Turning Global Warming into a religion is intellectually damning-whether you’re conservative or liberal—tree hugger or tree cutter. The argument that “all”, “the majority”, “the preponderance” of scientists believe in Global Warming and its detrimental effects is not correct. Looking at isolated pictures of ice activity does not give you the whole picture; i.e. the vast disappearance of the ice shelf on one side of Antarctica was balanced by the appearance of greater ice activity on the other side. Ice activity is influenced by more than just temperature—wind, current, salinity, etc. affect formation. Depth of ice formation is dependant on absolute nadirs in temperature, but again average temperatures being lower than normal can still lead to melting, if the extremes measured vary in their values. So, can we have global cooling, yet have ice melt? Yes we can. To lay the blame on CO2 levels is so absurd that it takes all question of science out of the argument—that is what really sets a lot of scientists off in the first place, and makes them not even want to participate in the debate. CO2 levels have varied throughout history, and to think that we can actually accurately measure them(in the past) by our indirect methods is accepting too many variables that we either do not know, or can not measure. Fact: The weather changes. It gets warmer, it gets colder—it has done this for eons before man and the automobile ever got here and factored into the equation. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a natural consequence of the oxidation of organic material. Basically, any organic matter that decomposes or burns yields CO2. Any animal that breathes, exhales CO2. Plants like this—they use this CO2 and with their metabolism use this to keep our environment green. CO2 is heavier than air; if released in quantity, it displaces O2 and Nitrogen and will lead to a dangerous situation that can suffocate animal life. The concentration of CO2 at altitude (where the so-called “Green House” effect takes place) is so small that measuring it is very difficult—its concentration is within the margin of error that the machines used to measure it operate. Why do we have to make CO2 the “bad boy” in the “Global Warming” controversy? Why do we have idiots saying we can take the CO2 out of natural gas and pump it into the ground to keep levels down? Did all these idiots either not take or did they all fail chemistry in high school? CO2 from organic sources comes from the combustion of these sources to provide energy that we need. It is not a pollutant or impurity in the organic sources like many would have you believe. Cap and Trade, carbon footprints, etc. are policies based on faulty science to make money for some enterprising unethical souls who are really out to get theirs and rape the poor unsuspecting innocents whose ignorance of the real science behind the weather change phenomena makes them easy prey for these unscrupulous con men. Does anyone think that buying “Carbon Offsets” can really accomplish anything? It is not anyones fault that the weather changes-no one is guilty here-stop acting like it. To think that we can influence the weather to a significant degree is ludicrous—does anyone have any idea what a volcano does when it erupts? A significant volcanic eruption puts particulate and gaseous material into the atmosphere in staggering quantities. CO2?? How about Carbon monoxide? Hydrogen sulfide? Nitric and nitrate compounds that are really noxious little critters. Ammonia?? Sulfonic acid, and a host of other products of the oxidation of the mineral and organic compounds from the Earth’s mantle and crust. A single volcanic eruption can unload more CO2 into the atmosphere that all the automobiles on Earth. Tons of it. Does Cap and Trade have provisions to tax, penalize, etc. those states with active volcanoes? Should the UN make all the countries with active volcanoes pay a global tax to make up for their increased carbon footprint? The shear idiocy of this debate is staggering.