[Mazer]

Excuse me, but I never said that global warming isn't happening. Obviously it is, but what isn't known for sure is the cause or the after effects; in this you and I are in total agreement. What we seem to be disagreeing over is the best course of action to either adapt to or mitigate global warming. You sound convinced that most if not all of the effects of global warming, whether mild or pronounced, will necessarily be bad. But there are pros and cons in every situation, and anyone who says otherwise is either a salesman or a scam artist or both if he's a politician. This debate has more than its share of all of those kinds of people, but I don't count you among them, so I have to assume that you're open to the idea that global warming will have positive effects and possibly a net positive effect, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Still, you sound like one of those glass-is-half-empty kinda people.

As far as environmental protection is concerned, I'm all for it. I'm just not convinced that the environment is so fragile as to be intolerant to long term temperature shifts. Reducing GHG emissions might be the safe road, but there's no way to be sure, so our efforts should be focused on solving more immediate environmental problems, those that might kill millions of people in ten years rather than fifty years. And where energy policy is concerned, as a matter of national and economic security we should be changing our transportation industry over to biofuels in order to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum sources, and if doing so also reduces GHG emissions then that's a bonus. If you can't endorse that course of action then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.