Since the end of the last solar peak, the planet has been getting cooler. Since the end of the last ice age, the planet has been getting warmer. You can argue whatever direction you want by picking the dates.

We came to be a society that views science, logic and rational thought as the enemy of progress because we started letting political ideology substitute for science. It seems a political figure (in this case Al Gore) making the claim plus political bodies putting out junk science (in this case the IPCC) is all the "proof" that is needed to close off from discussion the possibility that it isn't happening for people ideologically predisposed to believe in it. I understand this tendency because I've recognized in myself belief in things that I later realized I couldn't prove.

These people are a major political movement in the USA and other parts of the world that sees themselves as having a monopoly on science, reason, logic and rationality, and which believes that their opponents are religious and evil, and therefore, -- quite ironically-- seems to feel that proof, data, argument and science are not necessary. All that seemingly is necessary to this movement is their conviction that this effect is happening. A conviction bolstered by being able to easily point to political propaganda that supports the claim, but that is not scientific. Of course, when one questions the claims made on such sites, the proponents insist that the sites represent "science" and the "deniers" are nobody to question them. (which is argument from authority, and I believe argument from false authority, both logical fallacies.)

This makes actual scientific discussion essentially impossible. Look at your post, you made several claims and did so in the tone of it being obvious that what you say is right and consequently anyone who doesn't agree is being irrational.

Do you think that glaciers, on the balance are receding or advancing? What ever your opinion, why do you believe it? Because you saw an article somewhere? Or have you reviewed the changes in the length of a statistical sample of glaciers? Actually, do you know how many glaciers make a statistical sample? I don't- I'm not trying to trick you. But if you don't know, how can you know if a study that counted that many is valid?

But you're right about one thing. There is money in it. More importantly, control. The politicians want more control, they always do, and cap & trade, CO2 reduction and all these proposals for laws all result in more control. That control is easy to turn into money- just threaten to tighten the screws on whatever industry you want to make a "donation".

Al Gore stands to become a multi-billionaire if cap & trade passes and the business he set up for trading carbon credits turns into a real business. Imagine having a near monopoly on intrinsically worthless contracts that suddenly get a lot of value under government regulation, and of course who can trade them and how is also subject to government regulation.

I have skepticism about global warming, but I haven't seen enough quality data to reach a conclusion. But I am tired, and I am irritated that I've never seen a global warming advocate who could provide quality data either, yet massive numbers of people believe this, based on political ideology and propaganda, near as I can tell.

I'm sure you were sincere in your belief that a higher average means for greater extremes. It kinda sounds like it is a logical conclusion, right? More energy in the system therefore wider variation, right? But it is not scientific, to make the argument requires a hell of a lot more than saying "if you've taken elementary math", which is a mean thing to say if you think about it, right?

How many glaciers makes a statistical sample? Serious question.

Edit: I tried several times to edit this to make it more concise, but failed miserably, alas.