Global warming is not an issue that can be illuminated in any way by polls. Of course, the science of global warming has been completely overwhelmed in recent years (and to a very large extent, completely LOST!) in the politics surrounding the issue. This is why people waste time on such nonsense as polls that ask a bunch of hunters what they think about global warming.

Is the globe warming? Almost certainly. The globe goes through cycles of warming and cooling that last thousands of years. It is always doing one or the other. What would be really extraordinary--and cause for serious concern--would be if it were NOT doing one or the other!

Is the warming that is happening now a direct result of human activity? Ah, well, that's a much more difficult question to answer. Some scientists have come up with computer models that they claim "prove" that the warming is being caused by human activity, or at least exacerbated by it. A lot of people are in awe of modern technology, and mistakenly think that we humans have everything figured out. They imagine that these computer models can't possibly be wrong. Of course, those of us who understand how computer models work and are developed, know that they are only as good as the prejudices of the people who designed them, and as the data that are fed into them.

If you believe that these computer models "prove" anything at all, ask yourself why similar computer models are unable to predict movements in the stock market, even though more time, effort, and expertise has been put into THOSE models. Ask yourself why these computer models can't predict next weeks, or next years weather patterns, but they imagine they can know everything about weather patterns that have developed over the last 500 years--despite the fact that they have only very sketchy data to feed the models when you go back more than 50 years.

Sadly, global warming is one of those issues--gun control and abortion are others--where the science has been completely lost in the political nattering. The press has decided that global warming IS happening, that it IS the result of human activity, and that these computer models ARE always correct. If you dispute any of these contentions you will be shouted down and marginalized. As a result, this is no longer an issue about which calm, rational, scientific discussion is possible. So we are left with polls that ask hunters what they think is happening.

I wish I could say that I find it hard to believe that it has come to this. The really sad thing here is that I don't find it hard to believe at all. Almost every issue nowadays eventually comes to this.

If you took today's politicians and transported them a few thousand years in the past, they'd be running around in alarm proclaiming the end of the world.

"Since man has discovered fire," they'd scream, "the world is getting warmer and the glaciers are receding! If this keeps up, Iowa will become a temperate zone covered with prairies and deciduous forests. Mammoths will become extinct, bison will decline, and humanity dependent on those creatures will die along with them."

At that point the left wing Cro-Magnons would demand that cook fires be eliminated in order to stop warming things up, and those who cooked their food rather than eating it raw would become politically-incorrect outcasts.

Just because a human activity coincides with natural phenomena doesn't make it causal. IMO this is like blaming sunspot activity on which party controls the White House.

Actually, you don't need to go anywhere near that far back. In the middle 1970s the press and politicians were all wringing their hands over the coming ice age.

The Washington Post and New York Times both declared that the globe was cooling, that it was the fault of human activity, and that if we didn't change our ways soon we were facing the certainty of another ice age. Each of these papers (as well as numerous other media outlets) featured a large number of stories over the course of several years, all declaring that anyone who didn't believe in the coming ice age was ignoring the facts, that the science was undeniable, and that the entire issue was completely settled.

Sound familiar? Hysterical ranting sells a lot more papers than calm, rational, science ever will. That's why 30 years ago it was an ice age, today it is global warming, and a few years down the road it will be something else entirely. Anyone who lets themselves be thrown into a panic by this (Al Gore, for example) is being extremely foolish and gullible.

All I know is that in the middle of the day Sunday we had 41 degrees and snow -- the coldest June 4th on record (113 years) in this part of Alaska. But I suppose that's global warming, too. These nuts will point to receding glaciers in North America as proof of global warming. But if you point out ADVANCING glaciers in Greenland or Antarctica, they'll say that's caused by global warming, too. They've reached the point where they can use global warming to explain anything.

Al Gore recently said that there's nothing wrong with exaggerating things if it gets the point across. Global warming's king speaks -- facts don't matter, you just have to believe.

Here, Here to Science to Science! The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) gave a report 5 years ago stating bluntly:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing temperatures to rise."

This position like other NAS positions is based on a review of current peer reviewed articles. Basically its a comment by scientists on the findings of scientific studies.

I tend to agree with the NAS position, simply because it makes sense and has good founding in many scientific journals. When I talk about "journals" I'm referring to non-main-stream media, erudite puplications that the general population has little interest in.

A few points that are beyond dispute:

1.) Greenhouse gases (CO2, CO, and CH4) are on the rise and have steadily increased since the industrial revolution. These gases undeniable increase the atmosphere's ability to absorb heat.

2.) Burning of fossil fuels by people is the primary source of these gases. Volcanic activity being a secondary source.

