Carbon credits have to the one of the greatest con jobs I've ever seen.

I agree after administrative cost and blah blah fees probably like .50 cents goes into actually planting a tree.

Given that scientists all over the world that haven't been flat bought by the "Global Warming" cult members continue to publish study after study and present paper after paper proving that man has no measurable impact on global climate, I'd say that carbon offsets are the greatest con in recorded history. Al Gore is making a huge profit telling people to buy them without disclosing that he is a major owner of the company selling them.

Not unless Al Gore, Sheryl Crow and Laurie David are willing to let me borrow the same private plans they have access to whenever I need to fly somewhere.

Truthfully, I don't think Continental could care less about global warming. It's just a marketing ploy. If they mandated the fee on every ticket sold, passenger loads would drop, there would be cutbacks, and it would further stagnate an already super competitive and price sensitive industry.

Another thing, if we listened to all the "scientists" and "experts" in the 70's, we *SHOULD* be knee deep in another ice age as we speak. Obviously ain't happening and won't happen any time soon so they found a new drum to beat.

You'd think that there would be an alternative way to lose the guilt ... like, i dunno ... fly less?

There should be no guilt at all over flying. I won't fly because the airlines suck, but that is a different story...

When all the Hollywood celebs and the other attention whores give up their private jets and large mansions and do as they say instead, only then will I actually consider thinking about the possibility that they have a point...

Pretty Soon this won't be voluntary. Expect a special tax fog Global Warming Offsets....I think it is rapidly being adopted in the EU.

@Hawk07: Very few scientists of the 70s actually believed we were entering a new ice age. A few studies suggested it, and the media sensationalized it. Today we have a consensus amongst scientists that climate change is real and manmade, supported by thousands of studies. Very big difference.

@dbeahn: Name some legitimate climate scientists who have published in peer reviewed journals refuting climate change. According to recent meta-analyses, over 99% of peer-reviewd articles suggest humans are altering the climate.

Carbon Credits have potential but currently they have serious problems. See: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2...

The best thing you can do is reduce your present wastage. Most home energy used can be considered waste energy. Turn the lights off when not needed, don't use standby on the TV, and insulate your home. You'll save money too.

People will do anything to help the poor environment.

Except spend money on it.

Global Warming... another sinister scam perpetrated by the Bush Administration...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/washington/01prexy.html?...

Wow, thought I tuned into Fox for a minute there.

It's a nice gesture, and it will make the environmentally minded traveler happy.

Unfortunately, curbing the amount of C02 that one airline in one country emits compared to the scope of the whole problem isn't going to amount to much. But hey, if it'll make people happy..what the heck. Besides, being "green" is in, and the cynical side of me tells me that it's just a big PR ploy to make Continental seems like it sucks less.

@Hawk07: Al Gore doesn't use a private airplane. He flys commercial, just like everyone else.

note: I read this in Time magazine or some other reputable news source last month, but i dont have the link for it.

@Christovir: Peer review *is* the cult he was speaking of. All of these people are paid obscene amounts of money in grants to "negotiate" a consensus, like what happened with the UN report. Science should never have negotiation.

US Airways does the same I think, or at least the travel thingie I purchased my last tickets through asked if I wanted to pay for Carbon Credits.

Hell no. I just started a non-profit business. I've seen enough to want to know intricate details of where every cent is going to when I make a donation, and anything less than 80 to 90 cents on the dollar for something like carbon credits better be for whatever-the-hell-it-is-they-promise-to-spend-it-on (what is it anyway? Trees? Research? Mr. Fusion machines?). My guess is 90% of each dollar in something like this is going to get a bunch of people more money.

I'll do my own carbon offsetting, thank you.

My work includes sustainable development projects, so through this and the work of reputable environmental organizations, I figure I can do more with that money than Continental and its cohorts would.

That said, this hostility to the Global Warming issues in America is the same kind of thinking that has people banning science books that don't simply say "God created everything in less than a week." Granted, for many Americans who rarely, if ever, step (mentally and physically) out of their community circles, and even then rarely notice the environment, sure it is hard to understand all the 'science talk.' Those of us who do pay attention to more than just the glare of SUVs, notice environmental impacts AND that the much of the world is ahead of us in the awareness that perhaps the condition of our natural environment is important to our lives. It is a selfishness, a lack of awareness about the world as a whole, a complete detachment from the natural environment that breeds this disregard. People who don't think about the trash they create, their impact on their environment, because their world is maintaining to sweep realities away from them and because they don't learn about it while watching American Idol or the View.

