Daily average temps over the course of a month are supposed to be an indicator of climate change? LOL. Some real science at work there.
Secondly, most people don't disagree there are warming/cooling trends in the climate - like Earth, it is not static.
The debate is over whether or not these causes are MAN MADE, something Nate should be challenged to prove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op…

To paraphrase, no scientific body of national or international standing is of the opinion that the climate change of the last fifty years is *not* man-made, although some organizations hold non-committal positions. There are statements by individual scientists that disagree, however.

I think the burden of proof should be on those who are trying to disprove the theory. Definitively proving a scientific theory is difficult, but if the dissenters are correct it should be comparatively easy to disprove.

The challenge is in response to an idiot who claims we are actually in a cooling trend, so, yes, it's a pretty valid gesture to flush out the stupid.

"The answer is nothing. Better to adapt to it than to flail about trying to change it."
Thank you. If anyone had the sense enough to step back and rationally say 'we are changing laws to try and change the climate' they might start to realize how ridiculous and futile the efforts are.

And with the pollution powerhouses of Russia, India and China, who give a rat's a$$ about it all, good luck with that. But at least they FEEL better about THEMSELVES, which is what it's all about. Mother Nature laughs.

A few years ago the conservative talking points were that there was no such thing as global warming and everyone should just calm down and get a Hummer. They have now amended their language to include the phrase "man made." There may be some debate in the scientific community about the causes of global warming, but the the bottom line is that "conservative" (now there's an ironic word choice) community has never been overly concerned about the thoughts of the scientific community, then or now.

Surprisingly, the O had a very perceptive editorial over the weekend about global warming as it appears in Oregon textbooks. Apparently the textbooks call into question the "greenhouse effect" (which is like calling into question the theory of conductivity) and imply that the developing world are responsible for this mess, if it in fact exists.

Fun fact: different kinds of pollution have different effects on the atmosphere. "Clean" pollution, which is prevalent in first world countries like ours, is the "greenhouse" part of the equation. "Dirty" pollution, which is more of a second and third world problem at the moment, can actually block solar radiation, producing (some scientists say) an opposite effect. So there is certainly room for improvement at home before we decide to wag our finger at the rest of the world.

I'm not wagging our USA finger at them, it is what it is. My point is that the existence of those factors invalidates one nations' attempts to do something.
But science is not a consensus based, well, science.
Guess what put more of your bad pollution into the atmosphere than the out put of every combustible engine since its invention?
One volcanic eruption from Mt St Helens.
Mother Nature laughs at your plans.