Thanks all for you comments.

My basic point is that those on both the far right and the far left seem to be taking the position that if global warming is caused by nature, it does not warrant any intervention, even if the result of inaction holds disastrous consequences for civilization. Each group appears willing to place adherence to its own cult’s religious dogma above the welfare of humanity. Rather than arguing over the cause of climate change, they should be discussing what to do about it. If carbon restriction is the best solution, then so be it.

Uppity: Thanks for correcting my spelling.

My second point is that our climate is complex, and I suspect unstable. That is, presuming carbon is a major culprit, one of the greatest causes of global warming may very well be.... global warming. The warmer it gets, for example, the more 24-hour CO2 comes from our vegetation and compost relative to the amount sinked by photosynthesis during daylight hours. Dunno how that all balances out, but I'm certain it is too complex for simple analysis. Complex enough, perhaps, to blur the distinction between cause and effect.

Pinto, etal: I'm not a climate scientist, but I am capable of simple arithmetic. If climate change gets to the point of impending doom, it is clear that waiting decades just to SLOW the rate of warming through conservation efforts will be unacceptable. Any timely solution will likely require more pollution, not less. Perhaps emitting nucleating particulates in the atmosphere will help. Maybe ammonia. Maybe we can wait for a volcanic eruption to come to our rescue. None of these are good choices.

I would hope that someone with better knowledge of the subject than I will chime in.

After the Gore/Bush debacle of 2000, Congress mandated electronic voting machines to make the voting process more "secure". Knowing that these very same morons will be making decisions regarding climate does not give me an easy feeling.

It's hard to resist being reactionary in times like these.