Ah yes, Steven Milloy... wasn't he the one that got funding start by the tobacco industry? The rate of increase is the highest seen in 650,00 years and dramatically so. It is incredibly naive to think that this has little or no atmospheric influence. Scientists are by nature skeptical and should be. But as more data accumulates, more scientists are connecting the dots. It's good to question the data, to poke at it from all sides. That examination makes people think and gets us closer to the truth. However, Steven Milloy has not contributed much worthwhile to this dialog. The rapidity of increase of greenhouse gases overlaid and correltated with the corresponding rapid ice melt is a bit more than a geological coincidence. Denial isn't going to get us anywhere, but it will waste time in preparing for the economic and social consequences. A lot of what is being preported to be the final word just isn't. Junkscience.com is no authority and has plenty of errors. How about being skeptical there too? At http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Model_Request.htm they ask "if anyone has managed to recreate say, Earth's global mean temperature track for the period 1880-2000 (we'd accept 1880-1979 or some reasonable facsimile) as GCM output". Oh really? Well if interested, you can try reading the TAR. Figure 12.7c: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127 has a nice picture (it even goes back to 1860), for example, and refers you to the appropriate papers. If one is going to be skeptical, one might start by asking - Who is funding junkscience.com? Read: http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm (among many other) discrediting the idiot at junkscience.com. Milloy's junkscience is aptly named. That's just what it is. There may be a few good facts mingled in there, but that doesn't make the bulk of his spew true.