Sine Qua Non

the vast majority of scientists involved in studying these matters agreee that global warming is a fact, and that our actions have casued it. It is utterly igorant, short-sighted hubris to argue otherwise.

I had not realized that science was something we voted on. But aside from that little problem, whether the earth is warming or not isn't really the question at hand. The question is whether or not the action of mankind are causing it or not, and if so, what do we do about it. Personally, I believe the jury is still out, at best, on whether or not mankind is causing global warming or not. And before you hyperventilate, did mankind cause the global warming that got us out of the last ice age? That warming period would drawf what we are experiencing now.

But even so, I would still prefer free market solutions to the problem rather than edicts led by the self-serving corrupt officials of the UN or other unelected body of self-annointed commisars.

Oh, and finally, try responding to what I wrote instead of spouting the usual claptrap.

Thanks.

The problem is that most of the world is seeing the problem, trying to react to find a solution whereas the US government, apparently obsessed with handing out benefits to its financial supporters, doesn't want to do anything because of the probable short-term effects on the economy.
Science is not a voting matter, you are correct. And sometimes you have to react to science no matter what your voters might think.

Anders, I appreciate your comments but your understanding of how the US government functions seems poor at best. Or perhaps you don't realize you are parroting nonsense. While I have my own doubts about the wisdom of the populace at times, I'd still rather submit to their collective will as presented by our elected representatives than by any collection of unelected bureaucrats at the UN, the EU, or pick your favorite NGO.

I'm not impressed with what most of the world thinks, especially considering how tainted their judgment is with anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism and anti-semitism. Why is it that most of the solutions seem to be opposed to free markets and private property? Oh, and I assume you saw the item about the two Russian scientists who have called global warming a load of hooey and have offered to put their money where their mouths are by betting the earth will be cooler in ten years than it is now. This isn't proof, by any standard I would recognize, but it does put the lie to any implication that global warming should be considered a settled issue.

I think it is simly too risky to bet on the free markets being able to bypass the short-term interests of their share-holders and focus on the common, long term good.
I believe that we need international agreements and rules, everything can't be left to the markets to decide.
Anti-americanism et al has nothing to do with global warming except for the neglect of your present government towards these issues providing excellent breeding ground for anti-american sentiments

Anders, thanks again for your comments, and I apologize for being a bit cranky at times.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on potential solutions. I'll continue to prefer freedom over bureaucratic diktats, no matter how well intentioned. The international community would have better standing in my eyes if they deat with people like Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe more directly, instead of closing their eyes or relying on the US to do almost all the heavy lifting.

One of the problems with the UN is the veto-power of the few. This is a thing that has benefited the US at times, but now, for example, it benefits Mugabe as he gets away with it thanks to China's veto. But this gets pretty much OT already, thanks for discussing!