It's amazing how many "experts" on this board know more than the scientists who are experts in their fields of study. I think I'll trust the vast majority of scientists, including the experts at NASA, when it comes to the global warming issue, as well as whether or not the polar bears are endangered.
Fact: The Earth has heated and cooled drastically on its own without any influence of humans. That is a fact. Guess what? It will continue to do so.
Anyone else also notice that the phrase "climate change" is slowly replacing "global warming". It is subtle, but watch for yourselves. The propaganda campaign is underway. I believe there is a recent report that over the last 10 years, worldwide temperatures have not changed measureably, hence the change.
People still have not answered, raise your hand if you want $5 a gallon gas. It will happen sooner than people think, especially with people refusing to investigate things on their own. Don't worry though, we can still blame the oil companies.
joefrog- If big oil is going to continue to make the big bucks, they have to discredit the greenhouse gas theory so who has more at stake in this than them? And what monetary stake does NASA have in this? Their top climatologist is a conservative republican and former skeptic, but now says the scientific evidence is overwhelming and he believes global warming is being caused by over 100 years of sending billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Common sense also tells us that that's not good and will eventually lead to problems. And regarding $5 gas, that will happen if the oil industry can get away with it. Oh, I forgot it's a supply and demand issue. We're in such short supply that OPEC is cutting production and Bush wants to up the billions of barrells going into the stragetic oil reserve. Sounds like you've bought the oil pitch hook, line and sinker. I think I'll listen to the scientists and experts who's main stake in this is the future of the planet for their kids, not how many extra billions they can make in profits.
Now, they're saying that we need to alter our economy, our standard of living and our way of life to avoid something that may be unavoidable.
Regardless of whether you believe global warming (or climate change) is a result of our misuse of the earth's natural resources or a natural phenomenon, doesn't it just make sense to treat the environment better? And if $5 a gallon gas reduces our dependency on foreign oil, I am willing to adjust my lifestyle accordingly.
The hard reality of this is no one really knows the true cause and effect of mankind's activities in relation to the climate.
Simply put, there are valid arguments and data for, just as there are valid arguments and data against.
Pro warmers often ignore the effect of sunspots, etc, and the anti global warming side often ignores the fact that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the amounts in the air are very high. IMO the single biggest problem with all of this is the cause and effect issue-> Does CO2 cause increased warming, or does warming cause increased CO2? (The answer is yes to both questions)
I have "followed" this topic for years, and I personally am undecided on the topic. Too many unknowns and conflicting information.
With all that said, IMO we should do what we reasonably can to reduce these emissions.
Why does everybody forget the Earth has been much hotter and colder then now on its own? Can everybody at least agree on that? Who has the authority to determine what exactly is the best temperature for the planet? Maybe the heating and cooling of the planet over time is a good and natural thing? Seems to have worked pretty good so far.