that uses any and all specific events for their cause is bad enough but there is a bigger issue at stake here.

The problem is that any solution that infringes on our individual rights and on our Capitalist system by imposing unfair controls is unacceptable.

The only solution that is acceptable is a technological one. We find ways to clean up our atmosphere, or we develop cleaner fuels, or we offer incentives to private businesses to develop more efficient technologies. Whatever it is, there will not be an imposed solution from the government on the American business.

Alarmists are pushing for control-based solutions like Kyoto and other measures to "mitigate" or slow down the rate us dumping CO2 and that is unacceptable on it's face. That control-based solution if you remember was defeated unanimously in the US Senate before Bush came to office.

Alarmists also in this case are willing to lie and lie big in order to advance their(from their perspective a legitimate) cause. Pardon me if I don't care for what they have to say.

I am not convinced about Human influence on global warming but even if I was I would still not accept any control-based solution to the problem.

Sometimes it's all about how you ask the question.  I find a lot of times questions about global warming are a little to pointed.  Of course one must assume the person being asked understands that the climate is, in fact, warming.

From that I ask something a little more open ended.  If we know the Earth is warming do we want to allow that to happen?  I leaves the answer a little more open, it doesn't require you to align yourself with one camp or another.  If we have the technology to slow or stop a warming (or cooling) global climate should we take action?

I agree with Ender in that it will have to come about in a very different and less invasive way in this country.  I don't, however, like the," well my neighbor dumps oil down HIS drain, so I'm gonna too!" attitude.  It's a little bit ignorant of the entire picture.

In any case try this question out next time.

First, your individual right ends where my face begins. You can't pollute on my property and you can't dump in a stream that flows through your property and then gets to mine.

Likewise, you don't get to pollute into the air that I breath in and call it your personal right. Are you suggesting that ALL environmental laws are wrong?

Second, during WWII we had rationing. Should we have looked for newer technology to allow support for the war effort AND the capitalist society? Sure, but in the absence of such technology, rationing, be it steel or pollution is not an injustice.

I generally agree with your first paragraph. Thus I support some common sense legislation that should be worked out through consultation with business interests.

Second, in crisis situations where our country and our liberties are at stake desperate measures are needed that might override individual rights. Since I don't believe we are even close to any such crisis situation I would oppose all control-based solutions.

governments, businesses and everyday citizens that will be required to mitigate global warming through greenhouse gas emmissions (including but not limited to CO2) will take place when a majority of the individuals within each group see that it will benefit them more in the long run.

Right now, we are doing what we do, on every environmental front, because in the short run, we can & it's cheaper than doing it right.  ie - we now run sewage through sewage treatment plants instead of into a ditch or water body because we found it cheaper in the long run not to wipe out the fish in the body of water or drink contaminated water, we harvest forests differently than in the past because future business revenue and environmental factors increased the prosperity and value of life over simply clear cutting every tree we came across.

Similarly, when the people who live on the coasts find their property going under the high tide line, they'll think spending the money is a bargain.  When a farmer finds he can't farm anymore because of environmental conditions, he'll think it's cheaper to spend the money (it'll too late for that poor sap at that point, but oh well).

We do stuff, on all levels, the easiest and cheapest we can.  It isn't until we've been clocked really hard that we change our patterns to spend additional energy and money on an issue. 

Unfortunately, humans are lazy and selfish sometimes (sometimes more than others & some more than others).

I doubt many americans care about a bunch of terrorists in secret prisons being moved around and tortured. I'd say news like that only helps Bush.

We don't know if they are terrorists until they have a trial. We do know that a lot of people in Guananamo and Abu Graib were innocent. Do you think the President should have complete power of judge, jury, torturer, and executioner?

"The problem is that any solution that infringes on our individual rights and on our Capitalist system by imposing unfair controls is unacceptable."

we arrest people if their plans infringe on our individual rights.

destroying my environment infringes on my rights to basic survival! 

You seem to be talking about things like emission standards, but if emission is as deadly as a bullet, then of course we can intervene.

I don't get how you could think we can intervene in Iraq, but things like this, no, it's a matter of siding with people that don't want limitations, it's not logically consistent, merely affiliation consistent.

that is a folk wisdom, global warming as an idea didn't come from such folkism like that, "gee, seems hot this summer"... it's scientific data.

You characterize it INTO your world view, but you need to look at the world and characterize it more on it's own terms.  I do not add "in my opinion" because this is a matter of facts and logical reasoning.

