We all know that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, always has and always will (and proven in 2012). We all know that the average global temperature has risen less than 1°F since the 1970's (failed prediction, throwing you a bone UB), which is well within the natural cycle. Coupled with the facts that even a 10°F average increase would facilitate an environment that humans would thrive in and that the proponents of MMGW admit it would take centuries to get there. It brings up an obvious question. Why are we wasting so many valuable resources trying to prove we're causing climate change, rather than spending those resources on developing the technology that would make the argument moot? I'm all for solar powered everything, cars, planes, factories, residences...everything. Until the technology is developed to the point it can replace fossil fuels, we aren't going to stop or even slow down our use of them. Even if we restrict them, worldwide population growth is going to increase our use of them as a species. You can argue, bitch, moan, demonize and tax the use of them all you want, the widespread use of them will continue unabated. You can argue the point, but you're living in a liberal pipe-dream if you actually think otherwise. If we really believe mankind is facilitating its own destruction and we really want to avoid that scenario, not just use it as an opportunity to have something to protest and argue about, then let's direct ALL of those public and private resources to developing the technology that everyone agrees will save us. Think about how much could be diverted to speeding up the advances. The vast amount of money spent on both sides of the argument, rallies, protest placards, banners, website development, t-shirts, conferences, TV time, fuel and transportation costs to said events, legal expenses, MMGW research funding and most importantly, the time that humans are spending. Including every second anyone (myself included) spends on the computer interacting on the subject to every second spent by both sides trying to further their selected position. They could be out doing something with that time that generates money that could be donated, along with all the money not being spent on the above, to entities developing solar technology. Another big one, the vast amount of electricity needed to power the movement and the debate. From the IPad I'm on right now, to the lights in the basement of the science building where Professor Dickcheese posts his inflated predictions (sorry, couldn't resist). All combined, it has to be tens of billions of dollars annually, probably more. But, I guess it's more important to "win" the argument than to solve the puzzle.