Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity.

I don't see how those two statements are linked.

#1. Global temperatures have varied greatly in the past.

#2. Global temperatures are unrelated to human activity.

"The climate of the past has varied under natural conditions without the influence of humans," Berner said.

True. But that does not mean that humans are not influencing the climate. After all, species went extinct before humans arrived. That does not mean that humans have not extinct'ed species since we've been here.

Berner also declared that an extensive analysis of carbon dioxide (C02) concentrations in the ice core of Greenland showed that elevated C02 in the atmosphere does not necessarily lead to temperature increases.

"There are numerous temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration," Berner explained.

So, because CO2 is not the ONLY thing that affects temp, it is not a concern when predicting temps?

"Carbon Dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added.

Yes. If humans all died this week, we'd still have another ice age and such. Eventually. Again, because the effect has happened WITHOUT human influence does NOT mean that human interference has no effect.

Singer agreed, stating, "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940. This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small."

Okay, finally some "science".

Singer pointed to the sun as a major culprit in climate change. "The sun is responsible for most, and perhaps all of the short-term climate changes we observe," he said.

And the death of such "science". Yes, the sun is responsible for climate changes on a daily basis.

The question is....

If all other factors remain constant (sun, moon, no meteor strikes or cataclysmic volcanos or such), will the emission of "green house gasses" cause the climate to change?

And I fail to see any mention of the "ozone hole" that is verifiably present.

The Kyoto agreements concentrate on CO2 emmisions which by the icecores in greenland according to the article do not affect the heat index.

But the stuff that I've read says that they do affect the climate. Just that they aren't the ONLY thing affecting the climate.

Example, the sun goes through a cool phase. No matter HOW MUCH of what gas you have in the atmosphere, the Earth will cool.

Example, the sun goes through a hot phase. No matter HOW LITTLE of what gas you have in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm.

Which gets back to my point with the ozone hole. We are, verifiably, altering the environment.

What we need to do is to skip the "it's gotten warmer in the past and we weren't doing anything" bullshit and focus on what the effects of the gasses are.

This isn't easy. The world is a very complex system.