Not that much. I fully expect that humans are having some climate effects, certainly on a local scale. I believe that natural cycles are the cause of the majority of what we are seeing now, and the data I've seen, both short term (thousands of years) and long term (hundreds of thousands of years) seems to bear this out.

I believe that a lot of the warming trend right now could be part of a natural upswing from a cool cycle, and that continuing record temperatures in that case may be no weirder than each day in June tending to be warmer than the one before it.

I believe that natural CO2 levels are driven by temperature changes more than the other way around. This is because there are simply more obvious mechanisms for this than for the other direction. I believe that some of the current CO2 levels are human-related, but exactly how much is problematical.

I believe a lot more research is needed.

I believe we should be moving away from burning hydrocarbons for fuel, if only because it's a valuable resource for too many other things, and because it certainly isn't a bad idea to reduce CO2 output. I support a lot more nuclear power, and any alternative form of energy like solar that actually works.

I have no objection to the government funding some research in this area, particularly in things like nuclear power, but for more decentralized solutions, I believe the market is the best driver for technology. Too much government is not good in this area. The whole ethanol thing is already a lot more about politics than it is about science.

What pisses me off is that this entire subject has become a political football, and as usual, the politics are only seen here from one side, as though those fervently pushing Kyoto (and dozens of the other drastic socialistic solutions they've been dreaming about for years) have no agenda at all. The dogma is now tied so tightly to the subject that it may not be possible to peel it loose.