Laura, this wasn't posted? Was it the THC comment? Sorry...he-he...I removed it. I may be a pain in the neck for you. I apologize, I'm just passionate. Surely this will be acceptable:

Dear global warmers,

I was thinking about buying real estate in the Carribean to escape the cold when I retire from New England in say, 30 years? Using your science, would this be a mistake? Do you even think that we'll be around in 30 years? I honestly don't know to what extreme you think the earth will warm?

You see, we skeptics lack your vision. If you will, paint for us a virtual picture. Please describe in detail how different St. Thomas, V.I. and Boston, MA will be in 30 years? Calculate your figures, fire up your computer, light your inscents, rub your crystal ball and start painting. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and insight!

A 36 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the start of the industrial age(150 years), yet the earth's average temperature has only increased by .4 degrees Farenheit, the greenhouse effect. Is this apocalyptic? Does this require an immediate, costly, drastic change to humanity?

Cold here, warm there, clearly this must mean that the earth is in immediate peril, right? Has it never been warm before? How did we contribute to the previous warmth? This may be cyclical or dependent solely on the sun. Historically, the climate has always changed.

History explains everything, the future tells us nothing.

The question is just how much are humans and animals contributing to GW and will we, as a society not survive this self induced global climate change? Can we survive long enough for old technology to be retro-fitted by new technology? Based upon the 150 years of industrialization theory, we can easily survive another 150. By then, technology will be much greener.

Lastly, if it get's to warm for you, we can all hold hands and wait for another volcanic eruption. That will definitely reduce global temperatures. JUST KIDDING!

Rich - much better. Thanks!

If the current GW debate results in a clean up of the environment then it is a good thing. I too am skeptical of it being man made and do not subscribe to the "chicken little" theory that the "sky is falling". However, the development of alternative fuels to end our dependence on oil will ultimaterly benefit the USA.

Thomas,

"If the current GW debate results in a clean up of the environment then it is a good thing."

While I'm all for energy independence etc, your above notion is a major peeve of mine as I see it all the time. It seems a pretty common notion that, hey, even if GW is a hoax, at least we'll clean up the environment. That makes sense - but only if you have no concept of what economists call 'opportunity cost'. By redirecting our efforts to something that really isnt necessary, we are ignoring areas we should be addressing, such as poverty and famine. By artificially limiting CO2 emissions and forcing people to change to less economically efficient lifestyles (if, hypothetically, the GW thing was a hoax), you are setting economies - and thus human development - back artificially. That means all manner of advancements - technical, medical, engineering - that could be used to improve and save lives are held back. In the end, you are wasting effort fixing a problem that doesnt exist, while real problems go unaddressed.

That is NOT a good thing.

We face way too many problems in this world to be redirecting all our energies towards fixing non-existent ones.

Poor Joe Sobel, while he is correct he is out of step with current day America. We now have science by noise level not true research. If you shout it out long enough it becomes scientific fact. I cringe everytime I hear someone say everybody knows something is true or is a fact.

When we adopted as fact that sidestream tobacco smoke caused cancer, even though the facts showed this was not truth we started down the path of consensus or what the majority wants to be the truth instead of what true scientific evidence shows. In the case of humans causing global warming all research shows humans MAY be the cause or MIGHT have an affect. But when this is read by the zealots they conveiently leave out the may and might and cite the reports as facts.