That's not going to win your cabbie over, since he's a polluter.

Seriously.  There's no easy way to convince a mercenary that war is bad.

And everyone knows you're not actually something unless you think you are.

Regardless of your self-image, cap-and-trade is going to impact your business more than others, and so reduce your standard of living relative to others.  And for many, many cabbies putting their kids through college so they don't have to be cabbies too is more important to them than stopping the ice caps from melting.  At least then when the ice caps melt they'll be able to afford to move to someplace not underwater.

"Also refusing to engage, as ADFASDASFD seems to be suggesting, is somewhat cowardly, don't you think?"

By all means, go ahead and engage.  Just don't keep your hopes up.  Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to save the planet, and the chickens aren't liable to be too happy with that decision.

Only if you insist on getting a high-GHG-emissions job.

There are plenty of occupations that are in high-demand in the US and that don't result in a substantial net emissions increase.  Nursing is a prominent example.  I don't think anyone would be too upset if we had fewer cabbies but more nurses in this country.

On the other hand, if you have your heart set on being a coal miner, then yes, it's probably time for you to move to China.

Buddy, there's a double sawbuck in it for you if you just shaddup and drive...my head is splitting and I gotta get to the airport!

I would tell him that the country is in a constitutional crisis and that no legislation can move us in the right direction if the legislation itself and/or its method of passage violates the consitution, which ACES does. I would guess that the cab driver knows this too.

I would tell him that simply subsidizing conservation and efficiency and Zero Waste along with small-scale wind, pv solar, and solar-hot-water projects (beginning with government facilities including schools) is not being supported by either side, but it is a rational platform that will benefit all Americans, make a solid investment in true energy independence, leave more money in his pocket, provide baseload coverage, save Americans money and jobs, and save his great-grandchildren from the increased insoluble debt they would incur from supporting boom-and-bust schemes such as unsustainable biomass incinerators built with borrowed stimulus money.

  People that care about the environment need to look at the whole picture and not just focus on one part.  Cap and trade will weaken our enconomy and strenghthen countries like China and India.   This was one area that I agreed with President Bush on concerning the Kyoto treaty.  If China and India were not going to sign on the we should not have either since industry would have migrated to the most economical location.  The only way it will work is to level the playing field for everybody.  Why do you think China and India's economy has grown so much in the past 10-15 years.  It is completely due to the cost of doing business.

I am all in favor of more nurses, particularly with our aging population and increased geriatric care.  Where do those nurses work? Clinics, hospitals, convalescent homes, in-home nursing -- in other words, a building of some sort. Those buildings require energy to maintain proper temperature, humidity, feeding facilities and the extensive electronic monitoring equipment the geriatric population requires.  Where does that reliable 24/7/365 energy come from? It doesn't magically appear from nowhere.  All energy generation requires expending energy first in order to multiply (hopefully millions of times in magnitude) its effect.  A wind trubine is made of steel and concrete, plastics and valuable metals - not hemp.  Solar panels are made of aluminum and rare metals (Gallium, for instance), plastics and graphite - not hemp.  The batteries necessary to support them both when the wind doesn't blow or the sun isn't shining are made of lead, sulfuric acid, nickle metal hydride, lithium, among others.  And the gas-turbine generators used as back-up power for wind and solar farms burn natural gas or oil.  What does that save you, in CO2 terms?

Check out http://www.coal2nuclear.com to see how you can really replace burning coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity generation, vastly reducing our CO2 footprint and using algae for transport fuel via http://www.originoil.com.  Read and think - don't just reflexively denigrate based on old, tired excuses.  BTW, I am in the solar industry.  Also, check out http://www.davidwalters.dkos.com and http://www.pronucleardemocrats.com.

On a positive note, last I heard the WTO had made some moves that suggested they wouldn't take issue with such actions, though I could be wrong on that. Or anything. Correct and/or criticize freely.

The "waste" is actually partially-spent nuclear fuel and can be (and is in France) recycled using more advanced, safe, reliable reactors - like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Using this type, we can reduce the spent fuel volume to around 1% of its original size and stored for only 300 years vs 1 million.  And there's enough thorium in the US to last hundreds of years.  Plus, following Megatons-to-MegaWatts protocol, we can decrease the nuclear weapon stockpile, too, while generating usable energy.

