As I've mentioned before, I did change my mind about AGW, although that was not necessarily because of anything I read here. As a long-time environmentalist, nature-lover, outdoorsman, hiker, camper, birder, bicyclist and liberal, I had accepted the theory of man-made global warming as an obvious fact, because it tied in with my concerns about our environment. However, I try to judge issues each on its own merits, and that means, eventually, taking a look at what "the other side" has to say.

I should add that attempts to stifle discussion, dissent, revisionism, iconoclasm, or skepticism are a clear sign to me that somebody has a weak argument, or something to hide. When I see that, I'm going to have a look for myself.

Right away, several red flags popped up, including, prominently "drowning polar bears," and global warming on other bodies in our solar system. The more I read of the skeptic's arguments, the more persuasive they became, especially about climate modeling, as I have noted.

There are nasty pollutants, but I don't consider CO2 to be one. In any event, China and India have ambitious plans for bringing new coal-fired power plants on-line over the next 20 years, something to the tune of one/week over that time span, if memory serves. That doesn't mean we in the USA shouldn't make lifestyle changes to reduce our impact (footprint, if you will) on the environment. I would love to see that agenda, but I certainly wouldn't start with CO2, because, as I have stated, I'm not convinced that it's that harmful, and in any event, we certainly are not the major source of it, no matter what the consequences.

From what I understand, coal-seam fires around the globe emit as much CO2 as all vehicular traffic in the US. If we wish to regain the moral high-ground in the eyes of the world, perhaps the United States should lead efforts to extinguish those fires. I'm sure it would be a welcome sight around the world to see red fire-retardant dropping from American planes rather than anything else.

S