Mikey, around 1100 years ago Vikings settled in Greenland. They raised crops, herded animals and lived in communities there. Must have been somewhat warmer than it is today.

Not really, Greenland wasn't very hospitable even then. Eric the Red called it "Greenland" to lure settlers there, not because it was actually green. There were very few places on the island where the Norse could actually raise crops and animals. Like your argument, their settlements ultimately failed.

Personally, I'm considering a proposal wherein we forcibly move all the members of that socialist group to Greenland. Given their aversion to oil, I suspect the statements that global warming is a good thing to be showing up in the 'in' basket shortly thereafter.

If there is data showing them using the same private/public ratio as in US cities, despite having a better public transportation infrastructure and higher gasoline cost, then it would "put the hammerlock" on it.

People don't like mass transit largely because it sucks. Is sucks, at least in part, because it is underfunded. It is underfunded, I would imagine, because nobody wants their tax money paying for something they don't use

Let's look at this.
I did a post a while ago, that looked at locational data collected over a period of time, from Europian cell phones.

Turned out, that people there seldom travel very far from home at all, by any means. Apparently that much vaunted highly financed 'public' (taxpayer finded) mass transit system isn't getting used all that much. Which of course would also seem to explain why generaly things are so uncrowded in thta system.

I suggested at the time, that it rather put the hammerlock on the argument that people didn't ride the things because they were under-funded. Their systems are richly funded in the extreme.

Looks from here like, even in Europe, given high fuel prices and Altoids boxes for cars, and thereby given the choice of public transport, or not going anywhere, They prefer going nowhere.

Understandable, but I'm not sure it's a situation we want here.

Michael, is it not supposed to actually get warmer during a period of global warming? It hasn't. The new terminology is climate change.

They're actually different things. Climate change can be caused by Global Warming, but it can just as easily be caused by other things. Global Warming specifically refers to an increase in global temperatures, which I'm pretty sure has been happening.

That happens every seasonal change.

Yeah, scientists are all stupid enough to not think about that. Or maybe it's you that's wrong.

Study a little about solar activity and what happens when there is a lack of sun spots. Then tell me again about global warming. If we continue to experience a downturn in solar activity, you may wish we had more greenhouse gases to offset the cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
If you look, you'll notice that the correlation breaks down in the second half of the 20th century, and that even though solar activity has decreased slightly been holding steady, temperatures are increasing exponentially. You'll notice that from there, temperature correlates with CO2 concentration. It's this break in correlation to things known to naturally effect temperatures before the industrial revolution that gives rise to the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

I wonder if this same group will write up something telling us the bright side to global warming? I thought not.

Probably not the same group, but there has been no lack of others who write about the benefits of global warming.

Slightly more people may be taking mass transit. Of course, since people obviously prefer to drive, the collective benefits this provides are offset by individual unhappiness.

People don't like mass transit largely because it sucks. Is sucks, at least in part, because it is underfunded. It is underfunded, I would imagine, because nobody wants their tax money paying for something they don't use.

We’re switching to biofuels. And thereby raising food prices dramatically, which has been devastating for the world’s poor.

There's more to global food shortages than biofuels. Rice and wheat fields in Asia have not been as productive as in the past, combined with an increase in local demand taking more of what is produced off the global market. Bio-ethanol is just one of several factors that are combining right now to cause global food shortages. Absent those other factors, we wouldn't have the problem we have now.

Ask the worker who just lost a job what they think of $4 gas. Ask a housewife who is paying more at the market what she thinks of $4 gas. Ask a lumber yard owner what he thinks of nearly $5 diesel for his trucks.

I wonder if this same group will write up something telling us the bright side to global warming? I thought not.