Mr. Romm takes a prophetic tone but we must not forget that there is such a thing as false prophecy. Remember the doom and gloom about rapid population growth? The very economic growth that the greenies decry has been responsible for a rapid decline in population growth, to the point where whole nations of Europe are dwindling away. IAC, the inconvenient truth about the industrial revolution is that it has been driven by hyprocarbon resources and by a need to provide ever large populations with more and more goods in markets that have grown exponentially. Science has played an essential role in all this, as have the political ambitions of the nations. Assuming that this growth is responsible for glorbal warming even in th slightest degree, the question is how low we can turn the thermostat without requiring a discormfort that chills everyone in the house, including the scientists? Ask the very scientists who are aiming to feather their own nests a the expense of the rests of us, how they will be held to account if we are all reduced to riding bicycles. The politicians who are pushing their ideas don't care because they will all be out of office, indeed be dead and gone ,when the crows come to feast on our carcasses.

It is essential that we elect veto-proof progressive majorities in both the House and the Senate. I am volunteering for Andrew Rice, who is running against James Inhofe, Dinosaur from Oklahoma.

It is even more important that progressives who understand this issue educate the public. That 75% of conservatives must be made to understand the severity and imminence of this threat. James Hansen of NASA has been speaking out, but I'm not sure if the MSM is giving him much coverage. I heard him on NPR's Diane Rhem Show, but I'd be willing to wager that FOX hasn't invited him to speak.

Are like a "Hey I'm more stupid than you!!" essay contest. All one needs to do to lose faith in the future of humanity is to read the comments in here.

Would it be such a challenging task to, I dunno, look at the other side of the fence and try to answer some of the doubts of the Right-wingers?

They are mostly not looking for answers since they believe that they already have the answers: no action required.

Could there be a more conclusive study on global warming?

Studies continue. Data and models will improve, and predictions will change somewhat.

Could the scientific community, who it must be said are not the most vocal bunch, make an attempt at public education?

It is. Could the Bush administration stop trying to prevent scientists from making that attempt?

Could we come up with global solutions without demeaning someone else's beliefs?

If beliefs are held in contraction to facts, the beliefs will eventually have to change. I do not think that "demeaning" is necessary.

-or are the editor's picks on the first three pages of letters completely bizarre and random?

And, yeah, we need to get off our asses and start working on this climate change problem. Yeah, it'll cost. We've been warned about it for like 20 years now.

Hmmm. So 26-27% of GOP members of Congress and their constituents think global warming is bunk. That's just about the same percentage that thinks the president is doing a good job. Coincidence? I think not.

Here's the thing on carbon based fuels, they are self limiting.

There is not significantly more carbon on the planet than there was say six billion years ago or so.

There is a set ammount of carbon dioxide that was ever in the atmosphere, and there is a set ammount of carbond dioxide that can ever be released back into the atmosphere.

A long long time ago, the early plant life on the planet sequestered much of the CO2 in the atmostphere and processed it into various sugars and proteins where eventually became burried under sediment.

Over time, the carbon in these sugars was concetrated while the oxegen in the original molecules was pressed out and released back into the atmosphere.

The remaining hydrocarbons became oil and coal and various other natural hydrocarbons that exist in our earth's surface.

Most of these hydrocarbons will never be recovered, the depth of the carbon is too great, and the quality too poor.

As such we will reach our peak Carbon output long before we put a significant ammount of carbon back into the atmosphere.

The earth will get hotter, ocean levels will rise, but all of these are largely mechanical issues to be overcome, and annoyances to be delt with.

We will likely have to rethink geographic borders to deal with the humanitarian crisis, but that's really just a minor issue in the grand history of humanity on this ball.

The far more pressing concern is peak recoverable carbon, that has the power and the ability to disrupt society far more than more or less rainfall here or there on the planet, let alone the benefits of warmer temperatures and longer growing season in the expanisve northern hemisphere of our planet.

To fix the problem we need a massive investment in wind and solar technology. Nuclear has some stop gap potential but has the same problem of limited fisiable material.

Unless we find a way to power our current society, the minor problems of heat and rain will be irrelevant compared to the deaths caused by the breakdown of our modern electronic infrastructure and cargo systems.

Should one be scared that so many of the letters on topics like these are obvious trolls? Or rather, be more scared that maybe they aren't :-)

A message a few dozen back had the insult "meathead" in the title. What precisely could the intent be in choosing to emphasize this? That the writer is equivalent to Archie Bunker? Literally, of course, we're all meatheads. The capabilities of meat are amazing, that's why vegetarians show respect by not eating it.

The same message asserted bad facts in the service of worse logic:

"The human race's maximum output of energy into the environment is a mere 1% of what the sun puts out that hits the Earth."

A little rummaging around - and yes, arithmetic - shows that the human power generation is around 0.009% of insolation integrated over the disk of the Earth. I'm actually surprised that it is as high as this. The sun puts out a prodigious amount of energy per second. The Earth intercepts a large amount, if small fraction. And then the Earth reradiates the incoming solar energy as heat. A very close balance exists between the incoming and outgoing energy budgets - else the Earth's surface would either melt or freeze. Is thermodynamics also "only a theory"?

Our energy usage has nothing to do with the greenhouse argument. Rather it is a question of side effects. Our generation of energy releases byproducts such as carbon dioxide. These affect the delicate balance between the incoming solar energy and the outgoing reradiated heat energy. It is indeed the Sun's rays that will melt the ice caps - but that doesn't make the result natural.

The Earth's thermostat is being adjusted by our actions...but then, folks don't understand their home thermostats, either :-)