There is global warming taking place in the solar system in general. It would be interesting to see how AGW followers are able to spin that bit of science. There are tons of articles on the Internets on this, here's one:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

I do agree that when we leave out ANY factor, as little as it might be, we do not have the exact global picture of what we want to simulate. On the other hand, have you ever tried to code a program that takes into account EVERY little detail? Approximations are part of every calculation a physicist makes, because it would be impossible (or rather, it would take longer than humanly possible) to calculate or simulate anything without making them. So even though we do not have the exact picture, in the end it is as close to it as it can get without taking ages (and by ages I do mean several years) to simulate.

clonmac, I suspect you don't get a response from Dr Guy because sometimes there is no argument that will change a person's mind. The most futile debate possible is between people entrenched in their views. Your argument about the Antartic is hardly an iron clad showstopper. Antarctica ice may or may not be melting. Big deal. If the ice was growing instead of shrinking would you change your mind and be against the AGW movement? I doubt it.

Do you attribute global warming on a solar system scale to be AGW? (Btw, I don't expect a response)

The problem is when scientists manipulate data and suppress peer reviews for whatever reason. Many people formerly on the fence in regards to global warming simply don't trust them anymore. For all I know, we have been in a period of global cooling for the past 5 years but that is being covered up. In fact, the area where I live has cooled down over the past few years and that's empirical. 

DJ - no, the reason I am ignoring him is because he has failed to read or answer the questions and statements I posed to him, and then turned around and tried to play the victim.  I will discuss and debate the issue with any honest person, not a mindless sycophant.  And then not even reading what I wrote twice?  I dont have to beat my head against a wall 3 times to realize that once set, some people will not read anything that does not conform to their religion.

As for the Ice, the studies show that the artic ice cap shrank significantly in 2007, but by 2009 had almost completely recovered (and since the summer of 2010 has not arrived, we dont know if the recovery has continued).  This data is gathered and Maintained by the University of Illinois (the link is in a previous comment, I can repost if you like) who is the acknowledged foremost authority - not on AGW but - on the Artic Polar ice Cap.  No one is denying that the ice cap shrank, and very few are denying it has recovered.  The question is why - and so far, the only hypothesis with traction (since the temperatures did not increase or decrease significantly between 07 and 09) is due to AGW (or CO2) forces - trade winds.

Hehehe, Pachauri seems to become a real burden for the IPCC, so he is gonna be expelled.

Furthermore the IPCC will probably undergo a major restructuring, as I've just read on the website ob the german CNN subsidiary. Especially to keep scientists as authors and industrial interests apart. Don't have the time to find a corresponding link to an english version atm., though.

Figures, doesn't it?

CNN subsidiary - hehe..now there is a reliable source

Ya, I just realized his most recent post he mentioned the Arctic, but every single one of my posts I was talking about the Antarctic and same with most of his previous posts. I got bait and switched without realizing. I should've read that previous one more carefully. At one point we were both talking the Antarctic. Not sure why the previous one he switched to the Arctic.

...

Psy - I quoted both poles (as the earth as 2 poles!), and showed where one had lost ice, and gained it mostly back (the north one).  Then showed where the other one was not losing ice (static).  now I will not argue it has never lost ice, but since we are talking AGW, and since AGW has only been happening (according to the advocates) for the last 30 years, that was the time period that was looked at.  And in that time, there has been no appreciable loss of ice at the South Pole.

I cannot dictate what others argue, only what I do.  And I was arguing both.

I know you argued both and I know the claims of the north recovering a little are valid which is why I never argued that one. I did argue your claim about the south not losing ice. And again, I never argued why that was happening, just that it is happening. So, I'll stick with merely debating whether or not the south is losing ice and ask that if you have studies that show the south is not losing ice (as a whole), then you should produced them as so far you have not (sea levels don't do anything to prove anything). Now that I realize your previous post about the University of Illinois study you mentioned was regarding the North pole, I've yet to see any study that you've provided to claim that it is stable (not losing ice). In fact, if you look at the graph I posted above, it shows the rate at which it is losing ice is increasing which is important to note because it is going beyond the natural receding rate.

Just because Earth is warming (for whatever the reason) doesn't mean there won't be cold climates anywhere. So if you are tired of snow where ever you live, then I may suggest moving south.

Yes, thre is actually some benefits to moderate warming.  It does allow for longer growing seasons, and reduced energy consumption.  And I don't think anyone is claiming that the climate is not changing.  It has been for the last 4.7 billion years.  The main contention seems to be the extent of it (whether it will rise by an alarming 6-10 degrees kelvin or just 1-2 degrees). The alarmists also want us to believe that the introduction of more CO2 shows a direct correlation to rising temperatures, when both historical data and observed data (the temperature has leveled off in the last 10 years, but Co2 emissions have not) shows that they are failing to take into account negative feedback factors.

So make your gardens green!  You wont become a crispy critter!  But it may make your work a little easier.

Haha, ya I thought about that. But, then again if he lives in the southern hemisphere, in most situations he'd have to leave country!