How are the Europeans doing with their Cap-and-Trade system? Is it working for them as well as their adherence to Kyoto?  If not, why would we think our system or scheme would fare (speaking of taxi's) any better?

Which is exactly what cap-and-trade does.  Generation facilities with a higher GHG footprint will cost more to construct.  Of course, if the reduction in emissions for generated power outweighs any extra emissions in infrastructure creation, that will also be reflected in the cost, and so if nuclear is dirtier to build but cleaner to operate, it could come out ahead, all things being equal.

"Since atomic energy is millions of times more dense than anything else currently known, it takes the lead here.  Plus, wind and solar farms require huge tracts of land (for wind that's 235 sq. miles for 1,000 MW electric generated - that's 50% of the size of Los Angeles city) vs. 1 sq. mile for current nuclear plants."

If this is the case then prices in a cap-and-trade system will reflect that.

"The "waste" is actually partially-spent nuclear fuel and can be (and is in France) recycled using more advanced, safe, reliable reactors - like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Using this type, we can reduce the spent fuel volume to around 1% of its original size and stored for only 300 years vs 1 million.  And there's enough thorium in the US to last hundreds of years.  Plus, following Megatons-to-MegaWatts protocol, we can decrease the nuclear weapon stockpile, too, while generating usable energy."

Sounds great to me.

"How are the Europeans doing with their Cap-and-Trade system? Is it working for them as well as their adherence to Kyoto?  If not, why would we think our system or scheme would fare (speaking of taxi's) any better?"

Well obviously no system will work well if it is neutered by special interests.  The goal is to produce the best system possible, not give up because it's hard.

As to GHG, three questions: first, which exerts a greater influence on climate dynamics - water vapor, which comprises 80% of the atmosphere, or CO2, which comprises 0.038%?  Second, is earths' climate inherently sensitive or inherently resilient to alterations, either natural or man-made?  Third, what effect does cloud cover and formation have on climate?

"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists believe that it is very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) that most of the warming we have experienced since the 1950s is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities." epa.gov

"Second, is earths' climate inherently sensitive or inherently resilient to alterations, either natural or man-made?"

It should be pretty clear to anyone that the earth's climate has changed drastically in the planet's history.  There's no question that the ball of rock itself will survive any given change in climate.  The question is whether the creatures living on the ball will, and there is plenty of evidence of mass extinctions as a result of previous changes in global climate.

"I'm not sure if I follow your logic on the "eat more meat than we need to" as I haven't seen any documentation worth believing on meat consumption."

Uh it's pretty simple.  Meat has a higher GHG footprint than other foods.  It's pretty simple to see why even without any empirical data: what do cows eat?  Plants.  Well there are no more calories in a cow than there were in the plants it's eaten over the course of its life, and in fact many times fewer because of all the energy the cow expends living.  So a cow is just a tasty way to turn a lot of calaries into very few calories, and in the process release more GHGs per calorie.  Meanwhile, most humans evolved to live on a lot less meat than we eat today, and in fact most of us would be healthier if we ate less meat than we do.  But even if we don't eat less meat, we can still reduce the GHG footprint of cows by feeding them what they evolved to eat so they don't fart GHGs.  Even then, though, a cow is still an energy-inefficient source of food.

I don't know, but a few micrograms of mercury per cubic meter is enough to cause health problems in a human, so I wouldn't be surprised if a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause similar problems for the health of the global ecosystem.  In any case, the EPA seems pretty convinced that it's enough.

Clouds have been around for a long time, while the most recent changes in global climate have occured in the past hundred years and coincided pretty consistently with human GHG-intensive activities, not with cloud cover.

About meat: Cows eat grass (a carbohydrate @ 3.75 calories per gram) and metabolize that into protein (at 4 calories per gram, but also amino acids - which are essential to life), so it would seem that eating proteins in meat are actually beneficial, energy-use-wise, compared to carbohydrates.  Personally, I try to eat a balanced diet mixed with liquid anti-oxidants (i.e. red wine).  As to their flatulence quotient, I'd have to consider the number of domesticated animals vs. un-domesticated to see if there is any leverage there.

What mass extinctions are you referring to, the dinosaurs or some mankind extinction?  If the dinosaurs, and their demise was caused by climate change, what role did mankind have in that?  Are we anywhere near that kind of catastrophic alteration now or in the foreseable future?  Have you looked at the research done by Dr. Roy Spencer at http://www.drroyspencer.com?  Look it over and tell me what you think.