The same 'brilliant' folks who reject the 'fake' science behind Global Warming, are the ones who will believe any other science that fits what they want -- any science so long as it doesn't mean they have to change their unnecessary wasteful, shallow, conspicuously consumptive lifestyles. God forbid they should have to consider a fish, if not on their plate, a tree if not in their yard, and a beach if they don't want to vacation on it for a few days. Water from their kitchen faucet comes from God, not a source that needs to be protected; the earth's resources are to use, discard, tear down, dig up, throw away, pollute, until there is nothing left, but that doesn't matter because when it is all gone, they'll be dead and in the meantime they'll have their housing development with Home Depot bought grass, central air in the house, and they are building a nice stock portfolio so their grandchildren can afford to live in a plastic bubble covered city, so what do they care?

Forget the polar ice caps focusing on themis a liberal mind game, but if their ipods lose battery power too quickly, then we must enact laws to punish Apple!

That's what happens when we create a plastic and metal culture.

Carbon credits make on carbon neutral??

Bull. If I rape a woman and then donate money to a rape crisis center, does that make me rape neutral? NO!

Carbon credits are a scam. Nothing more.

I wonder if the people selling these carbon credits have any bridges for sale. I've been looking to buy one.

@dbeahn: hahaha

@brodog2525:

Technically, his official stance is, "I fly commercial whenever I can." Of course in politics and the court of law that can mean anything. Also, for the record, I could care less what mode of transportation he uses. AFAIK, all his wealth is legit so how he spends his money is his own business.

No doubt you've heard the reports of Gore's own "Inconvenient Truth" that his mansion uses more electricity in one month than the average American household uses in a year. Have you heard of our Commander in Chief's "Texas White House"?
http://wizbangblog.com/2007/02/26/al-gores-own-inconvenien...

@Christovir:

And the media isn't sensationalizing global warming as well?

If you go by the news, you'd think more children than ever are being abducted and kidnapped when in reality, the average has remained roughly the same for quite some time.

This is a free country. If you want to buy carbon credits and make yourself feel good when you tuck yourself in at night, that's fine by me.

the denial of the global warming problem is staggering.

Where's your sense of personal responsibility?

As for the outdated Gore link...hell the story's been debunked. He purchases all his power from green sources.

TIME stated that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research claimed to have gotten "its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information." [24] TIME further quoted Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for Gore, as saying that the source of the energy is green energy.[24] WKRN-TV reported that the Gore family obtains their power from the Nashville Electric Service's "renewable energy initiative", The Green Power Switch program [25] which depends upon "wind, solar, and methane gas." [26] The Detroit Free Press further noted that "Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills. That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.The green power Gore purchased is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES's Web site." [23] The figure of 108 blocks of green power per month corresponds[25] to 16,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month, Al Gore's average monthly use for 2005.
Keith Olbermann at MSNBC reported that the Gore home includes offices for both Gore and his wife and 'special security measures' making it unrepresentative of what the average US home consumes. Additionally, the green power purchased by the Gores increased the cost of their electricity by "$5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution."[27]
Kreider suggested in TIME that the attacks on Gore's energy use were political in nature and stated:
" Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger. [24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies

This is a completely pointless "gesture." Gee, you'll ALLOW me to donate to a charity when purchasing my ticket? *eyeroll* Even if I were in the buy-it-off environmental penance crowd I wouldn't go for this.

Consumerist should start a carbon credit program to offset the electricity used in viewing and hosting. . . .

@noasalira: Well put.

@jwissick: I don't know about a scam, but the money is better spent elsewhere. Heck, go carbon neutral and save the money to buy a hybrid. Or go off the grid, with the more efficient solar cells that are just a few years off. Nice comparison btw.

@Hawk07: Re: the predictions of a new ice age:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-...

Re: the Al Gore house, this talking point doesn't do anything for me. It's become all about this one person. I mean, what are we supposed to conclude? "Yes, the consensus about humanity's role in climate change was arrived at by thousands of scientists from various fields working over the course of decades. But you shouldn't believe it because Al Gore has a big house." Really?

