While I do strongly agree with the message I know you're trying to say the actually message doesn't come out that clearly. Personally I think asking people to look up the statstics is lazy. When someone is reading an artical like this they want to have it there, becasue the point of an artical is to show or presuade your point 

^exactly
Scientists produce these "facts" and "evidence" because that's what the government wants them to produce. And if the government's happy with them, they get money. Who in their right mind would say "no" to that at the risk of losing their job and research and basically everything. Much easier to just please people.

And to the OP: Are you refering to the numbers and graphs only pertaining to the last 100 years (actually a bit less) of recorded weather and temperature? When the Earth is billions of years old? Really now, you can't tell me that that is accurate information.
They teach all this BS in school too, which is terrible. OH, and did you know in the 60's and 70's they did the same thing? Only it was global cooling. Not global warming. Seriously, my father showed me the papers he had to do back then.
I think the poster above me sums the rest up nicely for me. Have a good day (:

I liked your article and the message it was trying to say a lot, but it was kind of vague. I just finished doing a researchi project on this topic and I know a lot of statistics and facts that would make this more shocking and urgent. But anyways, this was really good!!! I like how you asked if we would be ready, because I know that not many people are. Awesome article!!!!

AS an avid tree hugger and lover of science, i totally agree with you, but as far as writing you needed to do a few things to be more persuasive.  Try stating more of the opposing facts and then proving why they are irrelevent, (which is easy), maybe compare how they think GW was a hacking prank to how we think the denile was a retaliation by major gas and oil and car companies and the conservative politicians they fund.  Which of those two groups (hackers or major corporations, are more affected by the existence of globabl warming, you decided. 

awesome article! I like the last line of your paragraph: "There will be consequences." I strongly support your view. I like your tone towards the end where you don't say that we'll have a fairy tale ending, but the best we can do is to dampen the effects. To add to the seriousness and tone of this article, you can use more powerful adjectives.

ok well here is something that you should know...(www.middlebury.net)

"We knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance. So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science."

Also, here are some facts relating to your article:

1) The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2) CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

3)Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

4) Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

5)The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

6) Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

7)In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

How's that science for you?