The U.S. doesn't pay UN dues; Ted Turner does.

More important than the fact that only a couple of scientists don't believe in man-made global warming, is the fact that not a single one of them has published anything on the subject in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Well if you ever have trouble falling asleep, Kofi Anan on video is great for insomnia. What is your source reference that there is a consensus of a majority of scientists that believe that there is global warming? I am not convinced. I believe that mother nature has warming spells and chilly spells. As for the flu, I think there is more convincing data out there for causes of diseases as well as proof of what they are and how to treat them. I just don't believe enough proof exists for global warming. Another UN diatribe like the Kyoto agreement. I understood that some countries would be exempt from having to stick to the guidelines (Pakistan and India I think) while we would be mandated to adhere to the agreement in full. No thanks! Another thing, why should we have to pay the lions share of our "dues" to the UN? If I had my way, I would send them back to the Hague. Let Brussels or Holland deal with it.

I've never seen the Kofi Anan videos.

We're talking about a very small percentage of scientists who don't believe in global warming. And they're probably paid by oil companies.

There are also a couple of scientists who believe in creatonism or intelligent design. Are you going to believe the one's who can't explain why the flu changes each year, or the other 99.99%? You can't get very far in Biology without accepting its fundamental theory.

I would never defend Al Gore's excessive use of electricity or anyone else's. That's about as stupid as assuming I would agree with Bill Clinton's foreign policy because I'm a liberal.

So, we should without question believe the science that you say is relevant and disregard the opinion of other scientists that may disagree with what you say is a consensus. We should follow examples of scientists like Al Gore who wrote "An Inconvenient Li---Truth" as well as inventing the internet. He also spends more on electricity in a month than most people make in a year. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Ariana Huffington who flies private jets because they were going there anyway yet they tell us to buy Yugo's. It's OK for them because they buy carbon footprint coupons.
JMO, & Gabrielle! Lets fire up the Humvee and head for the airport. There is a plane going somewhere.
Spare me that rubbish about global warming. Francisco, you need to stop watching those Kofi Anan videos. The consensus by scientists is that they cause cranial rectalitus.

Those who believe that Global Warming doesn’t exist, isn’t really a problem, or that humanity has not at least contributed to it, remind me of an old joke that a Jewish friend of mine once told me –

“The OFFICIAL position of the Jewish Faith, is that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah. The UNOFFICIAL position of the Jewish Faith, is that they HOPE that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah.”

The three of you obviously hate science. You listen to a couple of scientists that make up about half a percentage of all relevant scientists and believe everything those couple of scientists say. Meanwhile, all of the other ones have reached a consensus that the current global warming is human-made.

We have a responsibility to do everything we can to reduce carbon dioxide emmissions, wich will therby reduce global warming and mitigate sea level rise. I have no interest in stopping nature, only what we've done to it.

You had better care about global warming if you live in Hampton Roads, unless you're masochistic.

Like Keith, I fully support everything that JMO pointed out.

I have to ditto JMO on this one too!

"Everything we have to do to stop it is an inconvenience..."

Negative. Stopping climate change isn't inconvenient, it's IMPOSSIBLE. The climate has changed for millions of years and I continued to be dumbfounded by the ARROGANCE of people who think we can stop it from happening in the future.

Joe Flanagan on 13 News just did a bit on the sea levels rising 2 feet in 100 years. I say 'so what'? What were the sea levels 100 years ago, and why aren't we working feverishly to go back to those levels? Because it's ridiculous to believe that we can control sea levels, that's why.

Be good environmental stewards and take care of our earth. I do my part though I admit I could do a lot more. But STOP (PLEASE!) trying to convince me that we have anything other than a miniscule impact on the global climate. The mere suggestion is ludicrous when given even the slightest critical thought.

jmo

Retiredguy, there is no reason to contrive the idea of global warming for political purposes. Everything we have to do to stop it is an inconvenience, except for the other benefits to the environment.

Hjriver, the first step needed is to reduce the population. The population that does exist needs to reduce consumption. Then, we need to get our energy from the cleanest sources possible, like ocean buoys. The problems associated with batteries aren't anywhere near what we're facing now.

Meg is another member of Algore's Church of Global Warming. Oh, sorry, it's the Church of Climate Change now, so that every conceivable weather condition, heat, cold, hurricanes, too much rain, not enough rain, tornados, etc., etc., can be blamed on those nasty greenhouse gasses. The truth is that climate change is no longer about science, it's the politics of control; controlling the power that we in the U.S. and other developed nations depend on for all aspects of our lives from producing consumer products to heating and cooling our homes. The do-gooders, like Meg, are on a mission to impose carbon credits, or coupons, or whatever they might be called, on all of us. Those credits are not free, so I prefer to call them what they really would be, an energy tax that will cripple the U.S. economy. The do-gooders cite global warming and rising oceans as justification for destroying our way of life, but climatologists have a difficult time predicting the weather a week in advance, much less 50 or 100 years. When climate predictions that far out are used to set government policy, hang onto you wallets, folks, and anything else that is dear to you.

I wonder if people who call for more ethanol, solar power, wind power, etc have any idea of the magnitude to offset even a small part of the energy we get from fossil fuels? Already food prices have took a huge spike and millions in the world are at risk of starvation because so much of our crops like corn have been diverted into ethanol. Solar is only for daylight hours when the sun happens to shine and batteries to store the energy are very expensive to buy and maintain not to mention the extreme hazard disposing of them. Wind power is a no-go because most of the elites who we hear touting them will not allow them in their sight line so that makes them off limits to most of the areas they would prove effective.

The demand for energy is increasing, not decreasing and it's worldwide. People who like the writer apparently have no clue as to the challenge. Will she think about the number of people she starves to death when she fills her vehicles up with fuel diverted from the food chain. I doubt it. These people are too busy micromanaging other peoples lives instead of concentrating on their own excesses.

I support your cap, but you can keep the trade. I don't mess around when it comes to pollution.