[licker]

Originally Posted by Tifone

...CO2 is just the principal greenhouse gas in the earth atmosphere...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

And as already tried to explain (but with little success I think) greenhouse effect *does* cool down the temperatures when year after year cold fresh air melting on the poles go to interfere and slow down important currents like the the north atlantic one (for diminished salinity of the ocean and counter-currents).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

PS. Also, some temporary cool down is scientifically irrelevant and not contrary to the theory: - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/182921/777

CO2 is NOT the principle GHG, I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that, but Methane and Water vapor dominate it either in concentration or green house activity.

Further the slow down to the gulf stream is not a global effect, and would have little to no effect on the SH where some of the largest cooldowns have been reported. However, I assume you will counter with antarctic melt.

However, if we look at heat as energy rather than temperature (since that is infact the correct way to look at it) if the atmosphere has been trapping more energy we should be able to find that energy somewhere, and lately, we cannot account for it melt or ocean temp increases (remember this is a global phenomena right?) or air temp increases, since the latter is clearly falling.

So we are probably left to agree with the scientist who are showing that the sun is by far the most important player in our climate (not that most people deny this, but some tend to downplay it), and there's really not a hell of a lot we can do to control the sun.

While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, (and here is your link!) the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.(two links here showing the majority, and many others here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49)

Ehh? I wasn't on the wiki at all for that. But you do realize science is not conducted by majority right? The point of that letter was quite clear in stating that the IPCC policy report is a highly flawed and totally politicized report. If you actually read the entire IPCC report you will likely get a different feel for the issue than if you just read the policy summary.

Further the commonly used IPCC report is now 4 years out of date, and the science reviewed in it even further out of date.