Here's my analysis.

We are well on our way to economic tyranny which will come from the implementation of greenhouse gas emission regulations.

If you scrutinize the Kyoto Protocol you will see its end result is economic control over the industry of various nations by making law to control their greenhouse gas emissions.

By making new "law" the international fear mongers will be able to effect greenhouse gas emissions on a national level, but the end result will be only a shackling of industry and production, resulting in curtailing current levels of economic opportunity, which will produce a stifling economic condition worldwide, which will further consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands, economically stratifying societies, and thereby promoting divisiveness among the world's nations. (All brought to you by the supranational "leadership" of the United Nations with their typical commitment to veracity.)

The earth is a self renewing resource system which we can do little to modify. How arrogant of our "leadership" to try to justify their "science".

Read some Thomas Malthus. He was a poor prophet.

When I was in school not too long ago, the new fear mongering was about "the next ice age" and global cooling which were then said to be upon us.

By this greenhouse gas effort our western leadership continues to amalgamate power to themselves.

That increase in supranational governing power is the only real result that this effort will produce. And if it does, the people of the world will labor and chafe under it.

With proposals like these it is no wonder other cultures, most dramatically the Muslims, question the motives and veracity of our western leadership.

Our goverments are here to serve us and mankind in the west. That is their stated goal. They, by their own admission are directed toward the betterment of mankind.

Only through the amalgamation of power our leadership seeks to demonstrate that it is interested in showing its efforts at aiding mankind.

What a farce!

This should be our first and primary piece of data on the whole effort.

Does the Clean Air Act contain a (general) definition of what a pollutant is or does it only list some specific gases? In the first case the plaintiffs might have chance otherwise there is not really much of a chance, is there?

Actually, it is quite easy to "label" CO2 as a pollutant, after all it is toxic to humans in high enough concentration. Dictionary.com defines a pollutant as "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

The Global warming is such a mistake ... when I was 5 years old (I'm 65 now) it was so warm on Christmas Day, that I was doing activities in the yard when my Grandparents left and did not even have a coat or sweater on ... does this mean we had Global warming back 60 years ago ???
Let's not fall for something that someone has come up with to get the attention he needs !!!

I have been reading UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING (every 1,500 years by S.Fred singer and Dennis T.Avery. Their credentials are unempeachable and the footnotes to their chapters are verify their comments. Therefore I find it difficult to blame CO2 on Global warming. There is no denying that the earth is warming but to put it on mans activities is pretty far fetched. Yes, reducing pollutants can not hurt, but making this the centerpiece of the effort on global warming makes me think there is another agenda. Thanks for letting me comment. PT.

Laura, please keep the column going. The only way we are going to arrive at the truth is to keep an open mind, and keep the discussion going. This issue is not sufficiently understood at this point in time. Thanks.

I am very much the novice when it comes to Polotics but more and more as I read and watch with an open mind,only one thing I can share with you is to beg of you that you find away to view the Docu-movie,"The Inconvienent Truth" (about global warming)by Al Gore. If you can handle the truth about what we are doing to our Planet Home Earth and what part you can do in helping to save our planet,then Please Please see this film !!!
A concerned Earthling..............Joseph.
P.S...Do you ever remember the times when you said "That's OK I will start that tomorrow!"
WELL-Guess what? TOMORROW IS HERE ! !

Hi Laura,

I just wanted to thank you for having this blog and getting this information out there. I am an American from Lancaster County Pa now living in Scotland and all we hear day and night on the BBC and other media outlets is how we are all doomed because of global warming. The frustrating thing is that there is never a counter argument made and everyone, and I mean everyone over here is convinced man made global warming is true and it's mostly the fault of the Americans. To give you an example of the media monopoly on this, right before the G-8 summit that was held here in Scotland back in 2005 the church we attended hosted a two part forum entitled 'The Great G-8 Debate'. The first topic was on Global Warming which I attended. There were about 100 people (that's big here in Scotland) that attended along with a BBC meteorologist that mc'd and a panel of 6 commentators. Since this was called the Great G-8 DEBATE, I was expecting that there would be just that, a debate. Instead what I found was everyone on the panel agreeing with eachother that man made global warming is true and that if we don't do something very soon, we are all doomed. I was the only in that whole meeting that offered a counter argument and when I did so I was rudely scoffed and laughed at. I cannot emphasize enough how much this mentality has permeated the whole culture here. I could tell many more stories beleive me. So thanks again for what you're doing. I plan on speading the word about this blog as Accu-weather is a well respected weather forcasting organization around the world. I might add that you all do a better job forcasting the weather over here than the BBC does.
Thanks and God bless,
Marc

The frustrating thing is that there is never a counter argument made and everyone, and I mean everyone over here is convinced man made global warming is true and it's mostly the fault of the Americans.

