What do you guys propose we do about the phenomenon of GlobalGrowing?

It just goes to show how much any of us really know about mother nature.

THIS ARGUMENT IS DONE, OVER, COMPLETE. GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS, IT IS MAN-MADE AND WE CAN STOP IT!!!! mw, you are f*cking forbidden from saying another word about it. There is a lot of grant money out there and capital in general that goes away without the threat of global warming. JUST SHUT THE F*&^% UP - sshhhhh.

Now, please buy as many small-cap alternative energy stocks as you possibly can. And vote Democrat. It all helps the Dos Family. Thank you.

“It is not a vote establishing consensus, it is that the overwhelming majority of climatologists are convinced by the evidence.” - js

Not that it matters, but just out of curiosity - were you being intentionally or unintentionally hilarious when you wrote this?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is an undisputed fact except among those who are really loons. The physics are there and have been recognized for a century. We have increased the amount of that gas in the atmosphere. Why wouldn’t there be a warming effect? Where is the hypothesis that stands up to inspection to disprove that there would be one? Because it’s not that alternative explanations aren’t being considered, it’s that they don’t stand up to that consideration. They fail on examination by scientists who aren’t enamored of the idea of discrediting the idea of AGW.

As far as claims of being undecided by someone who refers to “core dogma of the Progressive Church”, now THAT’S something I’m skeptical about.

“But they’re not wrong about global warming so can we quit encouraging the loons?” - js

Really, Justin. To even acknowledge the question is to attack core dogma of the Progressive Church. I can’t believe you would be so callous to attack some of your reader’s religious beliefs. Shame.

For the record - I am undecided on whether causality between global warming and human effect / CO2 production has been firmly established. Not saying it isn’t - just saying it is not established. And to save some time here - yes I am aware that - FILL IN THE BLANK - scientists think there is a causal connection and - FILL IN THE BLANK WITH A SMALLER NUMBER - scientists think that causality is not established. Scientific truth is not determined by a show of hands - or by refusing to consider alternative explanations and theories.

Because if we’re wrong about global warming, well, we could be a global recession, but we would have also spent a ton of money developing green technology and getting off of fossil fuels. Not the worst thing in the world.

Except that, in the meantime, millions of people will continue to suffer the crippling effects of poverty - including disease, malnutrition, and natural disasters ect - who wouldn’t have suffered otherwise if the third world was allowed to develop economically. But then again, we already have a well developed infrastructure, its really the rest of the world who will suffer, much more than Americans. Not the worst thing in the world.

http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/mccain-and-environment.html

“how will you get Republicans to support broad, sweeping pro-environment legislation? Can a Dem do that? Can Hillary do that?” - jg

This is a great point. The reality about our government, is that sweeping major legislation gets through Congress not because a President convinces an opposing party to cooperate, but Because a president can maintain discipline and restrain the extreme of their own party. A president can primarily get major bills passed that the party would normally oppose. That is why Bush was able to force a major expensive new entitlement progarm through (prescription benefits) and massively increase deficits, why Clinton was able to get welfare reform and NAFTA passed, why Reagan could advance Perestroika, why Nixon could impose price controls and open China. The examples go on and on …