From Jake: [/quote]given that if one of the two sides is correct, we're about to experience some pretty tough times as a species, wouldn't you err on the side of caution? [/quote]

Your premise assumes that the increase in CO2 is going to cause major negative changes in a short period of time which is very debated. That the earth is getting warmer is acknowledged, however, one should remember that is was very much warmer in the middle ages (Greenland was called that for a good reason; it wasn't just clever marketing by Eric the Red). There was also a mini ice age in colonial times.

Second, every action/decision is essentially an economic one wherein cost/benefit analyses are made. For example, we can drastically reduce, if not eliminate, highway fatalities (numbering in the 10s of thousands per year in the US) by setting a 30mph speed limit everywhere. We don't do that because the costs are too great for the benefits achieved (we as a country are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for the greater benefits of driving faster than 30mph). The "greenies" don't apply any such analysis to the warming situation. The mantra seems to be, "climate change is bad, doubly so if humans have anything to do with it, so we must stop it at any costs".

The third problem I see is that it is, as you point out, not sure that measures to limit CO2 output will have any effect.

You state that given the terrible consquences (not proven) we should take these steps. However, if one looks closely at the possible outcomes of fully implementing CO2 controls (applying the Kyoto agreements?) very severe economic consequences may follow that could devastate 3rd world economies.

One should remember that 99 members of congress in a democratic administration refused to ratify the Kyoto agreements because they understood that they had very negative consequences for the US economy. This agreement also didn't address the coming major contributor, China, which is now obviously making the biggest increases in CO2 output, and polution.

The "greenies" hubris in thinking that they can control the earth's temperature is stunning. The UN statement that they will mandate that temperatures rise no more than 2 degrees over the next 20 years (I think that time frame is correct) shows great ignorance or psychopathic delusion. One would not have to be a "reborn Christian bubba", or paranoid to think that there might just be another agenda at work here; increasing statism in the world, inflicting a blow to capitalism and the US in particular (as the greatest example of the success of capitalism and democracy, as imperfect as it is).

Postscript; a well credentialed atmospheric scientist has recently stated a hypothesis that he researched and discovered much evidence to support, which is that greenhouse gasses actually are a mechanism by which the earth is kept from getting too hot. Quite the opposite from what is being shouted today. Just another example of the lack of certainty of the warming proponent's theories.

David
A cat and big cat