The relationship of amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temp is well established over some 650,000 years. We are adding considerably to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are seeing the expected temperature increase. To continue to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will clearly continue the trend while cutting our input will mitigate the problem. There are many peer reviewed papers that support this hypothesis. In a lot of ways all of this is simple physics. Where is the logical/scientific flaw in that?

As far as logic dictating political policy, where have you been? When has clear logic and science directly led to policy? New Oreleans would have had working levees if that had been the case. So I see your last paragraph as being out of touch with reality.

Now again, let me be clear that adaption is important as well...and often goes along with mitigation. But you seemed to (in your comment) be challenging the consensus model, inpugning the consensus itself and suggesting that global warming in general wasn't happening. I pointed out that your statement about local cooling was in line with many models and your statement about the Antarctic ice sheet growing is out of date. So I was directly addressing what sure seemed like inacuracies in what seemed like a denial arguement.

Many changes are needed. Denying the need for mitigation of our dumb practices and focusing predominantly on adapting seems very short sighted because eventually you will run out of time to adapt. Both are needed.