3.) The globe is warming. Numerous surface, ocean, and atmosphere studies have shown the warming trend. The degree and rate of warming is up for grabs, but the trend is clear.

Now here is the big leap 2 -> 1 which creates 3. It is possible that the globe is warming as a part of a natural cycle; however when one plots out the gas rise mentioned in 1 compared to millenium of ice core samples it becomes quite clear that the greenhouse gas rise of the last 150 years is quite austere in the bigger scheme of the geologic record. In other words, I would be more suprised if the huge spike in green house gases didn't cause a warming trend than if they did.

The big question in my mind is how this inceased energy in the planet will cause weather patterns to change. The general media tends to focus on the negative impacts (sells papers, ya..da..ya..da). However I tend to think there may be some good impacts, chief among them that more land will become capable of sustained food and cash crops. In other words, while some regions may become more arid, other regions (perhaps a net plus on global whole) will warm and have longer and wetter growing seasons.

I'm fairly convinced that ocean storms will become more severe as the globe warms. A good chunk of the increased energy asorbed by global energy will be pumped into the ocean. More energy makes for fiercer storms.

Furthermore, I'm certain that regardless of what we do (burn, not burn) the planet is probably going to go on with wild weather as it has demonstrated in the geologic record for eons.

All that being said, I find the issue of ozone depletion far more serious and life threatening (literally) than global warming.

Another point is that I think we'll run out of fossil fuels (or at least our burn rate will not always be able to over power the reabsorption rate of the rest of the planet) before we can do any major damage. In other words, God didn't give us enough rope to hang ourselves. How's that for philosophy?

I do not accept that this statement is "beyond dispute" by any means. There are plenty of climatic scientists, in fact, who routinely dispute it quite vigorously. The problem is that they are generally ignored.

You live in Colorado. Perhaps you read the Rocky Mountain News. Dave Kopel is far from unbiased and the opinions he expresses clearly demonstrate that. But when he quotes facts he is always very careful to get them right. Perhaps you saw his article last week wherein he pointed out that one of the leading scientists at NOAA in Boulder has been quoted dozens upon dozens of time by The Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, and the Boulder Camera on various climatic issues such as huricane seasons, El Nino, and such as that. When it comes to global warming, though, he is almost always ignored and has only been quoted a couple of times within the last several years. Why would that be? Kopel's opinion, and I would suspect he is right, is that it is because that scientist strongly disputes the "common wisdom" (particularly your point #2) about global warming.

I have also read (you have to dig a little, but you can find these things) that when it comes to both CO and CO2, volcanic activity puts far more of these gasses into the atmosphere with each eruption than mankind has created since the beginning of the industrial age. In particular, it has been estimated that the 5-day eruption of Mt. Saint Helens, 20+ years ago, put something on the order of 50 TIMES as much CO2 into the air as all of mankind's activities since the middle 1700s!

But you have to dig to find that sort of information. The scientists who dispute your point #2 are given no exposure at all by the popular press, nor even very much exposure in most scientific journals. Those who control the publications have decided that they know the answers, and have decided it is no longer necessary to allow those with opposing opinions any opportunity at the podium. This is why I say that it is no longer possible to have a rational, scientific discussion about the issue of global warming. Those who dispute your point #2 simply are not allowed an opportunity to speak.

Sorry Don, but I think the Mt St Helen's quote is urban legend. Ever heard of Mauna Loa?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

Any CO2 dump of the magnitude your suggesting would show up in the Mauna Loa readings as a large spike. Instead Mauna Loa shows a consistent steady rise in CO2 since the measurements began in the late 50's. All peer reviewed articles I'm aware of give estimates that anthropegenic CO2 production far exceeds that produced by natural processes.

It doesn't make sense to overturn the NAS (many scientists) findings simply because one scientist at NOAA believes anthropogenic CO2 is dwarfed by geogas. Science doesn't demand universal consensus, rather it only demands that those of opposing view give evidence to refute what has come before. In this case science has consistently shown that burning fossil fuels far exceeds the CO2 production of natural processes.

Its worth reviewing the Vostok record as well...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm

Carbon isotope comparisions is also a novel and clever way of showing the CO2 rise is of man made origin.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Global Warming. The Earth does what the Earth does. I thing that the pollutants we generate do have some influence on the atmosphere, but not to the extent that we should all stop industrialisation and pack into Volkwagen vans and head for the forest to live in a tree and eat vegan.

I do believe in conservation and packing out what you pack into the wilderness. I have absolutely no problem with keeping the environment clean.

But did anyone ever consider that with this "new" global warming and glaciers melting, maybe the Earth is just still thawing out from the last ice age????? Gee the Earth was warmer and tropical millions of years ago then the ice age came and froze everything. Hmm maybe the Earth (like everything in nature)has a cycle