It might cost them some money. It amazes me that the vast majority of posters on this board are highly intelligent yet seem to believe that adding a greenhouse gas to an atmosphere won't cause it to warm up. There are plenty of issues and claims around this subject that are debatable, but most here seem in denial of the basic properties of carbon dioxide. I can understand the resentment that the often ludite like environmental extremists cause amongst technophiles, but there is real reason for concern. Rational people should be able to see this and discuss what additional research is needed in order to correctly balance the costs of doing nothing versus those of doing something. It should be a no brainer that we need to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. We should do this fo reasons of national security as well as GW yet the same interests groups fight those measures just as they do related GW measures to protect their own profits.

The handwaving dismissal of climate models because they don't agree exactly despite the fact that they agree on the general trend is a fine example of wishful thinking. A basic model capable of predicting the average temperatures in such diverse places as Mars and Venus is not a bunch of baseless conjecture. Adding the complex interactions of Earths oceans and active geological cycles adds an immense amount of complexity with plenty of room for modeling error, but it does not invalidate the approach.

I think Lombard makes a fine point that costs of global warming must be balanced versus the costs of preventing it, but the rebuttal that he has no basis for his judgement on the relative costs is one that should also be considered. Barry D also sounds rational until you look at the internal contradictions in his stance and the misrepresentation of sources.

When judging the reliability and veracity of the various camps it is best to look at how many obvious facts are overlooked in their presentations. One thing that is also overlooked is that the Earth's geologic history shows climate can change radically over a relatively short time frame. The layers of rock show major changes in climate over a relatively brief period of time. Methane hydrates are one potential cause of such swings. A small relatively increase in temperature caused by CO2, impacts in carbonate rock, solar cycles, or continental drift can release the trapped methane into the atmosphere causing a much greater swing. Messing with mother nature has real risks.

My primary skepticism towards the anti-greenhouse group is that they oppose research into the topic. That is clearly not an approach warranted by basic science and indicates a bias towards protecting the status quo rather than wanting to know the real facts.

Off course, Mars also appears to have had major climate swings and understanding its simpler system better may also help us understand Earth's climate swings as it helped warn of the potential dangers of global warming. Yet another good reason for detailed research there. ;-)

Regards,
Mark