The key to global warming is its impact. If you live north of the Ohio River, for instance, and you would have looked outside 10,000 years ago, you would have seen a mile high glacier grinding towards your place of abode. The climate is much warmer now than then, and is this a natural cycle or not? Regardless, global warming is a fact and we must concentrate on remedial measures. Much of the warming may be natural and impossible to stop. If it is unnatural, man-caused, do you want to go back to the Dark Ages and live in a hut? Cheer up, we are all dead in the long run!

America's complete lack of scientific knowledge really rears its ugly head when it comes to global warming. It's happening. . .I know that offends you for whatever straw-house reason, but it's happening. Go ahead and ignore the science, the data, and the warnings. . .the capitalistic machine tells you everyting's fine - the scientific community says there should be a change. Whatever. As I've always said, take a walk through any science department at a top 30 graduate school - take careful notice about the amount of foreign students. America's lack of science education is one of the most underrated health, economic, and security threats of the future. You people claiming that 'everything's fine' sound like those that initially lampooned the anti-smoking science decades ago. You reap what you sow.

The fact that after all of the crazy weather, horrible ozone levels, dramatic rise in skin cancer, and the past 8 years being the 8 hottest on record there are still redneck morons who think this isn't a problem. Because it has to do with the environment which is steotyped a liberal thing, all faux conservatives assume it is just some shammy. If you don't think that minor changes in temperature can have dramatic effects, take this into consideration. a little over 1 million years ago, Northern Africa and the Arabian peninsula where lush green, tropical rain forest. The average temperature of the earth went up 2 degrees after the earth made a tilt of .1 degrees towards the sun, and it turned it into the largest desert in the world, the single most dryest place on earth. In a matter of several years. Look at Alaska, it is changing faster than any place on earth.

The issue of global warming tends to lead people to extremes. Advocates of immediate action often expect unreasonable preventive measures while those who discount the theory often overlook the risks that global warming is valid. First, one must acknowledge that most greenhouse gases are the result of natural forces (e.g. volcanic activity); however, this doesn't mean that those gases emitted from human activity do not provide the critical mass that causes the damage (i.e. the straw that breaks the camel's back). In the final analysis, the question becomes even if the probability of global warming being a myth is relatively high, does the chance that the theory is correct and the probable damage as a result justify taking preventive measures. In fact, this is the same type of argument used to justify some large defense spending measures (e.g. the proposed missile defense system). The bottom line is that global warming is just a theory, but it deserves additional study and taking reasonable measures today are worth the reduction of the risks.

There are certain aspects to the world around us that cannot be disputed. Global warming is a fact. Just as we can skew opinion poles to favor our cause, we can also manipulate scientific data to champion our views on industrialism or saving the planet. Whatever our reason you can't argue with the simple and logical facts. The laws of physics and chemistry are absolute. Humans did not create green house gases, but we most certainly have done our part to accelerate their presence. Remember, nothing escapes our atmoshpere and what you smell is what you breathe. The answer is mathamatical and more important its incremental. Infintely slow, but certain. As we destroy the forests (lot by lot) and pollute the oceans (gallon by gallon)we are removing the consumers of the greens house gases. At the same time the human population grows creating more need to clear more land and use more water. It's a cycle that has been bumped out of balance by humanity. I've said in the past, We exist, therefore we pollute I'm confident science will (or has) an answer, the problem is the politics.

The evidence of this comes from every branch of science, is massive, consistent, and continues to grow. The right-wing refusal to acknowledge this as an issue is rather like a child with his fingers in his ears going: I can't hear you LA LA LA I can't hear you LA LA One would hope that some day they would grow up, but don't hold your breath. After reading some of the comments here, I have to conclude that there are a lot of children here with earwax on their fingers.

I think Aldo Nova once addressed this issue in a song. Yes...yes, he did. I believe the words were, Life is just a fantasy, can you live this fantasy life?

The earth is warming up 0.3 degrees celsius. The end is near! All the ice will melt! The oceans will rise 100 feet!