According to http://www.pronucleardemocrats.com, the current CO2 concentration is 389 ppm and increasing at 2 ppm per year.  Greenhouse nurseries commonly use CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm to enhance the growth of their plants, with no ill effects to the workers in the greenhouse.  It would seem from this that we have a few hundred years before the concentration of CO2 rises to a level that would cause any deleterious effect on humans.

But I didn't quote the IPCC, I quoted the EPA.

"I don't recall there ever being a debate, confab, conference or smack-down between the pro- and anti- AGW sides.  Since science isn't decided by consensus, but by empirical, repeatable evidence, it would seem reasonable to engage in a well-moderated, open-to-the-public, televised muti-stage debate where the evidence, pro- and con- , is presented, ideally with cross-examination (but without the ad hominem attacks)."

You don't recall there being a debate?  What exactly do you think we're doing right now?  As for TV, unless all you watch is American Idol, it would be pretty hard to avoid hearing the debate there.  In any case, I don't recall any scientific issue being settled by a "smackdown".  That seems quite antithetical to the considered evaluation of empirical evidence you purport to be in favor of.

"About meat: Cows eat grass (a carbohydrate @ 3.75 calories per gram) and metabolize that into protein (at 4 calories per gram, but also amino acids - which are essential to life), so it would seem that eating proteins in meat are actually beneficial, energy-use-wise, compared to carbohydrates"

Yes, but we do not need to eat as much meat as we do to obtain the required amount of nutrients from them, and many of the same nutrients can be found in other foods.  I never said that we have to become vegetarians, only not eat more meat than is required.

"What mass extinctions are you referring to, the dinosaurs or some mankind extinction?"

There has only been a 'mankind' for a short part of earth's history, and of course it hasn't gone extinct yet, since we're still here (although many of our fellow Homos aren't).  There have been extinctions of other species as a result of pretty much every major climate change event since the beginning of life on earth.

"Are we anywhere near that kind of catastrophic alteration now or in the foreseable future?"

Not necessarily extinction, but a warming earth certainly presents challenges to our living comfortably, especially if we insist on maintaining our current standard of living.

"Have you looked at the research done by Dr. Roy Spencer at http://www.drroyspencer.com?"

Oh of course, the findings of a 52 member international panel can be disregarded a priori, but the claims of a single person with a website can be taken at face value.  Now I've got it.

A tropical greenhouse can also have an ambient temperature of 85 degrees F without killing either the plants or the workers, but if the earth's average temperature were 85 degree F we'd all be toast.  The direct threat to humans isn't the concentration of CO2 itself (unless it gets really high, resulting in asphyxiation) but the atmospheric warming that the gas causes in high concentrations (hence global "warming").  Based on the best available data and models, the concentration at which dangerous warming occurs is well below 1,000 ppm, and in fact uncomfortably close to current levels.  If you have a specific issue with a specific model or set of data, please tell us.

As to the "debate", unfortunately, Al Gore has already declared the debate "over", the science is "settled" and we all need to trust him, since he wrote a book and directed a documentary about AGW. Pardon me for using the "smackdown" verbiage, I thought it might bring some levity to the thread. Guess I was wrong.  Any scientists, climatologist, meteorologist, economist or other interested party that does some research and voices an opinion opposed to the "consensus" is routinely lambasted as a "denier" (nice smear, that). That is what I mean by there being no formal debate by those who have the most knowledge and expertise to evaluate the complicated data. 

Rather than simply brush off Dr. Spencer as only one person, why don't you go read what he (a former NASA scientist and current professor at U of Alabama - Huntsville) has written.  I promise it will enlighten you. Maybe not change your mind, but you'll at least know some of the parameters necessary to discuss the issue fully. You could also consult any of the 500+ scientists who have signed the Manhattan Declaration, which questions the AGW theory.

Humanity does worse when in colder climates - food production drops severely, more energy is used to maintain essential body heat. Look at the areas of the globe furthest from the equator to get an idea of life in cooler/colder climates. Not pretty.  Why would "we all be toast" if the average temps reached 85 F (which no one is predicting, without being laughed off the stage)?  Al Gore's exaggeration about seas levels rising several feet are a wild exaggeration.  The IPCC anticipates under a foot over the next century and the temps to rise at most a few degrees C - that's if the models are correct, and if they're not, there is no rise in either sea level nor temps.

