Alot of people DO actually. One example of this is the Montreal protocol to reduce substances that deplete the ozone layer. In the mid and late 80's dozens of countries put forth a plan to reduce Chlorofluorocarbons, which were proved to be a major contributor to global warming, by 50 percent.

When I was 13 (1983), we had to save the rainforests to stop global warming. And stop using lead in gas, stop using chloro-fluro carbons, recycle more, go to electric this and that, burn natural gas instead of coal and petrol, etc. Now carbon dioxide is the culprit, but get this "The carbon dioxide which is present in the atmosphere is produced by respiration and by combustion. However, it has a short residence time in this phase as it is both consumed by plants during photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is also used in fire extinguishers as a desirable alternative to water for most fires. It is a constituent of medical gases as it promotes exhalation. It is also used in carbonated drinks." http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/comp/co2.html So now after 23 years, we're all supposed to stop breathing in order to save the planet? The scientists have no idea what causes global warming, they are simply giving it their best educated guesses. But guess what? Up until the 1970's the best educated guesses were guessing we were heading into a new ice age. The bottom line, no one knows for sure what exactly is happening to the planet, or if its actually as harmful as some people would believe. I find it hard to believe that 100 years of people could destroy what has existed for at least 4.5 billion years. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Global warming is real. However, despite what the news media and environmentalist would have you believe, there is no consensus as to just what is causing it or just how fast it is actually occurring. For that matter, there is also no consensus as to just what the consequence of global warming will be. The whole global warming scare campaign is based on the notion that we have to keep the climate at about where it is today. If we don't, then we will be in big trouble. However, the fact of the matter is that, historically speaking, the only constant with respect to Earth's climate has been change. Earth's climate is in constant flux as a result of changes in the Sun's energy output, the arrangement of the continents, ocean circulation, and a whole lot of other factors. We really don't know how all of these factors work together to create climate or climate change and until we do understand how they work, it is really rather presumptuous of us to think that we can say what is going on and how to change it. Let me just give you an example of the scare tactics that those on the other side are using. One of the more recent ones is that Earth's average temperature is the highest it has been in 500 years. This may be true. 500 years ago Earth slipped into something that we now call the little ice age. This period of cooler weather led to famine in most northern continents. The contention is that the reason it is so much warmer now than it was during the little ice age is because of the fossil fuels we have been burning and the carbon dioxide they generate. However, if this is the reason for the higher temperatures today, then why was it so warm 500 years ago, before the little ice age. There weren't anywhere near as many people living back then as there are now and they weren't putting anywhere near as much CO2 into the atmosphere. Another thing about the global warming crowd is the prediction of dire consequences of global warming. Specifically, they predict an increase in the number of droughts resulting in more famine. However, if we look at the historical record, we find just the opposite. During the warm period that preceded the little ice age (the Medieval climate optimum), food production was actually better. Warmer temperatures meant that you could grow crops further north. They also meant longer growing seasons. This means more food, not less. There is one other thing that I want you to consider before I close this post. The environmentalists dismiss any research that contradicts their assertions as being biased by the corporations that sponsored some of this research. They say of course they got a different result than we do because that is what their industrial sponsors wanted them to find. The research that contradicts the environmentalists does so because those researchers had an agenda. However, in making this assertion, the environmentalists hope that you don't see the hypocrisy of this accusation. The environmentalists themselves are not unbiased observers. They too have an agenda. However, we are supposed to ignore this fact about them and assume that it does not influence the way they interpret the data while assume just the opposite of those on the other side of the argument. So, when looking at the results that either side puts out you really need to take into account the potential for bias. This further confuses the issue and goes again to my assertion that we really don't know what is going on. The more extreme environmentalists have been screaming for around two decades now that we only have about ten years to fix the problem. However, since we really don't know that there is a problem, let along what is causing it, how are we supposed to fix it? How do we know that what they are telling us to do is really the right thing to do? These are just a few of the problems that I have with the alarmists. For more reasons, you might want to check out the links below: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/ I would also recommend the Michael Crichton novel titled State of Fear. Yes it is a work of fiction, but he very thoroughly documents the assertions that he makes about the issues of climate change in this novel. He also includes a couple of eye-opening essays at the end of it. So, don't just study once side of the argument. Study both sides and then make up your mind.

If scientists would be SCIENTISTS, we would know whether global warming was real or not. Unfortunately, many of them aren't, because if they were as objective as they'd like you to believe, there would be a consensus on whether it exists or not. Ditto the suggestion about reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." It's a real page-turner!

To state that there in no concensus on global warming is false. To state that global warming is just caused by enviromentalist and a so called "liberal media" is just false. To think that human activities are not responsible in adding to the warming on the planet is just insane. www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/23.html To take some personal responsibility would be a start.

From all that I have read "my side" does acknowledge that the planet runs in cycles. Do you consider not "unanimous" not a concensus? There will always be a few scientist on the big oil payroll. Just as with the tobacco companies in the 60's stating that smoking would not cause health problems. The problem is that we could be working on the technology to slowing this process, however, it takes hard work and money. As we are learning once again (bp in Alaska) it's more important to please the stockholders than work for a cleaner world. So it comes down to what kind of world do you want to live in and leave for future generations. We could debate this until the ice caps melt and after. And I sure there will always be a few on your side. Thanks for the comments. Best of luck to you and yours.

Wilkpedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming I can live with that.

The overwhelming majority of scientific consensus is that global warming is real, is exacerbated by human activity in the form of CO2 emissions, and that if we don't act quickly and decisively we will be rolling the dice on severe climate changes caused by our own inaction. The debate is actually over among those who study the relevant subjects on a purely scientific basis. The debate rages on among those who have other interests (ranging from ego, to financial, to political, to sheer orneriness). That doesn't mean there aren't other causes of global warming, or that the opponents of action in the matter don't have some good arguments. It does mean that there is a lot of disingenous talk about "junk science" being bandied about by those who aren't really doing their homework or who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Sadly, we will almost surely act too late and too little to head off the problems, and its our children who will have to deal with it. We'll be too busy arguing among ourselves and too unwilling to make the sacrifices and lifestyle changes necessary. We're good at responding to immediate and obvious threats (e.g. terrorism), but we're very poor at responding to slower threats which take a long time to develop.

Because oil is too cheap. Developing alternatives takes money. And people are not going to accept bicycles on the streets. All this means that people are going to keep wasting oil and gas, and complaining that they can't pay 17.9 cents a gallon all the while. To get this to change, it takes a shock. If oil were to trade at $900 a barrel and gas at $100 a gallon, people would start using the stuff more wisely and they would develop the alternatives promised since 1973. But, if prices drop back, people will simply go back to wasting gas and stall on alternatives. The only way to get people to stop global warming is to make it cost too damn much to run that SUV that gets 18 gallons to the mile.