I agree. There have been many un-nuanced arguments posted above including: “global warming doesn’t exist,” “Al Gore et. al. are goofs so global warming doesn’t exist,” “unless we have 100% certainty, we should do nothing about global warming,” “reducing our pollution will impoverish us,” and “there are many who wish to use global warming to stick it to the United States and the west as well as impose their own belief system regarding “sustainable life” on the rest of us.”

I find this last one particularly interesting given that 1) to date it is western governments (with the exception of the U.S.) that have taken the lead on fighting global warming, and 2) any child can see that sustainability is not a “belief system” or “lifestyle.”

Sustainability is the principle that, in any finite system, taking resources from that system without replenishing them will lead to the system’s collapse.

THE PLANET IS A FINITE SYSTEM! It is not like the economy. Economies are not finite or zero-sum. They grow. Increased economic activity increases wealth AND the opportunity for even more activity. Sadly, the almighty market meets its match at the planetary scale. Or even sooner.

History is littered with civilizations that collapsed because they didn’t respect their finite resources. The ancient Maya burned so much of their forest (to produce lime for the construction of their cities) that their rivers clogged with silt and their irrigation dependent agriculture collapsed. Likewise, the Easter Islanders deforested their island (to aid construction of their spooky giant-head totems) and their agriculture collapsed.

Our predicament is not so clear cut (pardon the pun). Air pollution from our civilization threatens to change weather patterns, with consequences for world water supplies, coastal real estate, extreme weather events, species extinction and, of course, agriculture.

Luckily, we’re much better equipped than past civilizations to deal with this. We’ve got incredible scientific insight into these mechanisms and risks, and incredible technology to deal with the problem.

I’m not calling anyone a “yahoo” or any other epithet, nor do I wish to attack anyone’s sincerity, or intelligence, or right to their own opinion. I think it’s really sad how quickly this and other debates in our country descend into such attacks. For me, it shows how poorly educated in clear thought and constructive argument we’ve become as a society. How intolerant we’ve become for views other than our own. For my part, I’m just trying to throw facts into the debate, as clearly and respectfully as I can.

And about certainty… If over 90% of Wall Street analysts said there was a 90% chance that such and such a stock was about to tank, would you invest in it?

Look - and for the last fricking time. Here is the sum total of “a lot more scientists who say it is happening than who suggest a it isn’t” means:

“It” = the planet is getting warmer and an unknown percentage of that is because of human industrial activity.

That’s it. Anybody who says that there is agreement or consensus or rock solid dead certainty about anything else as it relates to global warming is talking through their ass. CO2 levels now, CO2 levels 100 years from now, what the temp will be 100 years from now, or 50 years, or 10 years, or anything else - NOBODY KNOWS!

Now, my purpose in making fun of SOME people who “believe” in global warming as if it were some kind of religion and that if you don’t “believe” in every dire prediction and gloom and doom scenario that you are a climate Nazi or worse, is simple; there are many who wish to use global warming to stick it to the United States and the west as well as impose their own belief system regarding “sustainable life” on the rest of us.

Al Gore is a tool of these forces. He’s too dumb to control them and perhaps he’s dimly aware of their dual agendas. But until science can demonstrate that 1) we can actually do something about global warming or 2) that there is a genuine threat to our civilization, I will forgo the pleasure of giving up approximately 12 trillion dollars in economic activity over the next 25 years in order to achieve the 90% reduction in emissions called for at Live Earth (See pledge above). If we are going to go back to the turn of the 20th century, we need a helluva lot more compelling evidence - not to mention the cooperation of China and India who are both bigger polluters than the US - before we impoverish the American people.

But as you can see from the comments above, if you don’t buy in to the entire program, you’re a goober chewing yahoo. At least that kind of ignorance is relatively harmless. THe kind of ignorance on display above from the hysterics is a lot more dangerous.

Cuz the reality is, there are a lot more scientists who say it is happening than who suggest a it isn’t. A LOT more. If the ones who say it isn’t happening are right, what…we have cleaner air to breathe? Oh no! Of course if the majority is right and we listen to you….total disaster. Total freaking disaster.

This is such a no brainer decision for me.

Second, the snarky comment about a Goddess was cute but are you really implying that your magical and invisible Ghost in the sky that has His followers wear funny robes, eat the flesh of the Ghost’s son and drink His blood…is somehow more impressive than a magical and invisible female Ghost who has Her people worship the wind and sky?

Okie dokie then.

Sorry but I don’t get it.

Your right-wing rantings don’t change the fact that there has not been a discovery of a major new oil reserve in the last five years.

The experts disagree on the when of peak oil, whether it is now, 2 years from now, or 5-10, but peak oil is coming and if we don’t implement policies to reduce our dependencies on oil we will be a second or third rate world power.

But our ANSWERS to this issue are political: how to interpret the scientifical findings, and what to do in response - individually, societally, and governmentally?

Now, if there were only a 25% plausibility that we are up to ruin our ecosphere by polluting and abusing it - these 25% should be enough to make it wise for us to change our life-style radically. (I suppose the plausibility of the Gore warnings can claim a higher percentage than that. I give it 50%.)

Anyway, nothing can grow eternally, so from this intuition, too, we ought to think of ways how we could do without growth, how we could learn to live with some shrinking.

Some “Luddism” may become a sound counter-principle to our contemporary progress & growth addiction, to our one-sidedly Capitalist structures.

I mean balance, not just “Luddism” as a prevailing strategy. And “Luddism” here is only a provocative and misleading metaphor for what we ought to do to shrink our consumerism.

Sorry that so many of us don’t buy your BS…

As you said in your piece “What I Believe about Global Warming,” despite the scientific consensus that human activity is raising the temperature of the planet there is still much uncertainty about the issue. Why don’t we err on the side of caution –traditionally a conservative approach– and act as if the dire warnings were correct?

Perhaps this will cause some economic pain (although many European countries have reduced their GHG emissions without damaging their standards of living at all). But what if we look at any such cost as similar to an insurance premium? The chance of one’s house burning down is slim but no one uses this to claim that fire insurance isn’t important.

I suspect you’ll say that the costs of reducing GHG pollution are greater relative to the economy than insurance premiums are to our personal incomes, but some quick math show this isn’t the case. Let’s say I make $30K/year and my insurance costs $300/year. That means I’m paying 1 percent of my income to cover this risk. One percent of our current GDP ($13 trillion, conservatively) is $130 billion. You quoted $1.2 trillion over 10 years as a worst case scenario combat GHG’s, or $120 billion per year. Paying to clean up GHG’s would cost us no more as a country than fire insurance costs us a family!

Maybe the planet won’t ‘burn,’ but if it turns out it does, I think we’ll all regret we didn’t buy the insurance that was available to mitigate the damage. And perhaps life insurance is a more accurate analogy because the risk of global warming will effect our children and grandchildren much more than it effects us. We all need to start acting on behalf of their futures.

Just in case.

Please do look at the science…..

And please look at who supports the science for Global Warming, and the “science” against global warming.

Science is apolitical. But if that’s the case way has the Bush Administration for years now done everithing within their power to discredit every scientist warning of Global Warming?

….. Are they dangerously ignorant?

Me, I am not dangerous. I am just trying to put the facts as I see them.