1- Hole in the ozone layer predates the industrial age, and it is now getting smaller. Why? Because ozone is the result of UV radiation, so the "hole" is self regulating. How exactly was the ozone layer measured in the pre-industrial age?

2- Melting ice caps: Some are melting others are growing, e.g., Greenland's ice cover has thickened by over 300 feet since WWII. This is a complete fabrication.

3- Stats used for the IPCC report were cherry picked. Once you take readings across the board, the actual increase in temp since the industrial revolution is less than .5º (BFD) Even .5degrees is a big difference.

4- Climate changes are local. While warming trends are reported in some areas (mostly really cold ones, so it ain't such a bad thing) other areas are reporting cooling trends. True, as predicted by all climate models.

5- CO2, much like ozone self regulates. Increases in CO2 result in warmer temps and greater plant growth which lowers temps. Once again based on a faulty assumption on your part.

6- The planet has been warmer at various periods in history. Yes, during the Mesozoic when there was a higher level of CO2.

7- Environmentalists keep predicting the end of the world; it keeps not happening!!
a- Mount St Helens was supposed to cause nuclear winter...
b- Saddam's oil fires were supposed to cause nuclear winter...
c- Mount Pinatubo was supposed to cause nuclear winter... None of these things were predicted by scientists.

What is thoroughly ridiculous, given the impact of the sun's energy on our climate, is the very suggestion that human activity could possibly affect climate in any global way. How is it ridiculous, when all evidence says it is happening?

"How exactly was the ozone layer measured in the pre-industrial age?"
- - Same way rainfall and temperatures have been chronicled. Do you know anything about this subject? [me] Temperature and to a lesser extent rainfall is measured through proxy records. No such records exist for the hole in the ozone layer.

" This is a complete fabrication." [Greenland's ice cover has thickened by over 300 feet since WWII.]
- - You really need to do some research before shooting off your mouth (fingers). Google "The Lost Squadron." Stick with me and you won't always be an uninformed sheep. [me] Glaciers are constantly moving somewhat like rivers with ice adding in the accumulation zones and lost in the ablation zones. To site the burial of an airplane as evidence of net accumulation shows an ignorance of basic glaciology.

"Even .5degrees is a big difference."
- - No it isn't. .5º is insignificant - TOTALLY. BTW, [Alt]186 = º [me] statistically it is.

"True, as predicted by all climate models." [other areas are reporting cooling trends]
- - OK, so what's your beef? [me] hence you can't use that as evidence against global warming

"Once again based on a faulty assumption on your part." [Increases in CO2 result in warmer temps and greater plant growth which lowers temps]
- - How can I argue with logic like that? [me] you can't argue with the fact that co2 is not a limiting factor for plant growth

"Yes, during the Mesozoic when there was a higher level of CO2."
- - Uh huh, and you'll notice that a) mankind was not to blame and b) the planet survived. (Gee, how did they measure CO2 in the Mesozoic period, Rich?) [me] co2 levels can be measured through proxy records, and while the "planet" survived it is questionable whether man would or not

"None of these things were predicted by scientists."
- - They were predicted by the same scientists who are backing IPCC and Kyoto. They're not climatologists, but then neither is the bulk of the GW crowd. [me] Thankfully not only climatologists can see the evidence, otherwise nothing would get done.

"How is it ridiculous, when all evidence says it is happening?"
- - ALL? I'm not sure there's even one drop of "evidence" to suggest that GW is happening. Again, you've answered it yourself by accepting that global temps were higher in the Mosazoic period than now, and that they somehow cooled down and the planet didn't catch fire and explode. [me] Did you even open the link I posted to the Arctic impact study? Have you read Nature or Science in the past 5 years? Any climatology or geology journals? The evidence in peer reviewed science is overwhelming that this is a real issue. The evidence in non-reviewed websites may point against it, I leave you to judge which to believe.

Global climate changes constantly in response to changes in conditions. [True]The thing you don't seem to recognize is that it's not a closed system. [Meaningless] The major influence, by far, is the sun, and the sun's energy output varies. [How so?] There is nothing mankind has the ability to do with current technology that is capable of significantly affecting the earth's climate. [Look at the evidence]