Sorry, but I don't watch American Idol nor much of anything else on TV that doesn't teach me something worthwhile - Discovery, History, Animal Planet, etc.

Don't worry, you've provided me with plenty of laughs.

"Any scientists, climatologist, meteorologist, economist or other interested party that does some research and voices an opinion opposed to the "consensus" is routinely lambasted as a "denier" (nice smear, that)."

And apparently any person who looks at the evidence and comes to a conclusion other than the one you come to is a conspiracist.  At any rate, I'd be happy to look at any specific claims of Dr. Spencer you'd like to put forth.

The "conspiracist" label has not been employed by me nor any of the considered opinions and observations of schooled and experienced climatologists that I have read.  One reason some of us question the UN IPCC and other AGW promoters is how the models don't match what is actually happening.  For example, all of the models predicted a steady increase in temps from 1990 through 2010, yet there has been no increase in average temps since 2001.  Secondly, we remember the "global cooling" scare of the 1970's and find it hard to believe Earth's climate could execute an about-face such that, by 1988, we were headed full-steam towards apocalypse (that's when James Hansen first addressed Congress).  Thirdly, we recognize that computer models are written by humans with incomplete knowledge and those models can only produce info based on what they've been programed to calculate.  Fourthly, we find it hard to believe the earth's climate system is "fragile" or highly sensitive - because we observe the after effects of volcanoes (Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo) and the magnitudes of spewed gases, particulates and heat into the atmosphere and note how the earth re-calibrates, adjusts and cleanses itself. Fifth, we recognize the earth is covered 70% with water, which acts as a temp moderator and that water vapor and precipitation balance each other out - naturally.

Westerners and others who have lived with the benefit of conveniences, the luxury of spare time and the assurance that the water they drink is clean and won't give them dysentery, are prone to concern themselves with the possibility of AGW.  The billions of those who have never experienced the things we take for granted now are being told that they can't have what we have - because to have what we have requires energy and producing energy is bad for the earth.  They don't worry about AGW because they're too busy trying to survive day-to-day scrounging for food, water and shelter.  Just consider how you and I are communicating about this -- they couldn't even conceive of it!

These are just a few of the reasons why I, and many others, remain skeptical about AGW. It seems to follow the egotistical nature of man/woman in thinking they can control something as complex, vast and complicated as the earth's climate.  We all want clean water, air, healthy food, no pollution, people to be pleasant, civil and courteous.  That would be ideal for all concerned. Agreed?

Me too.

"Not sure why I receive snarky responses in return, unless it's indicative of some insecurity.  If not, then why engage in it?"

Maybe you expect too much from a Li'l Abner character.

"The billions of those who have never experienced the things we take for granted now are being told that they can't have what we have - because to have what we have requires energy and producing energy is bad for the earth."

They're being told it because it's the truth.  If the whole world lived like the US, we'd be in big trouble.  And the people who would be in the most trouble are the people in developing countries.  In any case, if we all agreed to reduce our emissions to the same amount per capita, the greatest reductions would come in the US (currently emitting ~23 tons/year per capita) and other developed countries, while places like India (2 tons/year per capita) and China (4 tons/year per capita) would have to reduce their current emissions much less, if at all, depending on what limit is set.  All they would have to do is abandon the possibility of becoming as big an emitter as the US currently is.  Meanwhile, if the US reduced per capita emissions to be more like that of China, we'd be in better shape.

Underlying your argument is the premise that we can't live a good life without emitting the amount of GHGs we do.  I question that premise.  Lots of the activities that emit the most GHGs are unnecessary luxuries.  We can be just as happy with a low-emissions life as a high-emissions life.  A good Christian ought to understand that.

The Christian faith is the only one, so far as I know, where everything rests on the veracity of a person, rather than on doing certain things.  So, if Jesus Christ didn't physically exist, then he was merely a myth and the whole elaborate compendium of the Bible isn't worthy of mentioning. If he did exist, he made claims about himself. They are either true or false. If false, Christianity is a farce.  If true, each person has a choice to make - believe those claims or disbelieve them.  Dr. Spencer has chosen to believe them, based on his research and investigation. Many other skeptics have come to the same conclusion over the past 2000 years.

