[Cerek]

As for the rest of the debate, I still find a lot of claims from the pro-GCC side to be dubious at best.

SW - You claim "all scientists are in agreement about GCC and have been for years". You've been making that same claim since before the email scandals broke and revealed the lead group of scientists not only failed to adhere to the accepted scientific method of sharing data to see if their results were accurate, they deliberately conspired and refused to share their data because they stated the other scientists "just wanted to find something wrong with it". That doesn't sound like universal agreement to me. Even though the debate my be politically driven, the fact that the debate continues also shows that all scientists are not in universal agreement regarding the causes of GCC because both sides are able to produce scientists and scientific reports supporting their cause.

Even if there is a universal consensus, critics still have to question whether that consensus is driven by any motives other than pure scientific discovery. There is universal consensus among the Big Oil companies that more drilling is necessary to maintain our current lifestyle and support our modern technology (since crude oil is used for many more products than just gasoline), but there are still plenty of critics claiming that universal agreement is not enough to give them carte' blanche.

I will agree that GCC scientists protect and defend their viewpoint with a religious fervor. I also agree scientists do not need the masses to agree with their findings, they just need their grant writers that provide the funding to agree with them....or is that the other way around? Either way, there is no denying that environmentalists have always used "alarmist exaggerations" in the past and continue to do so now. I also remember the cries of alarm in the 70's that we were headed for another Ice Age. The fact that scientists NOW try to dismiss or trivialize that doesn't change the fact their predecessors still screamed the message JUST as loudly as GCC is being screamed today. I also remember the cries of alarm from the late 80's that the Amazon forest was going to be completely burnt and obliterated by the new millenia due to the hundreds of acres being burnt [b]every day[/i] at that time. The best I can tell, satellite imagery still shows a rather large chunk of the Amazon forest on the map 20 years later.

You might dismiss these or make qualifications to state why those environmentalists were actually right, but that doesn't change the fact they grossly exaggerated the effect human actions were having at the time and the effect those actions would have in the future.

BTW, religion doesn't require the masses to be successful. We've also agreed on some universal truths and moved on, despite the continued disagreement (and disbelief) of many among the general population.

I also like the notion that only scientists are allowed to make any statements about the environment and the impact humans may or may not be having on it. Obviously, somebody forgot to tell Al Gore OR the scientific community about this caveat, since Al was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his film, even though he has NO scientific degree at all. What he DOES have is his own agenda for promoting "Green" technology. Yes, it has been a pet cause of his since college, but he has done his best to turn that pet cause into a revenue generating cause as well. Why does Al Gore promote Green Technology so strongly? Maybe because he has invested heavily in the companies providing the technology he promotes? Remember the carbon footprint and carbon offsets from a few years ago? Everyone should measure their carbon footprint and either reduce it or "buy" carbon offsets to excuse their excessive use. Turns out Al's own "carbon footprint" was about 12 times that of an average household in his TN home (while GWB's personal ranch house had already been converted to "green technology - gotta love the irony of that). But it was OK, because Al bought "carbon offsets" from the company in which he was a 51% owner. In other words, he wrote an excuse for himself for not following his own rules. And yet, he will still be defended despite his obvious hypocrisy.

I also agree with Azred and John D. that the Earth has gone in continuous cycles of warming and cooling LONG before Man was dominant enough to have any impact at all on the environment and the current warming period we are having may, in fact, just be part of the natural cycle. If so, science HAS shown that disrupting or altering the natural cycle of events CAN have detrimental results. Sometimes, it is better to let a section of forest burn to remove old growth and promote new growth. Many people are opposed to hunting, but evidence clearly shows it is detrimental to allow deer populations to expand without control.

Humans often feel there should never be any "bad" occurrences, but what may seem "bad" in the short term turns out to be beneficial in the long term. Is the globe going through an overall warming trend? Evidence suggests that it is? Are humans responsible for this trend, either directly or indirectly? Possibly a little, but not nearly to the extent the alarmists would have us believe - and, yes, they ARE being alarmists. Should we dismiss their cries of alarm and ignore their warnings? No, because humans have had negative impacts on the environment in the past and will continue to have some in the future. MOST of these impacts have been more localized in nature (think about L.A. back in the 70's - pollution so thick they coined the new term "smog" to describe it).

So there IS reason to be prudent and look for ways to change or reduce the impact mankind might have on the environment (even if the impact IS localized), but there is equal reason to view the alarmists claims with an extremely critical eye - especially when the group in charge of regulations does none of it's own research and the group in charge of doing the research refuses to share their data with others to see if the results can be reproduced objectively.