The first step is to put trust in our scientists and take this issue seriously instead of listening to politicians with no scientific background tell us that it isn't happening. The next step is to provide funding for sciences that aren't directly related to military defense.

GW is a hoax. You have two choices: - (1) enjoy life - (2) become addicted to PROZAC -for life- to "control" your panic attacks provoked by the GW hoax My 2 cents. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

I am with the handsome fellow above. Anthropogenic Global Warming is nothing more than an attempted power grab and is not based in fact. The "theory" is based upon a fallacy (that warming is the result of carbon dioxide ), when the exact opposite is true. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a trailing indicator of warming -- often by as much as 800 years. This is indelibly etched in the ice core records. Any theory so fatally flawed should be abandoned. Sadly, it hasn't. You cannot "solve" a problem that does not exist! Besides, we have entered a brief cooling cycle, so all of the apocalyptic claptrap spewed by Al Gore and other money-grubbing alarmists of his stripe will never come to pass. This should lower your blood pressure. ;-)

It is easy to deny global warming and avoid the question altogether. Pollution is a reality whether you look at the smog in major cities, the dwindling of fragile species or the polar melt. Cycles in nature are undeniable but so is the impact of humanities reliance on fossil fuels, mass production and over-farming that release large amounts of air pollution. Ozone depletion and the increase of solar radiation on the surface is documented fact. While doomsayers may overplay the immediacy of the problem it is still a valid topic of research. To deny that a population of over 6 billion people does not effect the environment is ludicrous.

&quot;The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase has led some nations, states, corporations and individuals to implement actions to try to curtail global warming or adjust to it. Many environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often by the consumer, but also by community and regional organizations. Others have suggested a quota on worldwide fossil fuel production, citing a direct link between fossil fuel production and CO2 emissions. There has also been business action on climate change, including efforts at increased energy efficiency and limited moves towards use of alternative fuels. One recently developed concept is that of greenhouse gas emissions trading through which companies, in conjunction with government, agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those below their allowances." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Adaptation_and_mitigation Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ############################################# Critic of some skeptical view about man made global warming or about the influence of global warming. Actually, this is a reply regarding this comment thread: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/4355368 1) John Christy: "Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels." " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy (I agree, catastrophism is to be avoided) 2) Fred Singer: "Singer has also been a consultant to the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, GAO, NSF, AEC, NRC, DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative), US DOE Nuclear Waste Panel, the US Treasury, and the state governments of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania, and to various industries including GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, Lockheed Martin and IBM." "Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming, the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom, the Marshall Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which Singer founded." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer We see where the money is coming from... 3) the Independent Institute: "On its website the Institute states that it "receives no government funding. Instead, it draws its support from a diverse range of foundations, businesses and individuals, and the sale of its publications and other services." The Institute does not list its contributors on its website. However, some funders of the Institute have been identified. These include: Philip Morris contributed a donation of $10,000 in 1997 and a donation of $25,000 in 1998. Exxon donated $10,000 in 1998; $5,000 in 2000 and 2001, $10,000 as Exxon Mobil in 2002; $10,000 in 2003 and $30,000 in 2005." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Institute Here again, we see where the money is coming from... 4) Richard Linzen: "[Ross] Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990's and had not received any money from these since. According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute." " Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Criticism_of_Lindzen 5) Henrik Svensmark: "Svensmark detailed his theory of Cosmoclimatology in 2007. , The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Institute "investigates the connection between solar activity and climatic changes on Earth.". It has numerous publications documenting Cosmoclimatology and reviewing the Influence of Solar Cycles on Earth's Climate. Svensmark and Nigel Calder published a book The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (2007) describing the Cosmoclimatology theory that cosmic rays "have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2": During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds--and a warmer world. The book has been harshly criticised by mainstream scientists for exaggerating the importance of their work." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark 6) Christopher Monckton: "In July 2008 Monckton wrote an article about climate sensitivity for the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society, concluding: “it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration [surface temperature] will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K.” Some media commentators asserted that the publication of his paper was a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change. In response, the APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.' This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." In a response, Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail". Notwithstanding, Arthur Smith, long-time member at the APS Forum, has identified 125 errors, irrelevancies, and contradictions in the article." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Political_views 7) Patrick Michaels: "A number of prominent scientists have criticized Michaels' research conclusions. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science." Climate scientist Tom Wigley, a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is quoted in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat is On: "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading." Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said: "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence." " Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming 8) I did not go to the end of the list, but I think this was sufficient. The idea is that there are certainly some people who disagree with the mainstream scientific consensus about global warming, but they have also been criticized for some valid reasons. I am very certainly against catastrophism, and maybe some consequences of global warming cannot be evaluated with precision, but we have here to face some facts.

First I think we should "solve" the ICE AGE problem that they said was going to happen back in the '70's.I think life is too short to worry about things people make up to further their agendas.Get outside and enjoy Mother Nature-she's not going anywhere ;)

simple, go back to the stone age. Or Create a nuclear winter by starting a nuclear war! Look the damage is already done, we can cut emission all we want but it will never be enough to reverse the warming trend that has already been set in motion.

Detractors of global warming seem to use the same playbook as those who rail against macro evolution. I hear complaints about missing or misinterpreted data and a general emotional lilt that strokes the ego of the writer. I concede the point that modern record keeping of atmospheric conditions has not been around long enough to fully document long term cycles in our atmosphere. I also see the alarmism about global warming causing misunderstanding of the facts in the public. I do indeed "follow the money" however I also wonder at the political leanings and bias of scientists that skew findings on both sides of popular issues. Science must be funded and the purity of the science can always be questioned. To shout conspiracy however is incredibly unscientific in itself. To throw out the "them" terminology as if you have secret knowledge that is denied to the public about these award winning scientists who study this topic is illogical. As much as I would like science to be black and white, it is not and our understanding of the world changes with more and better data. I simply don't see the data to support the conspiratorial language I see here. I see a dispute within the scientific community where data conflicts and I expect that outlying data will be explained. In the meantime I also see reason behind environmental protection policy that allows us to ensure we control our chemical impact on the globe and encourages development of more efficient and less destructive means of energy production.