I hope this was helpful.

Thanks for clarifying.  This was helpful.

It's your standard, not mine.  If you don't need to read all about climate change before commenting on it then I don't need to read all about theism before commenting on it.  At any rate, we've already established that Spencer doesn't have any evidence to provide, so there's no real need to review a bibliography if it's mainly composed of fiction.

"Are only those who agree with Grist.com authors allowed to post here?"

Of course not.  I would think that would be obvious by now.

"I guess I thought it was a free-speech forum and as long as a person wasn't vulgar or snarky, was contributing a reasonable commentary or asking thoughtful questions, then they were welcome. Was I wrong?"

No one's stopping you from speaking.  Are you trying to stop me from speaking my mind?  If not then you shouldn't have any objection to my continuing to do so.  Even snarkily, if I so desire (though that's not really my aim.  I'm just trying to provide some levity. Wink wink.).

Since you haven't contacted Dr. Spencer asking him for a bibliography of his research giving him supporting evidence for his choice, you haven't established anything.  You are certainly within your rights of free speech to comment on any topic you want, whether you have done any research or investigation on the topic or not. If I were to comment in such a manner on something about which I know little, I would expect someone who knows more to enlighten me, hopefully, without a condescending tone.

Have I, in any way, implied that you weren't allowed to speak your mind? I think any reasonable reader of this thread would agree that I have been considerate in most every way. I have given direction to information that could prove helpful in expanding a person's knowledge (even from sites that I disagree with in certain aspects - so I am not ideologically blind here) without denigrating that person for not visiting those sites. You are smart enough to know that a person who resorts to ad hominem or snarky retorts probably has run out of verbal ammunition and restorts to the lowest common denominator in their arsenal.  ;) ;)

Since you haven't provided any evidence for something you yourself claim to believe, you haven't established anything.  You're the one I'm talking to, not Dr. Spencer.  And if you believe what he believes, you should be able to provide me with the evidence you used to come to that belief, so there is no need to contact him directly.  Just show it to me yourself.

"If I were to comment in such a manner on something about which I know little, I would expect someone who knows more to enlighten me, hopefully, without a condescending tone."

Exactly.  So why don't you enlighten me instead of telling me I'm not worthy of an explanation unless I read a bibliography that I as yet still have not been shown, and of whose existence I still have no evidence?

I'm also smart enough to know that that itself is an ad hominem attack and not based on any examination of evidence.  Your obsession with snark is simply a distraction from the real issues, as is your insistence on reading yet-unidentified bibliographies.  You haven't refuted any of the evidence I've presented (and I've presented plenty) but simply directed me to the website of one scientist whose claims I am supposed to take on faith, even though you won't take the claims of equally-qualified scientists with the opposite convictions on faith.

Our taxes have paid for scientists to study this. At globalchange.gov you can read the reports. There is no dispute over the science of climate change, only over whether we can take action that benefits everybody, or whether we will destroy our civilization fighting over slices of the pie.

Living things on Earth are now being destroyed by the emissions from burning fossil fuels. This is happening, it is not just a possibility. There has been no debate since 1896 over the science, when Arhenius' brilliant mathematical calculations predicted that the Earth would warm as burning coal and oil released more carbon dioxide than plants could absorb. (CO2).

'Don't worry, the oceans will absorb it all", was the untested assumption for decades. Then, in the1950s  scientists found out that the ocean was releasing CO2 and not absorbing it all. Shortly thereafter, a discovery of a way to measure the concentration of CO2 in the air  proved that Arhenius was right. The earliest predictions of temperature rise made in the 1970s have come true much faster and higher than expected.

If your child were afflicted with an unusual and serious disease, wouldn't you study it and try to find the best treatment possible?

Earth's temperature has now risen nearly a couple degrees Fahrenheit, and the specialists say that it will go up between 4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, depending on how much fossil fuel is burned. Living plants and creatures, including people, are sensitive to temperature changes. When a human body temperature goes up 6 degrees, it's time for intensive care and prayers.  Same thing with Earth. Seafood may be the first to go, apparently, as CO2 in the ocean means carbonic acid which dissolves shells.

The guilt inducing factor is that WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO: STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. We also know that if we do not start reducing CO2 emissions now, it will be too late.

We all participate. Every time I cook food, drive to the grocery, turn on the furnace, bathe, or use my computer I am using the burning of fossil fuels for my lifestyle.

