yes global warming is probably happening, but if it is, it is cyclic in nature. Man is not the main cause of it.

I get a kick how Al Gore talks about saving the planet by using less fossil fuels as he travels all over the place in private jets using 10's of thousands of fuel. Then afterwards he kicks back in one of his 3 houses and a million-dollar condominium, including a 10,000 sq ft home for him and Tipper. Good way to conserve energy there buddy

My favorite view on Global Warming comes from Bill O'Reilly. Wait, before you poo-poo it... here's what he said:

"There's a lot of guck in the air... guck in the air is bad... we should do more to get the guck out of the air, because that would be good for everything."

It's a shame Global Warming has become this big political thing... helping the environment shouldn't be. But I guess the politicians have to have issues to hoot and hollar about, or else we'll realize how uselss they really are.

*phart*

well, global warming is definitely happening, and that can't be refuted; the problem is determining the cause of the warming effect.

I'm not sure how the opinion of one scientist against thousands justifies the view that global warming is not caused by humans.

It's not the opinion of just one scientist, there are thousands of scientists will agree with this, that global warming may not be caused by humans, although I think most of these scientists believe that humans augment this warming effect.

The earth was hotter in its history. It was also completely glaciated (as in glaciers covering the equator), so definitely colder. It's all related to several different 'cycles' of different time magnitudes that affect arrangement of continents, sea levels... etc.

I'm convinced it's all a result of cow flatulation. You didn't think all these cattle mutilations were a coincidence, did you?

It's benevolent aliens trying to save our planet from the bovine menace!

Regardless whether this is natural or the result of humans, is there any reason why not to take steps for a cleaner environment? Is there any reason to not to develop cleaner sources of energy than coal and fossil fuel?!

I mean, what exactly are scientists proposing we do to remedy global warming that has certain people so upset? Or is this all political. Is everyone getting their talking points and just agreeing with their side (and yes 2manyusernames, I've heard the same statements made about Al Gore and his polluting with jets, at least twice).

Didn't we go through this same bulls**t 20 years ago with the hole in the ozone layer?? Didn't we go through this same crap 40 years ago when the Cuyahoga river just suddenly caught on fire??!

Has the Clean Water Act been so bad for you? Do you really miss aerosol cans that much? Please, tell me what these Global Warming committees are preposing that will just upset you to no end?

Or is this just not wanting to take the blame, as a species, for what is happening to Earth and it's inhabitants. Sigh, I really just don't understand. I guess I'll go research what they are proposing.

Amen.

For starters... the infinitely inept U.N. is proposing (global) legislation that doesn't address the causes in a fair manner.

At the Kyoto Conference, the United States pushed for a strong document that would unite the world to prevent the production of certain greenhouse gases.

What the UN produced, at the insistence of its many third world members, was a document that would divide the world according to economic prosperity: the Kyoto Treaty places stringent regulations on developed nations such as the United States, while granting "developing" economies a free pass to destroy the atmosphere.

This double standard clearly makes the treaty un-advantageous for America - but also nonsenical, because third world nations are responsible for far more greenhouse gas emissions per unit GDP than the United States.

The Kyoto Treaty punishes developed economies who already have emissions standards, while allowing the true culprits to continue polluting.

Unfortunately, even the main proponents of the Kyoto Treaty do not believe in it enough to follow its outrageous requirements.

European nations who have long criticized the United States for not signing the treaty are the biggest violators - they are simply ignoring the treaty's provisions altogether.

(Summary borrowed from JWDunn - he did a great job wrapping up the argument. No need for me to edit)

I think routers, switches, hubs and overclocked pentiums are causing the global warming. Stop using the internets dammit!

All of which has nothing to do with the US stepping up and putting something in place to govern the greenhouse gas emissions in THIS country. The UN is great for trying to get the whole world on the same page, but why the hell can we not do something on our own? Why can't we put somethign in place here?

Oh the Kyoto Accord: My country's previous government was foolish enough to ratify it. I say foolish because the plan they outlined to reduce emissions specifically targeted industries in their opposition's territory and omitted industries that employed a large percentage of their voter base...
I have more faith in our current government to produce a plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse emissions and dependance on non-renewable resources (I'm all for nuclear/wind/solar power.) and I'd be proud to do my part for our environment.

I agree with you, though, BrownTrout, the Kyoto Accord targets the 'developed' nations, and has way more socioeconomic implications than environment improvements.

I'm all for legislations to reduce global greenhouse emissions at both a global and national level (not to mention every other pollutant - I won't even get into the high levels of PCB's and Hg in the Arctic), but this particular plan is outlandish.

Actually, it has a lot to do with it... any effective legislation must address the problem on a global basis.

I'm not saying that the US cannot (or should not) do anything to reduce emissions.

I'm saying that the sweeping laws being promoted by the UN cannot be targeted at the US alone, while leaving the much more serious sources of pollution untouched.

It's funny how all the "scientists" that say global warming isn't caused by humans are employed by the oil industry. Probably just a coincidence.

Yes.

There is no denying that if d**k Cheney made the film "An Inconvinient Truth" The same split would exist. And you would find the same hypocracy, and you would be right, just as those pointing out Algores hypocracy are right.

I personally, am tired of the "Blame The U.S." crap. It's constant and get's old.

Here's what I wonder about the UN plan - wouldn't that just result in companies from highly developed countries moving more factories to third-world countries where they didn't have to worry about pollution standards?

I think the best point that the Article/Professor makes is that Global Warming has become the "ooh something shiney" distraction for our nation and our social/environmental conscience. Put in context of the earths historical climate patterns it is not the imminent disaster that Gore, Oprah and the press tell us it is, so graphically and repeatedly. Yet, we are all so busy getting upset about it while other more serious issues, such as clean water as he says, go ignored. And that's just keeping the subject within the scientific arena and not even looking at the political problems that threaten our world and its' peoples.

As always, Americam citizens seem to enjoy this kind of doomsday guilty conscience woah is me thinking and yet we are horribly slow to do anything that makes a difference, in our own communities, let alone the planet.

Want to make the world a better place? Be kind to strangers, donate food or clothing, work at a family shelter, there are many ways to make a difference.

No one denies that global warming hasn't occurred before. The debate is based more on the sudden acceleration in glbal warming. Temperatures have never risen so fast in the history of the Earth (according to all data available to science). This is something that is worth getting upset about because it's an issue that is constantly being pushed to the back burner. Are there other issues that need attention? Absolutely. But we can't just keep ignoring the warnings. This is very much a case of everyone saying the earth is flat despite all contrary evidence.

As has already been stated, what is so wrong about getting this passed? What would be so wrong with limiting the carbon emissions and cleaning the air? Why is it always such a pain in the ass to get someone to step up to the f**king plate and take care of the planet that we live on?

The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation. I am find a blog which give some useful information on Global Warming.