The Rocky Mountain Collegian

True.
With national and world populations reach such huge levels now and what we can expect in the future, many of the basic, daily changes which are called for in response to global warming do make sense. We have to assure that the world remains clean and useful to ourselves and the generations which follow us. What makes no sense is the huge urge by some (many) to destort science in a propagandistic campaign to force social engineering to change the world in response to a problem that isn't really a problem. I speak here of course about the alarmist claims of global warming (irreversible, etc.) that will destroy the world. Such claims are nonsense.
Lets make sure we have clean air and clean water, institute good land-use policies for good reasons.

Dan -- You're making an extremely important point. The move toward greater energy efficiency and cleaner technology is vital to our national security and our health, both of which have a huge impact on our economy. So whether or not one agrees with the scientific consensus that global warming is in fact a serious problem, the steps toward greener energy will be helpful. Anyone who doubts global warming might want to check research commissioned by the Pentagon. Excerpt from Andrew Revkin article from April 15, 2007 NYT on one of these reports:

The report recommends that climate change be integrated into the nation's security strategies and says the United States "should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability."

The report, called "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," was commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses, a government-financed research group, and written by a group of retired generals and admirals called the Military Advisory Board.

In March, a report from the Global Business Network, which advises intelligence agencies and the Pentagon on occasion, concluded, among other things, that rising seas and more powerful storms could eventually generate unrest as crowded regions like Bangladesh's sinking delta become less habitable.

If global warming never happened then we would have all lived in a beautiful, quiet and without any stress world. But I think it would have been boring. I am not saying that I am a pro global warming, but at a certain point it would have occurred anyway.

All those things make sense Daniel, they're just (as usual with this topic) selected points that only tell part of the story. China, India and much of the industrialized world is dwarfing us in carbon emmissions. Yet, they continue to avoid participation in pacts like Kyoto, leaving western countries to incur higher costs that frankly won't amount to much given the amount of coal firing plants being produced on a weekly basis by countries with 4x western civilization's population.

The global warming data is working against us. The globe has been cooling for over a decade. The ice caps are 30% larger than a year ago. Without actual data to support our claims, we have no real pressure on China and India to participate. Without their participation, our efforts are futile.

Add all this up and you have one big cost your article avoids - we're losing enough jobs to China and India, and with the economic crisis we're in ... we want to sponsor these countries even further by proposing fools-pay wasted on programs that will net nothing in global carbon output.

You want real proof global warming is a scam? See the lack of any real effort to address the unprecedented industrialization occuring in China, India and many third world countries. It dwarfs the western world's industrialization of the past half century by an absurd magnitude. Bottom line - if we really thought the globe was in the balance, there'd be no greater national defense issue than compelling these countries that outnumber us and Europe in population by a factor of 5-1.