Im not worried about global warming at all. Its supposed to be 27 degrees here right now. A few days ago it was -3 outside. Until there is direct evidence to support that its happening, I'll reconsider. Right now, people are just guessing and assuming, not good enough for me.

Ok, how 'bout all you environmentalist tree-huggers just walk everywhere you go, every day for the rest of your life since pollution is destroying the earth and the internal combustion engine is to terrible, blah, blah. Hypocritical wackos.

This is a mythic illusion. The computer modeling data used in the original and subsequent studies was deeply flawed and intended to produce the results. The same band of loonies who were predicting the cooling of the atmosphere in the 1970’s for exactly the same reason (Carbon Dioxide.) as it is now purported to be warming created this myth. Does Metrological science produce any level of certainty for the weather conditions even one week in advance let alone 30 years? The Carbon Dioxide cycle can easily be truly ameliorated by aggressive reforestation of desert and non productive waste lands areas in North Africa, Asia and Russia and the introduction of minerals and metals into the nutrient deprived Artic and Antarctic seas to produce a massive plankton growth. All life on earth is dependent on the Carbon Cycle. The presence of carbon on earth is finite; when you release Carbon Dioxide from the use of fossil fuels you are merely reintroducing trapped Carbon back into the active cycle. This released carbon was once present in the "environment" at a much higher concentration earlier in geological history ergo a zero sum gain. Some people reference the Ozone Layer and Global Warming but they have nothing to do with one another. Whatever happened to the depletion of the Ozone layer? Nothing, it is generally accepted that we didn't know how the ozone layer works and that it is intact. The problem is politics and hysterics i.e. AIDS and Global Warming etc. produce massive research funding from the Governments of the world and help create the ongoing “crisis” mentality. Many of the people who are now in the environmentalist movement and the animal rights movement have move up from Socialism/Communism with all it inane false verities on the nature of man and the march of history being replete with Class Warfare. The moral legitimacy of Western Democratic Capitalism is what is being challenged. You don’t have to believe me now but I’ll accept an apology in 2035.

I'm very proud that castlbee is so apt at reciting word for word the statements of right-wing industrialists, yet I see not a single solitary quote from a scientist. Now I wonder, who stands more to gain with the global warming issue? If the industrialists can convince people there is nothing to worry about then they stand to make alot of money. If the environmentalists and scientists are proven right they stand to make......well they might, possibly, sorta, could maybe have some say in minor policy decisions. The reality is that yes the earth does go through natural cycles, but the speed at which the earth is warming and yes it is warming, in some places its cooling, but overall its warming. This is causing an expansion of deserts, melting of the polar ice caps due to higher ocean temperatures, and strange weather phenomena. C02 is natural, however the levels currently being produced are UNNATURAL and are aiding the greenhouse effect. These drastic changes in weather patterns will cause droughts and famines both in the united states and in some of the most impoverished parts of the world. Its absolutely undeniable that this is rapidly occuring. I believe CastleBee meant to say that "you cannot find a real industrialist anywhere in the world...." because you could not find a real scientist to say that global warming is not occuring. The President was an utter fool for not going along with the Kyoto protocol, instead chosing voluntary restictions, well I can only hope I get dioxin poisoning before I see what this man does to the environment.

Grossly overexagerrated...

Global warming is one of the biggest myths of the 20th century. If you look at weather patterns through out history, you will see trends of warming and cooling throughout history. All of you Tree hugging hippies need to sit down and shut up.

Global warming is the latest junk science. There is little evidence and certainly no proof that man has any impact on global warming - or can do anything about it. Even Kyoto - which 95 Senators went on record against - would do little if anything to stop warming even if the "global warming" hucksters somehow got some evidence that man caused warming. Kyoto is more than just bad policy, it would wastefully divert resources and impoverish millions.

