Actually, the cap and trade program, now in place in Europe, has been endorsed by economists including Alan Greenspan. The idea that "voluntary" will spur business, while Detroit crumbles, is idiodic. Bush, who exactly do you work for again???

We don't need to solve global warming, we need to solve the energy problem. Jimmy Carter knew it in the 70's. There is no proof, only consensus on an unproven theory backed by a limited sampling model that global warming is occuring. The requirement for energy is a reality, it is global and it allows humans to alter their environment to survive. Every economy on the planet rely's on energy. If governments can control energy, they can control the planet. Do we want the same dysfunctional multilateralist policies that screwing up the political and diplomatic environment to have fiscal control over the economic environment? Just listen to Third World countries that are concerned about the World Bank and energy Leviathon's controlling the energy, their economic growth and energy consumption that will have to "fit" into the global energy plan. There are a few elitists out there trying to sell global warming as a egalitarian venture capital investment when it is really nothing more than a perpetual source of funding for global governance without any tangible return on the investment. If you can't predict the weather more than 36 hours in advance, how can you predict it 5 years from now? If you can't predict it 5 years from now, how can you put performance parameters or a single performance parameter on to control what you can't predict? This is the Y2K fear model being used on an exponentially larger and more lucrative scale. This is snake oil, it'll cure ya or kill ya.

"Actually, the cap and trade program, now in place in Europe, has been endorsed by economists including Alan Greenspan."

Is that the same cap and trade program that has failed to produce any reduction of CO2 emissions in Europe? Just whose emissions were capped and what did they trade for them?

When talking about global warming, there are a few questions that must be dealt with.

First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. We can readily see some evidence of that happening.

The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that's a good thing.

Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man's contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says 'yes'. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:

Obviously we can't put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.

Even the best climate models don't predict reality very well. Thirty-five years ago NASA's James Hansen was designing climate models that showed an ice age was imminent; today he designs models that show the climate is heating up. But the track record of the models is just as dismal. Heck, the Old Farmer's Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends. The assumptions that are programmed into the model must be incredibly complex. In fact, more complex than our understanding of climate at this point. It's really no big surprise that the models don't have a great track record. It's not something to feel too bad about or be embarrassed about. It's just the way it is.

So what's going on? Why all the hysteria? Some say that the "reality of global warming" is even worse than predicted. Could that be?

That's one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the models are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. Perhaps something else is going on than the researcher expected. It does not prove or disprove the scientists' opinions, or establish cause and effect. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

But is there a "consensus"?

I love to point out the fact that there are still scientists studying gravity, and that's one area most people thought was settled long ago, right? Can I see a show of hands? And another thing to think about is that 'consensus' really isn't a scientific term. It's more of a political term.

So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don't. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.

How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don't, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.

Why? In two words: money and power.

Bottom line: Don't let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. Real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists (and bloggers) for who they are and get on with life.