1. W was right to dump Kyoto. On top of the some of the reasons below, the flexibility of international production means that Kyoto would not succeed in significantly reducing greenhouse gasses anyway while causing economic reduction that would likely have greater long run negative consequences. 2. The basic theory of GW makes sense. The greenhouse effect is real and not in serious dispute. If there was no such thing as the greenhouse effect the Earth would have a much less hospitibal environment. CO2 is the second leading greenhouse gas (far behind water vapor but still significant). CO2 levels are way the heck up and we are the primary cause of that. It is thus likely that we are having an impact on global temperatures and that may not be to our benefit in the long run. 3. However, the empirical evidence that man induced global warming is actually occuring is weak. So far, any measurements of increasing temperatures are within the boundaries of error and normal (non-greenhouse derived) variations such as those due to increased solar activity. This part is debatable within good science. However, because the current and historic data have such a high margin of error and require significant assumptions, the extrapolations on where the Earth temperatures are going are junk science. In other words, it's reasonable to say that average surface temperatures are up, but even that is not without a little doubt. It is tougher to say that this increase is unusual or really a trend. Reasonable scientists can go either way. However, projections on where temperatures will go in a hundred years have so much room for error as to be worthless. 4. People debate the science of whether man made GW is occuring but they neither understand the science (with rare exceptions) nor are their opinions really based on it(almost no exceptions). The real cause of our opinions is whether we think the cost of attempting to prevent GW will be very high or very low. Those of us with a tree hugger bent think the cost will be low (or even negative) because this group thinks society should be reducing emissions anyway. Before anyone thought of GW the liberals were already making the case against pollution. Hence, the belief already existed that on balance reducing pollution makes for a net gain - so reducing the production of greenhouse gasses to this crowd has no additional cost. It's just an extra benefit for actions we should do anyway. Those with a stock portfolio hugger bent see any reduction in commerce as unacceptable and thus see the costs as extremely high. It is thus no coincidence that they end up saying, "Well, this global warming thing is just a myth." The reality is that they say that because they don't want to believe they need to bear high costs to avert a catastrophe. 5. Scientists are people too. It is normal for wishful thinking and bias to creep into their work. And there is a lot of wishful thinking going on in both directions of the GW debate. This is making it even harder for good science to sort this out. It would take a while anyway. Conclusions in science take so much longer than assertions. The public wants a conclusion but the guys who really need to figure this out are still early in the asserting phase. Even for simple topics progress in science involves a long period of debate before eventual consensus. It's not just that someone does a good study and now we know. And the global climate is hardly simple. That's why it's all so confusing for those who want to understand rather than just accept. 6. The consequences of global warming are probably overstated. Doom and gloom scenarios generally are. We don't know what will happen with complicated weather changes nor how we will adjust given time. While it is human nature to focus on the extremes, that's not usually what we end up with. 7. The costs of abatement attempts are probably also overstated (same reason). Given necessity, we can be very creative and solutions don't usually occur unless you need them. Hence, these projections on how much our economy will shrink if we reduce fossil fuel emissions are just as bogus as the projections on how much we will suffer if we don't. 8. With the long term we are speaking, working to grow the economies of the world will give us far more resources with which to deal with whatever deleterious effects of global warming that MAY occur. Our best prospects for a better life for our great grandchildren lie with growing their prosperity so that they can either simply enjoy the world if GW doesn't occur or have a better ability to deal with the bad parts of GW if they do occur. Once again, necessity leads to solutions and necessity combined with resources leads to better solutions. 9. Anyone who disagrees with me on this is a twit. Or they are evidence that I am.