We are not the most polluting country in the world. Mainland China is. China doesn't give one flying flip about the environment. Why don't you enviro-freaks focus on them first and then us, you cowards. You'll probably get your heads blown off if you go over there and bring up environmental issues. You will only act like idiots in a country where you are free to act like idiots and then let the rest of the world do as they please. Well guess what, we all share the same air, the same water, the same earth! You forget, The U.S. is a small part of the industrialized world. Here in the U.S. we already have 1000's of environmental laws. The Kyoto Treaty would have accomplished nothing. I commend Bush for exercising intelligence on this issue unlike you enviro-freaks. Don't tell me the earth is warming. I'm freezing my ass off!

We truly do not know whether the earth's climate is changing or not due to release of CO2 into the atmosphere. While environmentalists may take certain issues to the point of the fanatical, they do have their points about keeping CO2 emissions to a limit. Before stronger environmental standards were put in place in the 1970's and 1980's, something like 2 out of 5 children were born with asthma that lived in the inner cities. Obviously, having a dirty environment is bad for our health and while CO2 is natural in our environment, too much of it can be bad for the health of the planet and our own health as humans. We simply do not know whether the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is enough to cause long term damage to the earth. We need to study the hole in the ozone layer, for most scientists say that its size fluctuates over many years. The hole is not being caused as a result of industrial pollutants, but they may indirectly aid in increasing its size. As for the issue of global warming, which has been linked to CO2 emissions, I agree with President Bush that we need to study long term global temperature patterns some more before committing to a global climate treaty like Kyoto. People like former President Clinton were jumping the gun on the issue without studying it thoroughly enough. We should not commit to a treaty that is based on incomplete conclusions and that is against the long-term economic interests of the United States. The truth of the matter is that we will be one of the few countries in the world that will have to regulate emissions. This is a ploy by foreign governments to slow down the growth of the American economy. Romania is the only country that has ratified the treaty. It upsets me to see the Europeans looking down our noses because we have not ratified the treaty when their own countries have not ratified it themselves; that just comes to show who they are looking after. We must be prudent and base the treaty on hard scientific facts before we sign a global pollution treaty. The treaty must also include countries like China and India, who are not currently under the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty. They are some of the biggest polluters in the world and it is common sense that if we are going to have a global climate change treaty, that these countries be included as well. Both of these countries pour toxic wastes into dry river beds and pour pollutants into the atmosphere through factories; if we fall under regulations, they should as well. There would be no point to have a climate change treaty if a good chunk of the world is not included. The Kyoto Treaty is fatally flawed and should not be signed into law.

Look at some statistics in a science article current event. If you care at all, it will alarm you greatly the depletion of our ozone and the raised average temperatures.

Ha! Show me some real evidence that we play any role in this so-called problem and maybe I'll think about listening to you.

Next year, before we slip into our earth shoes and beads to begin the ritualistic chant around the Earth Day fires, we might consider some other ideas … changes in global temperature are perfectly natural and some sources even suggest that the temperature is actually cooling. On top of that - guess what - CO2 is also natural, essential and is emitted every time we exhale. It is NOT poisoning the atmosphere. Yes, the polar ice caps have been melting - ever since the last ice age over a million years ago. Furthermore, … "The overwhelming balance of evidence shows no appreciable warming trend in the past 20 years, nor indeed since about 1940. While some surface readings in far-away locations (mainly Eastern Siberia and the tropical oceans) show warming trend, the well-maintained stations in the United States do not. Weather satellite date, the only true global measurements we have, show no warming. Neither the independent data from weather balloons, which confirm the satellites in all respects. In addition, so-called proxy data, i.e., non-thermometer records from tree rings, ice cores, etc., show no warming." … - S. Fred Singer, a former director of the US Weather Satellite Service and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/030 1globalwarming.htm According to columnist Alan Cruba, a regular contributor to Enter Stage Right "Those of us who have been fighting against the torrent of lies surrounding and advocating the global warming theory thought we might rest at last, safe in the knowledge that the new President understood how completely absurd it was, how absurd it is to even consider US participation in the Kyoto Treaty that permits twenty other nations to do nothing while we ruin our economy Finally, from American Policy Center article "There is No Global Warming" - http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.ht m … "You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us." There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming."

