>>I was with John on global warning - I'd seen too many scientists debunking it and there just wasn't enough science. Not just scientists with ties to the current administration, oil companies, or big money either. It was pretty much 50/50 for a long time. That was until I saw this:
>>
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
>
>The thing about "global warming" that really gets to me is that people on both sides are very passionate in their positions YET the proposed ways to address the issue are smart and good and wise regardless of whether it is fact or not. Seems to me we're once again letting some technical point get in the way of real improvements, and I ask myself why.
>
>In the early 70s gas crisis President Nixon proposed steps that could have made huge positive changes to the economy and the use of fossil fuels. But it was disregarded as soon as gas prices went down again.
>The same seems to be happening again this time around.
>How would it hurt to have better fuel economy in cars and trucks?

That costs the auto industry money.

>How would it hurt if solar and wind and hydrogen became cheaper, more efficient and more popular?.. Or if geo-thermal could be more widely harnassed?

That costs the oil industry money.

>How would it hurt to re-cycle more and more and to ensure that more and more of what we buy is better designed for re-cycling?

That costs the manufacturing industry money.

>How would it hurt if mass transit was made more effective and efficient and was far more integrated into our regular infrastructures?

That costs the Oil industry and the auto industry money.

>Seems to me these are all smart things to be doing even if "global warming" has nothing at all to do with man's use/treatment of the planet's resources.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Then why are most scientists on one side of the issue? Most of the politics I see are the denials from the oil companies and those beholden to them. As Doug Dodge -- whose politics are a whole lot closer to yours than to mine -- likes to say, follow the money.
>>>
>>>Let me phrase it an entirely different way. Do you think we are doing what we should be for the environment? Even if we have provided only 5% (debatable), isn't that 5% too much?
>>>
>>>
>>>>No it isn't. That's half right. The expert consensus is that it exists, the debate is how much is human caused. Most climatologists will tell you that we contribute about 5% of the greenhouse gasses into the air.
>>>>
>>>>A normal volcano eruption will put more crap in the air than all human activities combined will in a given year.
>>>>
>>>>What bothers me is how this has become a political debate and not a scientific one.
>>>>
>>>>>>I really don't know if there is global warming.
>>>>>
>>>>>We're lay people. The expert consensus is that it exists and caused by humans