I couldn't agree more with what Gideon is saying (with the exception of his interpretation of the graph he provided us). The dead giveaway in Borg's report is the emphasis given to economic ramifications. Not only is half the report dedicated strictly to economic concerns but these concerns are expressed FIRST as if they were more important than the possibility that we may be rapidly killing the entire planet with our irresponsible use of fossil fuels.
Are these "scentists" earth scientists or are they economists? If they are earth scientists then the only shit we need out of them is what we squeeze from their heads regarding global warming. If they are economists then why are they presenting their opinions on global warming as if they were earth science experts? Smell a rat?
The reality is that these guys are NEITHER. They are immoral, paid off tools of big corporate empires with earth science credentials. This kind of crap is not confined to just this issue either. A great deal of our "science" in general can be explained with the following formula:
"science" = SCIENCE - ANY TRUTH THAT HURTS BIG CAPITAL INTERESETS
+ LIES THAT SUPPORT BIG CAPATIAL INTERESTS
With regards to Gideon's graph though, as Borg's report points out, a temperature graph showing a longer period of time - perhaps thousands of years or even tens of thousands of years - is the graph we really need to be looking at. Now these "scientists" say that such a graph shows that the kind of temperature changes we're experiencing now are to be expected even without the burning of fossil fuels. But what are they basing that on? Its not clear. It seems to me they're really just guessing and that they are willing to gamble with all life on earth based entirely on this guess. I think that only someone that has been paid off or is concerned with only their prestigeous positions and lucrative jobs would encouragous us to place such a bet in the face of what we pretty much know for sure about fossil fuel emissions and the ozone layer.