If you don’t like the scientific evidence though, you can just look at what people and governments are doing. Russia is suing to establish the limits of its continental shelf so as to have access to oil lying beneath the Arctic Ocean. The United States is planning to open a new Coast Guard base on the northern coast of Alaska to facilitate more patrols in case any of the increasing numbers of fishing vessels and cruise ships get into trouble. (USCG) Royal Dutch Shell is preparing to do exploratory drilling off the northern coast of Alaska. Alaskan coastal villages, once protected by ice shelves, are collapsing into the sea from tides that have never touched the land before. (geology.com) Canadian botanists and biologists are seeing southern species of plants and animals in the north that have never been seen before. Greenland’s citizens are planting potatoes, carrots, and broccoli for the first time and grazing more sheep than they ever have in the past, as well as selling leases to oil companies eager to drill on the warming subcontinent. (The Independent)

All of these groups don’t believe global warming is a hoax.

One would hope that you do not reject, out of hand, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity, just because they are theories.

As for Al Gore's investments in green stuff, if I had the money I'd be doing it too. It would be a smart thing to do.

UK emissions are half the emissions per capita of the USA. We both exceed per capita emissions for China and India by a large margin. The high rates of consumption of commodities in the west and the large geographical area of the USA will more than likely provide reason for the size of the American footprint.

US scepticism is a global issue not just a domestic one as I'm certain your realise. I've found views expressed in the Heritage web site particularly disturbing with wholesale misinformation and misinterpretation of data and facts.

You argue your points exceptionally well! Use the strength of your conviction to carry on as a voice of reason. If you can at least induce one more person to THINK for themselves and investigate the evidence, you have achieved a victory worth celebrating.

As for myself, I try where I can to draw attention to the facts and not the spin. The corporations will never like this. Keep up the good work…

Vince W.

P.S. Assuming a pool capacity of 354000 litres; 0.007e^(0.568t) gives a good approximation!

But the fact is that there is a well-intrenched global warming skepticism in the USA and it is relatively unique in both its reach and its depth. This is not a coincidence; the reason, I've posted to this Heritage Foundation blog is that this organization has been instrumental in spreading anti-environmental propaganda and disinformation about AGW among Americans. Yet because it has been able to disguise it prevarications as genuine scholarship and expert policy ideas, it has been very successful in converting my countrymen, who are not notable for their civic literacy, to a kind of reflexive anti-environmentalism.

The work of Heritage and others has made it difficult to even HAVE a debate in the USA about how to save ourselves from, as one of your countrymen, James Lovelock put it, the revenge of Gaia on our species. I will, however, take a certain hope from having found, even here in the belly of the denialist beast, at least one like-minded soul, Perhaps the times are not so dark after all. Best Regards, Will Watson.

In the UK, since Margaret Thatcher (much admired and courted by conservative America) raised the issue of global warming, politicians across the political spectrum nearly all acknowledge the evidence. This situation is reflected across Europe.

The major difficulty humanity faces in making significant progress on the causes of global warming is that no one wants to be the first to sacrifice their wealth and prosperity with nothing more than hope that other countries will follow. This problem became evident with the Bush administration refusal to participate in the Koyoto protocol. It was a real bar on achieving a meaningful global consensus. This position (which eventually began to yield under the weight of evidence) has already caused delay in achieving some level of useful action.

India and China look to both Europe and America for the first move. Given their economic situation this is understandable as they have huge populations living on or below the poverty line. Expecting them to suffer for our prosperity would be a flagrant breech of natural law.

A global consensus is required urgently. Cap and trade may not work. It does have one possible benefit that must be considered. The development of a global trade in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will form a framework for future initiatives that may be more effective.

Global climate change, destruction of the environment and the ecosystems they support. The over-exploitation of resources and insatiable appetite the western world has for progress are inextricably linked.

We are ever more rapidly using up the finite resources earth provides. Edward O Wilson offered one of the finest thought provoking analogies to describe the position mankind currently faces.

We are taking water from the pool. It takes 30 days to empty. Each day we draw twice as much water from the pool as the day before. On which day is the pool half empty?

