no, the only time anyone will care is when they're wading through their living room

Don't care. See here and here and here for some alternative views on the so-called global warming crisis.

And for some alternative to British neo-connerie:

"This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong"

The Supreme Court takes on the issue today in what is being called a "landmark case". It's actually putting energy companies on the same side as the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, very interesting.

read here

I care. will chop down some trees so there is room for even more to grow.

– I read some of the alternative views; interesting debates. Gore Gored – I found the concluding findings of extreme interest. I found it odd that scientists agreed to the following:

6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference.
Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. Demonstrably false

a-f – I couldn't agree more with the comment made by Schmidt, "…climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept: in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes". I couldn't agree more – anyone that understands equilibrium would understand this concept.

WonderK – it blew me away for the president to comment, "…[Bush] has rejected calls to regulate carbon dioxide, [but] …he favors voluntary steps by industry and development of new technologies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere" Heck, what am I thinking; this doesn't blow me away – it’s sounds like a typical response from him :) Yeah, like companies are going to voluntarily develop new technologies to reduce greenhouse gases – ha ha. Yes, there are some responsible companies out their – but it’s the irresponsible companies that I am worried about.

The bottom line is that I don't understand why we have to wait for scientists to prove a theory before we do something. Ok, some of us may not believe that we even have a problem – but do you really think that all of the emissions we create are good for environment? I feel like I am debating whether or not cigarette smoking is addictive and dangerous for your health. How long did that debate take before it was finally proven?

I'm going to build a time machine and beam myself into some other universe:)

global warming gave me 60" of powder this past weekend outside of Seattle...made for some good boarding

The debate is not whether there is global warming - there are signs of warming - but what is causing it and to what extent. The problem with the debate is, like cigarettes, there are vested interests keenly involved to promote one side or the other. I am a natural skeptic, and keen on seeing both sides. The other problem I have is the almost religious fervour that some global warming alarmists have for their cause. This should be a scientific debate, not an moral debate.