The issue is not whether the earth is warming. The issue is whether the productive activities of man are causing it. There is very good scientific (not political) evidence that it is not.
First of all, the global warming hysteria is mostly political, not scientific. The so-called consensus on global warming is hardly unanimous. The doomsday scenarios that have been force-fed to us have changed every day for the last ten years. Remember the "hockey-stick" model, which showed temperatures gradually rising, then taking a sudden jump? Completely discredited. Remember global cooling hysteria? Completely discredited. The disaster-mongers are losing credibility with each bungled prediction.
Note also that the summaries of the UN's climate report (which are written, not by scientists, but by policy makers) keep getting more fervent, even as their projections get more and more conservative. Each model projects less warming and smaller increases in sea levels than previous ones, yet the rhetoric gets more dramatic. For example, the 2001 report predicted a maximum sea level rise of 3 feet. This report adjusts the prediction downward to 17 inches. So while the science in the UN reports makes less and less of a case for the hysteria, the politics call for more and more. Groupspeak does not equate to good science.
It is obvious that the spokespeople are coached. Listen to the interviews. They all use the word "solid." The science is "solid." Every one of them has used that term in describing the new U.N. report. Coincidence? Or coaching? Or just more vacuous groupspeak?
Finally, here are some points to consider:
1. More people die from the cold than from the heat. There is no proof that a little global warming would not be a good thing for the majority of people on this earth. More arable land, less fuel spent on heating, all benefits to mankind.
2. Our best data show that the temperatures of all the planets are increasing. Can't blame man for the other planets. There are no SUVs on Mars. Why is it also warming? Could it be that the sun has something to do with the warming on both planets?
3. The human activity that global warming hysterians seek to curtail has brought better nutrition, medicine, higher standards of living, better health and greater overall human well-being. How much of it are we willing to sacrifice for this unknown?
4. China will construct over 2,000 coal plants in the next 25 years, offsetting any "benefits" of any sacrifices we make here.
5. The world has been warming since the 17th century, when the Little Ice Age ended. There were no SUVs in the 17th century, either.
6. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980. But there was a lot of industrial output of greenhouse gases during those years. Why no warming?
7. Scientists who doubt the so-called consensus are routinely silenced and marginalized. Proponents of the global warming hysteria do not allow differing viewpoints. They have much to gain from propagating this hysteria: grants, political power, prestige, etc. No one gets a grant to disprove this theory.
8. While projections had predicted warmer and warmer temperatures, the world in 2006 was just 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than in 2001. This is less than the margin of error, i.e., insignificant.
9. Hysterians do not give you the full story on Antarctica. Only 4% of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula, shows signs of warming. The other 96% has maintained stable temperatures for the last 50 years (as long as we've had data). At the very least, this suggests that there is not enough data to claim a pending disaster.
Until there are steady, consistent data to back it up, global warming hysteria should be treated like any other religion: you are free to believe it, but the government should take no part in it.