Those who would cloud the arguments with politics, nit pick at the periphery of the body of evidence now growing annually need to think carefully about how their actions will be judged in the future. We need the earth, the earth doesn't need us.

Oil and coal companies in the USA have mounted a truly impressive disinformation campaign, having been caught sleeping by "An Inconvenient Truth". But they've made up for lost time. They more or less own entire Congressional delegations; they produce slick mass-media disinformation, such as the "Clean Coal" advertisements; they back phony grassroots organizations that supposedly protest global warming abatement measures; and they fund fraudulent "think tanks" (such as Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute), which disguise anti-environmental propaganda as legitimate-appearing, yet utterly phony science.

It's also easy for American to believe that global warming is some left-liberal scam because for the last 30 years the dominant American political ideology, "neo-conservatism", has encouraged a profound, abiding fear of liberals and liberal reforms. Basically the main tenet of this ideology is that America is and has always been right, that, as Bush 41 put it, "the American way of life is non-negotiable", that liberals "hate America" and are trying to destroy it by continually criticizing our failures to deal equitably with racism, sexism, ecocide, homophobia, greed, imperialism, etc.

The environmental movement fits comfortably into this paranoid worldview since it would compell a more or less radical economic restructuring as the cost of saving the planet. Mr. Dulerain is typical of the type of American who fears the world that, ironically, American prosperity and power have created. In response to those fears they hold fast to a kind of myopic pro-capitalist patriotism that, too often, dehumanizes anyone who is in favor of reining in the excesses of the corporations and of the American government.

Anyhow, enough. I want global warming to not be happening too, but, man, the science is staggering. Global warming is probably the most studied phenomenon is the history of science. If that much science is as wrong as Mr. Dulerain and his ilk want to believe . . . I don't know. It would mean a major paradigm shift in human thought. To what, neither I nor anyone else is prepared to speculate.

Victor Dulerain. You need to reveal your own credentials as an expert on environmental issues. “THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! not man made anyway”. You fill me with hope if what you say is true. What is your evidence and where is the data that supports your assertion of the innocence of humanity in the global warming debate.

Dr. Watson talks in truly impressive ways about the evidence and data. Any scientific debate here must be about interpreting the evidence for and against the hypothesis “Human activity has no effect on the global climate”. At the moment there is a lot of political ideology and mumblings about left wing communist conspiracies. Before deciding whether it is right or wrong to tax or sanction CO2 production or any other activities which affect the environment, the above hypothesis needs proving. So please, add to the debate and let us all into the data which supports your statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o…

I suspect that these are not enough to convince you because I see, behind your statements, a suspicion that these is some sort of vast sinister conspiracy of all governments and all scientists to trick people into belief in global warming. However, although this might surprise you, I agree: there really IS a vast international conspiracy working to shape attitudes on global warming. What is it? Exxon and other oil and coal company lobbies, which have billions of dollars at their disposal and have been successful in buying American senators and Congressmen and flooding the media with disinformation about the subject. They have fooled you, Mr. Dulerain. You are the one who has been fooled, and your children and grandchildren are going to inherit the legacy of your foolishness: an overheated, worn out and devastated planet very different from the one on which humans have developed in the last 10K years.

You asked what proof I would consider acceptable, before I wholeheartedly signed on to cap,n,trade.

1) the proof would have to come from an absolutely independent source -zero strings attached (pretty tall order?)

2) the findings would have to be confirmed by no less than two other scientific bodies- with no socio-political, cultural, socio-economic or consciptual attachments with the CFR, TLC, WMF, the Bilderberg Organization, or any United Nations Organization or their affiliate of any kind.

Please realize that this would be an impossible (Not Herculean) task. The point I'm trying to make here, is please stand back, look around and try to understand YOU ARE BEING USED. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! not man made anyway. the idea of taxing CO2, which is a gas you, I, and every other denizen of this planet emit as a result of aerobic respiration – IS LUDICROUS!!!!!!!!! I am at my limited wits end trying to explain this to you. I may be a moron but you sir a robot straight out of "WESTWORLD". If you must, go peddle your wares on "maloy Spaskoy" this a street in kiev, ukraine Ido wish you the best of luck.