Joseph:

Politicians, by definition, cannot and are not allowed to be proactive. They have to wait for voters repeated demands to act (after the fact).

Any politician who would dare, to increase government revenues from a new fossil duel carbon tax, to reduce income tax, compensate greener car buyers and to fix the roads and bridges, is sure to lose the next election.

That's how bright we (the average voters) are.

I'd like someone to explain why it is that no one cares anymore about global warming? What is with these people? Don't they know we're all going to die, drown, disintegrate, dissolve because of all the bad CO2 in our air? This is not a joke.

ABC/Washington Post polls show Global Warming as rating 0.0 interest. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022108.html

And the last poll the same. What, are people stupid?

Not stupid ... just more worried about tomorrow than 10 to 100 years from now.

Well Matthew, aren't you the uber optimist - oil cornucopian and global warming skeptic ... you must sleep well at night with nothing to worry about. As for scams, there's a lot more money in climate change denying than there is in research.

Well Matthew, aren't you the uber optimist - oil cornucopian and global warming skeptic ... you must sleep well at night with nothing to worry about.

If only! I don't worry about climate change or peak oil, but I do lay up at night worrying about the excessive influence of the "Repent! The end is near!" crowd on policymakers.

"Nah...they just recognize a scam when they see one."

Remember how they laughed at Noah? All the smart ones who didn't believe. The godless will be swept away and the purified new life will begin. Read the signs.

Matthew: I may not agree with you, but at least you have a sense of humor. Doomers give me a swift pain too. I can see where someone who doesn't buy into GW could be concerned about spending money to reduce CO2 (I would consider it a form of insurance), but I fail to see where a response to peak oil could be anything but beneficial to most countries (are you from Alberta?). If you are American then the same reactions are required to keep you from going bankrupt (which doesn't do anyone any good).

I do somewhat believe in global warming but the thing is people in the world are in a recession right now with high food and oil prices and probably unemployment is at an all time high so global warming is not the top of people's priority at the moment. What I hate about disaster advocates is all you guys can do is just look at people and tell people what to do rather than come up with a solution to the problem. What I think is the solution is algae, fuel cell solar switch grass ethanol and High mpg cars would do the trick. In the end lowering the cost of living for the populace would get people of thinking of other things like global warming since they no longer have to think of day by day survival. Not prioritizing day by day survival and something like "global warming" is just plain stupid. In reality you won't have those grandchildren you always wanted because your dead already.

Even if Global warming created "fireball spewing hurricanes", humans will continue to burn fossil fuels.

We love the life style of convenient energy from coal and others.
Human nature will not stop until the last piece of black crap will be pulled from the ground.

To whatever extent, Global warming will occur.

So, Al Gore needs to declare Global warming will occur, and go home. His advice?; move to a safer location.

Isn't it wonderful that we have a scientific report issued by people whose professed job is "coordinating and evaluating government positions"... ie a bunch government bureaucrats who aren't scientists ...
wtite a scionce paper, they are unqualifiesd to write...

and you guys swallow the swill they generate.

The IPCC likes it, because that is EXACTLY the way the IPCC functions.

The IPCC recruit 2500 scientists as reviewers, and then ignore them, except toput their names on the masthead.

They hand 60 or so selected "scientists" the job of setting out to research and write a science report, then they ignore them, except they will eventually publish something or other. That document will never be widely read and that research widely distributed.

And long before that research is done, and at least a year before the science drafts are written down, another group, "the real group", of governmental representatives, ie non scientist appointees, write and publish the Conclusions for Policy Makers.

This document will purport to summarize what the unfinsihed research will say, or not say, a couple of years later, when its finsihed.

And y'all see nothing wrong with that "scientific method".

... and I thought I foamed at the mouth ...