Unfortunately for you, the scientists in your article are not attributing the Mars or Pluto climate change to the sun. Here's more rope: Jupiter is experiencing climate change and Triton is experiencing global warming. But like Mars and Pluto, no planetary scientists are attributing it to the sun.

From your articles
Venus has been hot for a long time. No recent temperature increase is mentioned.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

But as Raytri already mentioned, the ice that is melting is on land (Antarctica is a continent) and the water is running into the ocean. The ice in the south is not in the water, so your analogy is invalid. In the north, the Arctic Ocean is melting and that will not have a major effect on ocean levels.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Then why don't we see hurricanes forming in the north and south Atlantic, where there is plenty of cold air?

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Well for one thing, T-D is (deliberately?) confusing warm *air* with warm *seawater*.

__________________
Man up.

I'll concede (because I am such an honest and gracious person) that ice located on land that melts and runs into the ocean will raise ocean levels. So? So what's the big deal about? You think this is the only time in all of history the ocean level has changed? Are you really this vain? I once again call your attention to maps of the world from 100 million years ago, showing the oceans covering much of what we today call continents.

Speaking of ice, oceans and water, has it ever occurred to anyone (other than me) that the totality of all the water from eternity past to eternity future has never changed? In other words, the total volume of water, whether the water is in the oceans, rivers, lakes, underground, frozen, or in the air, has remained absolutely constant and the same, world without end. The only thing that has changed is the location and nature of the water. I find that very interesting. This is a fact of nature evolution cannot come close to explaining. The total and unchangeable sum of all water could not have begun with a single drop, because if it did, the process that caused that first drop to form would still be in effect and continuing, resulting in an ever expanding volume of water being created, and eventually displacing and covering all the earth. Yet, the fact is the total volume of water on earth is incapable of ever changing (unless for the small amounts astronauts leave in outer space).

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

As you consider global warming, do yourself a favor and watch the Weather Channel (there is a point to this, just keep reading). Try to catch a ten-day forecast. Write down exactly what the prediction is. Ten days from now, see what the weather is. As I'm sure you are already aware, weather and climate prediction are far from an exact science.
Our problem is that we deal with a mixture of repeating conditions and non-repeating conditions. Repeating conditions are things like the eleven-year solar cycle, the Earth's magnetic cycle (the magnetic poles shift back and forth, north to south and vice versa, over time), etc. Non-repeating conditions include meteorite impacts, the aging of the sun (aging does not necessarily mean cooling, mind you; nuclear fusion is a terribly complex process), and mankind's impact.
My opinion is this: the Earth, like most things in nature, is remarkably good at maintaining its present state. The Earth's climate is in a state of equilibrium - this is a "resting" state, or the point of where energy is distributed in the most entropically favorable situation (sorry for the thermodynamics terms). In other words, think of a bowl with a marble in it. The marble will always gravitate towards the bottom of the bowl because that is the most energetically favorable state for it to be in. How do we know this? We know that when the Earth is thrown temporarily out of this resting state, it returns to it. Examples: Ice Age, major meteorite impacts, even major volcanic events. What we need to be careful of is not to shake the Earth so hard that it falls into a different resting state - in the bowl example, knocking the marble out of the bowl. We don't know if there is another even more stable climate state. Odds are, there isn't. But considering that all of our lives are on the line, I don't think that's a chance we should take.
This has gotten far longer than I intended, so I'll wrap it up. Humans have most definitely impacted the environment, but we are certainly not the most serious impact in Earth's history (the meteorite strike 65 million years ago released an amount of energy roughly equal to one million times the largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated (an estimate, of course)). We need to do something, but I highly doubt that we are on a doomsday course that will end humanity.

Don't be bringing truth and common sense into this, cjdrover.......there are Liberals present . Truth and logic offend Liberals who prefer gullibility and knee-jerk emotionalism.

No, warm fuzzies, you are the one's confused. Hurricanes occur when cold air meets warm waters. That happens closer to the equator than in the north for obvious reasons........that pesky ol' sun, ya know ? Well, maybe that's no so obvious to Liberals. Cold air doesn't fit very well with Pope Gore's apistle any more than record ice and snow storms this winter have.

I didn't get to hear all of the Algore show yesterday. Did he explain how variations in solar radiation doesn't affect our temperature? Did he explain why we're not supposed to pay attention to Mars' melting ice caps? Did he explain why the Earth's history of climate cycles prior to human existence needed to be factored out of his sci-fi movie? Being a good, honest Liberal his dupes think he is, I'm sure he meant to. Did they give him enough time? With only 4 hours available, I can see where those details mind just slip his mind .

No. There was no such scientific consensus or confidence in climatology during the 70's. For instance, the National Academy of Sciences reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ciences_report

Worse than 2005? An above normal season was predicted, with a confidence level of 80%, revised down to 75%. Thus, we fell into the other 20-25% of that prediction. Year to year events are more difficult to predict than the overall climate trend.

You do have quite a contempt for science, except such rhetoric can be reversed. Yesterday's flat-Earthers are todays global warming skeptics. It wasn't long ago that there was a significant following in the Flat Earth Society. Some haven't caught up yet.

It's all a vast leftwing conspiracy...

Which genuine scientists? There are so few of them that challenge anthrogenic causation to begin with. That's why it's called "scientific consensus". That term wasn't being used until the overwhelming majority of scientists agreed. Al Gore didn't invent it despite your faith in him.

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

Individual weather events are generally more difficult to predict than an overall long-term climate trend. For instance, we can have a high confidence that the Dallas Mavericks will win a 1st round 7-game series but a lower confidence that they will win an individual game. Similarly, we have little or no confidence in whether or not it will rain on a single day 1 month from now, but perhaps a somewhat higher confidence in whether or not this will be a rainier than usual summer. We might have some degree of confidence in how high the snowpack will be in the Rockies next year but perhaps a much greater degree of confidence in the long-term trend.

Meteor impacts can cause extinction. A rock 10 miles in diameter (a tiny fraction of the Earth's volume) can cause such an event. The balance of life on Earth is a very delicate one. While global warming does not have the immediate impact of a large meteor, there's always the danger of a tipping point as a worst-case scenario. It's probably not too likely, but why push the envelope?

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

Alberto, Helene, Beryl, Isaac, Chris, Debby, Ernesto, Florence, Gordon and one that got away before it got named.

But then there are also Typhoons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pa...Typhoon_Season

and of course pacific hurricanes

The cumulative ACE for the Eastern Pacific this season fell within the official "Near Normal" grading, even though the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes was above the long term average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pa...rricane_season

For background information on averages

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...formation.html