I've seen enough evidence, including data from other than land sites, to convince me that there have been temperature changes (not always upward, by any means), but not enough to convince me that all of them are due only to human activity, or that they are unprecedented in history.

I support moving toward alternative energy sources, primarily nuclear for the short term, and allowing oil and gas prices to continue to rise to drive other alternatives. I would support this if there were no climate issues at all. Oil ain't gonna last forever. R.L. seems to feel this way, too, but I won't put words in his mouth. I have heard similar ideas from other liberals. They aren't all Green looneys by any means. And not all conservatives want to rape the environment. Remember that.

I don't support thinly disguised socialist agendas like Kyoto, whose sole purpose, like most other U.N.-type efforts, was to penalize the West, harvest its wealth for their own purposes, and let countries like China off scot-free.

A lot of the data and conclusions on both sides are politically driven. It makes the noise difficult to filter out.

If there is climate change, it's going to have to be dealt with from a high-tech vantage point. We no longer have the option of going back to live in yurts powered by windmills. There are too many of us.

In fact, all human-caused warming issues aside, simple natural climate change, or natural disasters, will need to be met by a high-tech civilization. I don't see Green Utopia, with its geodesic domes and solar panels, launching an effort to stop an asteroid coming this way.

If we have a problem, fix it with methods that will allow our culture to generate the surplus power and wealth that are needed to do the things we will want to do and maybe have to do someday.