar sands and tar shale, which is pricey to process and takes almost as much energy to extract oil from as you get out of the oil. Now if you could find a way to extract it without burning petro-diesel in the trucks and coal to run the processing plants that might work.

And if you wish I will answer your first 4 points

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

Misdirection, real environmentalists know this is a natural warming period, the ‘proof’ is that we are warming faster (slightly at the moment, with no way of knowing how much faster or slower it might get) than we should be.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

Time scale deception. Unless you are a ‘young earther’ which I doubt we have been around for 130,000 years while geological history is somewhere around 4.570 billion years. Further more, since we didn’t didn’t enter industrial scale burning of fossil fuel until the beginning of the industrial revolution and our CO2 contribution was negligible before that it’s an even more deceptive number.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

True, historically CO2 increases traditionally followed from temperature increases. The science indicates there is a positive feedback loop that prolongs the warm period due to the presence of a CO2 rise, not that CO2 is the original cause, as you stated the traditional cause is usually attributed to solar maximums.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

2 points, first that was during a decade scale cooling period. They happen, the climate change we are talking about is centuries long, not the smaller decade scale cycles. Second there is always a lag between stimulus and response when dealing with a system as large and complicated as a planet.

My concern is the impact we have can only grow as we increase consumption of fossil fuel. We have reached the threshold in human existence where we have a measurable impact on global climate. It is only rational to consider that impact when planning for the future. As you implied that doesn’t mean we have to feel obligated to turn back the clock and go back to living in grass huts and riding horses to work, but it does imply that we all need to be aware of the consequences of our choices and minimizing future impact needs to be a priority.

And I think we all secretly wish we were drunken pirates a little. I know I do.

And thank you for the kind words, ay dios mio.

I am not an advocate for dramatic reform, but the level of misinformation surrounding this issue is mind-blowing. I believe in appropriate reform based on rational assessment of our options, but rationality seems all but impossible on this issue since neither side seems to have any interest in honest discussion and are instead just wasting air throwing around absurd hyperbole. I have actively researched this issue and have acquainted my self with the primary research on the issues and believe I have an informed opinion on the problem and the reasonable solutions.

And I curse the ground Al Gore walks on for turning the whole damn thing in to a circus.

There are a number of chemicals in our atmosphere responsible for driving the self-regulating the long term temperature of the planet.

We are having a material impact on that natural regulatory system.

Over all climactic response appears to be an acceleration of the natural warming trend that is in fact supposed to be happening at this point in the cycle.

We do not know if there will be a counter balance that will compensate for this sudden rate increase in warming. Such a counterbalance is very plausible, but there is no precedent to posit its existence or how it works.

These things are not in question. The only points raised by credible members of the scientific community are that there is insufficient for building anything resembling a model of how this is going to pan out.

There is consensus among mainstream science on these points

As for both our governments being corrupt that is a given, but companies and especially large corporations however are amoral (please note I said amoral not immoral). Your example of Jack in the Box is a case of obvious financial pressure to change. Forcing companies to take responsibility for the externalities of their business model can ONLY be done by financial pressure. Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, and even in some cases legal and illegal are irrelevant to a large corporation. If the financial benefit of slaughtering children were sufficient to outweigh the costs and did not threaten its existence from public backlash a large corporate entity would not hesitate to do so. This does not hold for all small corporations and certainly not independently owned businesses, but when dealing with large corps and multinationals it is the responsibility of the people to be as vigilant with them as with their governments. Many companies, as you rightly point out are releasing ‘green’ products due to public demand. About a quarter of them are actually an improvement in sustainability over more traditional products. The rest are taking advantage of the fact that people want to be more environmentally friendly, but have almost no idea what that actually means.

In a democracy (democratic republics too) one role government is supposed to have is being a tool of society to keep order and prevent abuse by fraud. Government in many of our modern democracies is currently being used as a tool to perpetrate fraud, by anyone with enough money to buy the allegiance of the representatives you are electing. Rejecting government as a tool to control corporate fraud simply because your government is corrupt is like ignoring the use of your right hand, because you have a dog gnawing on it.

Kick the bloody dog already.