I have tried to reduce my carbon footprint, I walk and take the bus more, hang laundry to dry, buy in bulk, cook at home, grow vegetables, use a solar cooker and wear a wet t-shirt instead of turning on an air conditioner.

But I know that I still cause a huge amount of warming, and my taxes are making it worse because they are used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry. Even in the Cap and Trade bill there is support for clean energy like solar, wind and geothermal but also  huge grants to the Coal industry.

So, do I quit and go water skiing??  No. I log on to a couple organizations which have dedicated, intelligent, and informed people studying how to preserve their future. And every week I send a couple letters to Congress, other Government Officials, and CEOs of corporations. If enough people did this, we could counter the pressure of the fossil fuel lobby and get legislation that actually solves the problem.

You really can help!!!  The Cap and Trade bill is not perfect, but you can't ride a bicycle until it gets rolling. We need to tell Congress to keep the good parts and scrap the bad parts.

So get on line.  Go to an action site at  1Sky, or Union of Concerned Scientists, or Natural Resources Defense Council, or Greenpeace and send messages, There are letters there, already written, with excellent research to read.  Make your voice heard.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

President GW Bush, called global warming “a serious problem, and said we need to “get beyond the debate” and deploy new technologies to curb greenhouse gases.  

John McCain said “The evidence is compelling””It’s serious and it’s generated by human activity.” Republican Gov Schwarzenegger leads in action to counter climate change.

The Supreme Court stated: “The harms associated with climate change are serious and

well recognized.: a rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important

economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events.”  Mass v. EPA April 2007  In making  this ruling, the federal Supreme Court said that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries presenting a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both “actual” and “imminent.”

Pope  Benedict XVI said in January 2001:

“Man has …devastated wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth’s habitat, made the air unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization degrading that ‘flowerbed’…which is the earth, our dwelling place.”

In July 2008 he said;

We must respect the inner laws of creation, of this earth, we must learn these laws and obey these laws if we wish to survive…our earth speaks to us and we must listen if we want to survive and decipher the message of the earth.

National Academies of Science of US, Canada, China, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, England,  India and many more countries agree that the climate is warming and the cause is carbon dioxide emissions.

The scientific evidence is pretty simple.

When coal, oil, natural gas and other things burn, carbon dioxide is emitted.  

More of these fossil fuels have been burned over the past 130 years than ever in the history of mankind, indeed ever in geological history.

We know that Earth's normal concentration of CO2 is 280 parts per million, and that that concentration has increased to 387 ppm since people started burning fossil fuels and is increasing 2 ppm every year now.

We know that in every instance in geological history when CO2 went up, so did temperatures and vice versa; it is a feedback mechanism.

Plotting this increase as it will progress over the next 40 years puts the world over 450 ppm by mid century. 450 ppm is more than has occurred at any time in millions of years and will coincide with earth surface temperatures higher than at any time in millions of years.

Some of the extra CO2  goes into the ocean, as carbonic acid, now stopping shellfish and coral reefs from forming.

We would see even higher temperatures if there were not so much smog.

Should we wait to stop burning fossil fuels until the seas have risen 5 feet and southern US is a desert?

Where is your courage?  We are in trouble, and every person who denies the facts makes it more difficult to stop the catastrophe that will happen if we do not change our ways.

I too spent lots of time reading the climate skeptics. I kept hoping that they were right. However, I found that almost none of them were atmospheric scientists who had studied the relevant science. A geologist studies the formation of the earth, and often how to get fossil fuels out of it, an economist studies the trading of money. They are scientists, but they are not credentialed in the study of the atmosphere. I would not have a dentist operate on my hip, or ask a cardiologist (heart doctor) to treat my child’s cancer.

I also learned that many of the scientists denying the need to take action against global warming had received grants from fossil fuel companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars  on a massive and somewhat successful  public relations campaign to convince people that this is not an issue we need to tackle now.

As a kid, I walked, bicycled, grew vegetables, made my own games, borrowed books from the library, visited with neighbors and had a wonderful life. A lifestyle where people have to buy tons of stuff, go lots of places, and otherwise use lots of electricity and fuel is not required for health and happiness. I hope my grandchildren will enjoy a simpler, healthier, cleaner sustainable lifestyle.