"McCain and the other Republican senators want to observe the effects of global warming while in Greenland."

A new finding says that the Greenland glaciers have been receding for the last 100 years, and is not a new "global warming" phenomenon. They'd save taxpayers a lot of money if they'd just stay home and see Gore's movie, rather than go all that way to get railroaded. At least go in the winter ... going in the summer to gauge effects due to warming isn't the most logical step.

I'll tell you a crazy secret Dino. Human activity has been responsible for increasing CO2 levels since before 1906!!! You know, that whole industrial revolution thing they probably taught you about in school. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, how about you link to this "study", since I'm sure you read and understood it?

It's difficult to reconcile this trip with his recent cozying up to Falwell and the religious right (that generally don't believe in global warming or any other environmental shift that isn't a direct act of G-d).

No one gets elected trying to be all things to all people.

I'll tell you an even crazier secret Sam ... there's no proof of any correlation between CO2 and warmer temperatures. In fact, millions of years ago when the whole planet was an ice ball, CO2 levels were ten times higher than today. Ask yourself a couple of things: a) If this 'whole industrial revolution thing' has been causing global warming since around 1906, why were these same global warming pseudo-scientists saying we'd be in an ice age now, back in the 70s? and b) Why has each consecutive winter in the past six years gotten colder, yielding record low temps and snowfall just earlier this year, if it's supposed to be warming? Or is the liberal definition of "warming" like Cindy Sheehan's definition of "fasting?"

Give a citation for ANY one of those "facts."
Here's a site that shows the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the past 400,000 years. Let me know if you notice a pattern. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
Almost all scientists in the 70s had failed to understand the implications of rising CO2 levels, it doesn't mean we should ignore them now. As for your question about winter temperatures, I wasn't able to find any figures going either way. But their are several possible explanations. One is that there are always temperature fluctuations, so a very small selection of winters may not follow the overall trend. Another is that some localities may get cooler (Europe and the East coast of the USA) as melting arctic waters effect the gulf stream and other weather phenomenon that have traditionally kept us warm in winter. Sorry, that's the best I can do for you, I have only a laypersons understanding of the issue.

Dino good points. I saw a history channel show on the "carbon" era pre-dino's where all our coal was formed. Supposedly Oxygen levels were higher than they are now I wonder if that has an effect.

How about the mini ice age that changed the world in the 1800's.

It's very natural for the Earth to go through periods of warming or cooling.

The important question relating to human activity and global climate change is not whether there is a significant link between the two. It is what we should be doing differently either way. The options are pretty simple:

1. Do nothing.
2. Regulate, restrict, and reduce economic growth.
3. Use free market principles to improve environmental conditions through advances in technology and through the consumer choices of hundreds of millions of members of a new middle class, set free by rising standards of living in places like India and China.

I'd say the number of words I spent on each option fits which one I pick.

Well J.Kende, letting the market decides usually means the cheapest way and that would lead to excessive pollution like the industrial revolution.

There's gotta be some middle ground, u know these pollution credits (anyone else follow these?) are pretty interesting but unless the whole WORLD is on the same page restrictions or caps on pollution do just turn out to be oppressing economic growth.

China is a great example of how industrialisation destroys the environment.

But the environment in this country is in very good shape in my opinion. But not every country sets aside so much space for national parks and takes care of pollutants in the water etc.

Well, number 2 is a straw-man, because with a healthy mix of regulation and incentives, we could go from being an oil-importer to an energy technology exporter while still maintaining healthy growth. And number three certainly has some place in the solution, but if you think encouraging 2 billion Chinese people to get cars without regulating efficiency is a good policy, you're insane.

Sorry, Sam ... but the link you sent is connected to the UN who's a party to all of this 'warming' spin, and wants to see the Kyoto Krap bring us to our knees. The UN also banned DDT because of liberal pseudo-science, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions, especially in the third world countries they pretend to care about.

CO2 myth: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Current Atlantic water temps: http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

And here's something to think about regarding receding edges of glaciers in Greenland ... underwater volcanoes and thermal vents. 80% of the earth's volcanoes are underwater, and their all extremely active: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html

I also forgot to mention record lows and snowfall in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia ... in August 2006. Hey, wait ... that's now!

Sigh... well I tried my best. I guess time will tell. I only hope it isn't too late by the time the deniers are convinced.

Dan, I don't know about the whole oxygen/co2 levels and if their ratios had any influence on the paleoclimate. A lot of evidence suggests that it's the sun's cycles that effect the earth's, not just through heat, but through the electromagnetism caused by sunspot and solar flare activity. We just ended a sun cycle in the late 90s and a new one is starting now, and they may be getting more intense. Since the earth's core is a big electromagnet, the solar flares affect vulcanism and tectonic shifts like the one that caused the tsunami and moved the whole island of Sumatra over 100 feet. So, sun cylcles beget volcanic activity, which begets warmer oceans, which begets melting edges of glaciers. However, Greenland's and Antarctica's peninsula, which both have underwater active volcanoes, are receding a bit, but their ice caps are growing higher, at the same time.

Other planets are also going through changes now, which leans toward the sun being the culprit. Warming ... sun ... Who woulda thunk it?