So they want to destroy America and bring in a communistic kind of government much like China! You know the country that needs to build a whole lot of coal fired power plants to keep up with its energy demands? Oh, wait.

Calling something anti-American or anti-Capitalist without recourse to a reasoned argument simply demonstrates that you don't have a reasoned argument, all you have is plugging your ears and screaming "LALALALALALA" at the world.

It's not a few anti science conservatives; rather the goal should be to stop all anti people Republicans and gutless Democrats. Name one thing the Cheney/bush anti people conservatives have done in almost 8 years that was specifically drafted to assist the masses. Every piece of legislation has been to benefit the rich and the corporations. If the center left takes over in January '09 and they truly work for the people, then progressives will be in charge of things for generations. If the fall to the same money influences as the conservatives, they'll relinquish power in 2 to 4 years. This time, the American people have no choice but to take a chance on having a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in Congress, then keep an eye on them and make them accountable for every action they take. If they to abandon the will of the people, the people will be required to rise-up and fight them at every turn; trust but verify. No more, let the people be damned.

I didn't say anything about communism.

Do I believe the green movement is anti-industrial and it would prefer that we all live in huts? Yes, absolutely.

You may disagree with that.

But as someone who has studied science at an undergrad level, I also believe I have two legitimate questions for climate scientists.

What is the ideal temperature for the Earth? The truth is that, historically, man thrives when the planet is warmer. He starves when the planet is colder. Is there a limit to this thinking, absolutely.

What is your control group?

If you can't answer those two questions, then I stand by my reasoning that this is more political than scientific.

Do I believe that we should find non-polluting forms of energy? Yes. But unlike the greens, I don't believe that we can just wave a magic wand full of pixie dust and create technologies that don't currently exist. If you really believe CO2 is a problem, build nuke plants. I lived in Japan; it works for them. As for cars, like I said, I will drive an electric when they make one that has some power and doesn't look like a pregnant roller skate.

Bush was absolutely right for not ratifying Kyoto. Without India and China reductions in GHG is a meaningless exercise. China already is the largest CO2 producer in the world. What he and the rest of the environmental community should have done is play "chicken" with them. They would have to agree to cap GHG and the United States would cut them but there would be no parity on a per capita basis. The alternative would be a planet that will be very different. The United States would survive such a change- may involve a large migration from the South to the North but we would survive. India and China would not be able to afford it given their population density.

The short sightedness that you refer to is not in the United States but in India and China. If our politics is bad theirs is worse. I personally believe that we should stop worrying about reducing GHG and start worrying about how we are going to manage in a hotter world.

The majority of these posts represent precisely what's wrong with the global warming issue. You've got the right wingers yelling that the argument is not scientifically valid and the liberals convinced that the sky is falling. Somewhere between the two extremes probably exists a reasonable approach to the problem. But you're not going to find it when political ideologies, biased media reporting, and corporate agendas are driving the debate. The real "catastrophe" here is the polarized, almost religous fervor the Dem's and Republicans bring to the discussion, and the pathetic manipulation of the general population .

However the neoConservatives have discovered one thing: That sneering at the facts is sufficient to win elections over the shor run. And winning those elections means power and money for NeoConservatives.

Until the "true" Conservatives stop voting for neoConservatives in every election, and supporting them when they recite factually incorrect claims on FoxNews or in Congressional testimony, the NeoCons will contiue to win, one election at a time.

As long as power is the only goal of Conservatives, we can expect to see the "worst case scenarios play out (with NeoConservatives, due to their power and money, exempting themselves from any of the consequences).

You did science as an undergrad? Must have failed.

Okay, as to control group: Which specific experiments are you referring to? There are a lot of them out there.

Any science student can prove that air rich in carbon dioxide retains heat better than a "normal" air mix. It is something I did in highschool for crying out loud.

Also, hot water rises while cold water sinks (At least, until it starts crystalising and trapping air between the crystals, this leads to ice floating.) This is the basis of the ocean conveyor and the bulk of what we know about ocean currents. Want proof?

Pour hot water on top of cold water, and you will see the hot water floats while the cold water stays at the bottom - this is why your kettle is heated from the bottom, not the top.

Temperatures are rising? Well that one doesn't take a control - you just need to measure them over a wide range of areas - a task made increasingly easy with the presence of satelites and weather stations.

None of the science involved, when you boil it down, is terribly difficult to understand.

As to thinking that the world's environmental scientists, appointed by countries which are most definitely not interested in going back to mud-huts, are out to destroy industry, would you kindly get your head out of your ass?

If there is any conflict of interests it goes the other way.