We can get back to opinion once we admit the reality of what's going on, let THAT reality form our opinions which will likely still differ, but at least work from the same reality. I think then we are likely to find a mixed conservative-liberal solution.

Let's be reasonable here for a moment: we all recognize limits to what we should allow, the question is where we envision those limits, and why.  Really, one of the largest discussions is a procedural one: whether the president has the ability to overstep the legal frameworks or not. 

Let me ask you a question: you seem to think that the American public, by and large, has no problems with secret prisons, torture, etc.  So why not pass it through Congress - make it legal?  Could you see that passing?  Why not?

because my father is the same.  All I can do is shake my head and switch topics to something politically neutral like sports (but that is not even safe from his ridiculous conspiracy theories as he will start talking about the tax funded stadium or something).

asking those particular scientists whether Global Warming (or rather human activities responsible for it) exists or not is similar to asking congressional lobbyists whether their services are needed or even asking fundamentalist Christians whether God exists.

I am concerned and wary over all of those conclusions and whether they are being objectively scrutinized or is it an irrational orgy with almost religious undertones backed by the sinister anti-capitalist forces fanning the flames.

Again considering I do not think we are threatened, we have plenty of time to ascertain what is really happening and how it will affect our future.

I support the Death Penalty as well even though there are risks of executing innocents. Humanity isn't perfect and if we  refused to do anything that we could not accomplish perfectly nothing would ever be done.

... about killing or torturing innocents as you do for those being slaughtered in Iraq, I note.

The real question in the case of torture is, where are the checks and balances?  I don't think the death penalty is a relevant example because death penalty cases are subject to automatic judicial review.

The abduction and torture of possible innocent individuals is not.

when dealing with the enemy such checks and balances are best left to the military or the individual agency in question.

I leave it to the more than capable hands of our intelligence agencies and the pentagon.

Honestly I do not care about those people as long as our DoD and Homeland Security Dept do their job and protect our country. This is not a concern.

You must understand that scientists do not usually have a political agenda when doing research (exceptions of course for things like drug research, but not for most of the hard sciences including climatology).  What would be their motive?

The motive at the very least could be to keep their funding from various sources. Other motives can be political sympathies with various sides.

Plenty of various institutions, including World Bank, are susceptible to mass propaganda and eventually fold and adopt the prevailing wisdom as policy.

I am not categorically denying Global Warming but I am more than a little skeptical because I am very concerned over the agenda of the people funding the research.

of why these scientists hold an anti-capitalist agenda.  It makes no sense.  Why would they care?  Are most scientists socialists/communists?  What is your evidence?

I know you don't have all the time in the world to do research to find who might be funding these studies, but do you think 928 peer-reviewed journal authors all have the same anti-capitalist views and cherry-picked the same evidence.  That is preposterous!

Climatologists are researchers, like any other researchers.  No, they're not all funded by George Soros - some are getting money from federal funding, some from universities public and private, some from private institutions.  You've got an enormous range of sponsers to sift through if you want to make an argument about motivations.

Who's paying for global-warming-specific studies?  I don't know, but you've got a lot of work to do if you want to make this claim.  You know how much we love unsubstantiated arguments here.  :D

Notice we don't have these arguments about most of the other sciences.  No one's guessing, without any evidence, that evolution researchers must be funded by anti-religious groups.

What we do know is that, almost without exception, naysayers to global warming are being funded by oil companies .  That should set off a few alarm bells.

There is plenty of evidence of Earth warming but it is not as clear whether it is caused primarily by human interference. Earth was this hot before and many times.

I'd like to believe the data presented but again I am concerned by who is presenting this data, the alliances of groups funding the research, and the hidden motives of those groups.

It's not as simple as just looking at the data presented in vacuum. Because there is no vacuum around this data.

the scientists who hold the anti-capitalist agenda. I thought I made that clear. Who is funding the research? Where is the money coming from? What are the organizations who are most alarmist about this and what evidence to they present?

Respected scientists who work for the government.  Who study these things for years.

What's their agenda again?

From the current film controversy to global warming to Iraq.

Everything is relative.  Therefore, there are no "facts."  And everything can be denied or supported depending on one's point of view.

This general distrust of even the most proven of facts must stem from his time being subject to the propaganda machines of  his former country.  He doesn't trust anything.

What a way to go through life.

true.... however, a big part of the puzzle is shown by the fact that the CO2 levels now are way higher than anytime in the last half million years plus... and that contributional difference is due to humans.

so we have a correlation between CO2 and warming of some sort... and we are putting more CO2 in the air, and it's getting warmer... that's a bit more than just a little odd.