"So what does the global-warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research — untainted and reliable — to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate."

Republicans seem to believe Le Chatelier's Principle means no matter how much you pump in it will some how be fortuitously absorbed. Increasing CO2 levels clearly indicate this is false. In reality LCP means some will react to balance out what is reacted.

For instance if A + B converts to C + D then the equilibrium constant K = [D][C]/{[A][B]} where [X] is the concentration of component X. If you do the math 2 things are obvious.

1) Adding A or B will always result in more A or B being present in the system. Even at high K there will always be some left after reaction to re-establish equilibrium.

2) The products will increase.

You can not have a status quo in any way shape or form by adding something to a system. Humans are changing the environment with a proven greenhouse gas. The only question is to what degree. The fact that models can not be considered 100% accurate due a failure to predict every deviation in an extremely complicated system is no excuse to ignore significant correlation over the long term or similarities between the results from different models with different sets of assumptions.

It is entirely reasonable to question whether the costs of mitigating the risk is worth the side effects. It is not reasonable to ignore the science, pretend it's false, ot bury your head in the sand. It is utterly stupid for both sides not to join together and agree there are many other reasons to reduce our reliance fossile fuels. Instead of arguing over kyoto and carbon quotas/taxes we need to be investing heavily in alternative energy research. Start there then argue over which of the rest is best.

Regards,
Mark