Marc, would you expect a "counter argument" to be made to a claim that the earth is round and revolves around the sun? That was once very controversial, long after it was accepted fact within the scientific community. How about a "claim" that fossil evidence demonstrates that the earth is older than six thousand years? That, too, is still challenged by some religious cults, but is surely accepted as fact within the scientific community.

There is no longer any debate within the scientific community about whether or not global warming is real and whether or not it is the result of human activity. It IS real and it IS the result of human activity.

...all we hear day and night on the BBC and other media outlets is how we are all doomed because of global warming.

If anything, the media overstate the debate. The scientific evidence is clear -- and very threatening to certain well-entrenched commercial interests, especially within the petroleum industry. The "controversy" and "debate" within the media is a result of an intentional media strategy promulgated by the affected commercial interests. An apt comparison, offered by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth", is the strategy taken by the tobacco industry when the dangers of smoking were first made public.

The global warming and its human origin is no longer in question within the scientific community. The most important question NOW is "What are we going to do about it."

That is a political question. In fact, it is THE political question we should all be engaging.

What are we going to DO about it?

Joe/Marc - The truth is about as apparent as Al Gore's inventing the internet. More often the truth is found in dissenting views not necessarily held by the majority. Climate is a dynamic and chaotic system, difficult to predict. A healthy skepticism may have kept us out of Iraq, but the consensus at the time was that we should invade. Do a google of GW skepticism and at least see that there are some contrary views that also seem well founded. Rick

Hey Brookline...,

Do you even know what a religious cult is? Nice strawman attempt but you're either completely ignorant or purposely deceptive.
There are many other than religious cults that believe the earth isn't billions of years old, even some Nasa scientists. I guess that makes Nasa a cult eh. By the way who are these religious cults you have referred to?
There are also plenty of scientists who are not buying into the global warming fear mongering scam. You sound like you've got your hands on the talking points from the global warming crowd. The strategy being, just keep repeating it over and over and over again until the masses fall in line.
Sorry but there is always a counter argument no matter who is trying to monopolize the issue.
The fact that forums, media and people like you think there's no counter argument indicates to me that there's insecurity with regard to your position.

Co2 is an indrect pollutant in that carbonic acid levels are above naturally occuring levels ( i.e. without mankind ) This acid is bad for coral and other marine life. The co2 above natural levels has probably been taken up to some small degree by plants. This means plant life is more luxuriant and grows faster which in turn means a grater rate of transpiration. This means more atmospheric water vapor. The anthropogenic co2 has a direct warming and the enhanced water cycle due to plants contributes to warming. The conclusions are inescapable but the debate as to crisis is well grounded. The thing is; WE SHOULDN'T WAIT 100 YEARS TO FIND OUT IF THE CHICKEN LITTLES WERE RIGHT! A more urgent problem is that pollution gains have been largely lost with more urbanization, and greater use of deisel fuel. Fine particle pollution is way up! Lets face it, 300 million people produce more pollution than 200 million notwithstanding the clean air act!

There are many other than religious cults that believe the earth isn't billions of years old, even some Nasa scientists.

Thanks for clarifying your position on matters of science, it certainly sheds light on your earlier contribution.

hey Brookline
there is always a counter argument to any claims. people might not voice it out but that doesnt mean that there's no counter claim at all. and the "fact" that we claim thats truth is recognized and observed merely by us. For example i can say "i am the center of the universe" and you can also say that you are the center of the universe: both statements will be correct according to the physics of relativity. now about this global warming issue, you might be correct in saying that it is caused by humans and they might also be correct in saying that it is not our fault. you might be correct that the planet is warming, they might be correct that is not. whoever is right is not the issue here. from what i have observed, those people who have the same idea as yours is pushing everyone to act on something that is relative to "your truth" and to "your idea" when we all have the right to refuse to believe it

Why worry now, that's what we have Grandchildren for. For me I watch the news closely for info on the appearance of Weapons of Mass Distruction. Our president will guide us sufficiently, or whatever.

As a scientist who has investigated glaciers for 25 years and know most of the scientists involved. Even Fred Singer agrees the globe is warming, I have heard him say it in person. He only disagrees on the reasons and the severity of the consequences. Having watched five glaciers disappear that I monitor every year, has shown me firsthand the impact of the global warming.