That global warming is a huge issue that can not go on being ignored hasn't surpassed anyone. Global climate change is linked to the accumulation in the atmosphere of six gases that trap the Sun's ray's close to the Earth's surface. These gases are emitted by the burning of coal, oil and gas. There's a nine out of ten chance that global average temperatures will rise between three and nine degrees Fahrenheit (unfortunantly I don't know it in Celsious) over the coming century, according to a new probability analysis by scientists in the United States and England. While this may not sound like a very big deal it is. It would mean that the earth's rising temperatures could eventually melt polar ice caps, cause sea levels to rise and increase the devastation from floods and hurricanes. This would most definitely mean the end of our, and many other species existance. And we can't be resolved from blame since it turns out that 80 % of the greenhouse emissions come from power plants, other industrial plants and transportation activities. Unfortunantly enough, if greenhouse gases are not limited and global warming does occur, it would be almost impossible to reverse. Due to these statements the EU (European Union) in 1997 put together a plan to try and stop (or at least postpone) this possible fate. They called it the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement reached by 178 countries calls for industrial nations to reduce their emissions, on average, to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. However, the U.S. was not one of them. Though the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol under the Clinton administration, President George W. Bush announced in March that the United States would not ratify the treaty. The reason for the worlds biggest polluting country to refuse to sign was because they "could not afford emission cuts that would hurt its economy". Oh come on! The United States (which represents four percent of the world's population) has the largest single economy. We're talking about trying to save the world here! How can money be more important than making sure that we first can continue to live? Do you know that energy-dependent Texas would rank as the seventh-largest producer of greenhouse gases if it were an independent nation?! However the agreement struck by environmental leaders from Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia has left President Bush more isolated than ever on the issue of global warming, pitting him against invigorated opponents overseas, some U.S. corporations and a Congress that has grown impatient with his go-alone approach. Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) have jointly called for a plan to require all U.S. power plants and industries to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This announcement from two of the Senate's leading figures follows a unanimous vote in the Foreign Relations Committee this week urging Bush to return to the bargaining table this fall with specific proposals for a new binding international global warming treaty. The proposal was also endorsed by senators from across the spectrum, ranging from liberal John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to conservative Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), and including senior members of both parties such as committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). Moreover, several moderate and conservative Senate Republicans, including Sam Brownback (Kan.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), have introduced or co-sponsored measures aimed at reducing global warming. However, none of those proposals is nearly as far-reaching as the one being offered by McCain and Lieberman. According to a tally conducted by the Pew Foundation, at least 15 bills and resolutions are pending that in one way or another would help reduce US carbon emissions. And there is reason for Americans to do something about this! While (e.g.) Canada is only responsible for 2.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. is responsible for 25%!! Then we have the multinational corperations. Houston-based Enron as well as oil giants Shell and BP, calls the Kyoto pact "a first step" in acting against global warming. Executives of those firms, including American Electric Power Co., the Cinergy Corp. of Ohio and the Wisconsin Electric Power Co., argue that regulation of carbon dioxide is inevitable and that they want some certainty in the coming decade as they invest billions of dollars in plant expansion. The ironic aspect of the Bush administration's failure to come to grips with the global warming issue is that other people, who definitely see this as something that can't be ignored, are rising to the occasion and putting in extra effort because they can't rely on the present administration for leadership. "I feel badly for us as a country that we have been put into this position," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "It will cost us in the long run, and it's already costing us in terms of credibility." And that's not the only thing it will be costing; Even if the U.S. makes no attempt to join international efforts to limit global warming, U.S. multinationals would still be affected because their operations could be held to more stringent emissions requirements in nations that approved the Kyoto accord. A carbon tax imposed overseas, he said, would harm U.S. manufacturers with operations in those countries. I mean if a 178 countries can agree that the Kyoto is worth fighting for, why can't America?