Al Gore has become a prominent face of climate change in this country, but the theory wasn't his idea. It's not like we're talking about the Internet here. (Sorry, bad joke.) The science behind climate change is solid even if Al Gore decides to purchase a fleet of Hummers.

This is not to condemn skeptics. Skepticism pushes science forward and has actually driven climate scientists to strengthen their case greatly in recent years. Without the history of healthy skepticism, climate science would not nearly as much credibility as it does. But there is a difference between a skeptic who seeks to educate himself in search of truth and a cynic who cherry-picks knowledge to flatter some notion of iconoclasm. In that sense, this debate needs fewer cynics and more skeptics.

As for carbon credits, as Christovir noted, they are currently problematic. It does seem that, right now, there is more marketing than science at work here. I don't blame anybody for finding crassness in the opportunistic marketing or celebrit-izing of global warming, but such sensationalism has little to do with the scientific reality of climate change.

BTW, Christovir and noasalira: +1

@Christovir: Richard S. Linzen, MIT professor, you can even read his publications online, or in newsweek for the lay person

Let's call "carbon offsets" what they are: hypocrisy. If you want to reduce CO2, take your bike to work, or stop exhaling.

Why doesn't anyone mention methane (CH4) releases? It traps 4x as much heat as CO2? Or that planting trees in the northern hemisphere contributes to global warming? The real world is much more complicated than the models. Scientists like to make lots of models. No one relies on them, and I always know I finally got my model right when it matches what I already knew it should look like. So if I assume global warming, of course I see the trend. (That 99% of articles citation is bs, do you have any source however biased?)

The wikipedia article is becoming more biased with every edit, but there is definately no consensus among the scientists--especially if you review conference proceedings. Consensus is only claimed by certain groups (environmental, political) who have underlying interest in the results of the debate.

The climate changes, and it has warmed over the last 100 years. The effect humans have had and could possible have is debateable. You should probably go get a phd in atmospheric science before you make up your mind, mine is still open and I am almost there.

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. That's still good advice.

Whoa, freepers unite!!

Guys, it's not an all/none choice. If you can bike to work, great. Mass transit, great. Efficient car, great. Have to fly, great.

No one (outside your pathetic, echo-chamber, straw-man, frothing-at-the-mouth demogogues) is suggesting we dress in animal skins and walk to work.

Try to take the big picture into account. If you think there are ways to offset your carbon footprint, go for it. If not, then you can "buy" offsets, which aren't as ideal as say, scrapheaping your SUV, help offset the damage.

Allowing someone to conveniently by carbon offsets is one of many options. Options, in a free market, are a good thing. Got it, commies?

Just because we'll never get crime rates down to 0% doesn't mean, "Throw open the front door when you leave the house since crime's still going to happen."

Jeez - grow up. Or at least, begin to think like an adult. We're not five year olds, right?

Probably the only person here, but if I did fly (haven't stepped on a plane in my life so far) I would likely offset the CO2, though I'd probably use someone like Terrapass who I have a bit more faith in (partly as they don't use trees).

While I think CO2 offsets can be somewhat hypocritical and reducing your environmental impact in the first place is far better, sometimes people simply cannot get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time without flying. Offsetting when done well, not only internalises the externality that CO represents somewhat (albeit voluntarily), but can also act as a big wedge of cash that encourages the development of better renewable technologies and lowers their price in the long run.

noasalira: Well said.

sixsnowflakes: I think that's likely because a lot of things that people actively do which constitutes their environmental impact don't produce much methane, although I might be wrong. TerraPass do mention methane releases, and have so far eliminated more than 2,850 tons of CO2 by capturing methane and burning it to produce energy.

The argument isn't 'Al Gore has a huge mansion so climate change is bunk'. It's 'Al Gore has a huge mansion so how dare he try to lecture us on our lifestyle choices.

And to answer the original question, no, I will not be buying carbon offsets when I fly commercial (which I do maybe once a year at most.)

@trai_dep: Exactly. I'm not sure where all this opposition comes from, or what the point is. Cutting carbon emissions not only makes environmental sense, it usually makes financial sense. Companies that emit less pollution do so because they are using energy more efficiently, thereby reducing their bill. The same goes for homes, cars, and flights. Being wasteful with energy benefits no one.

I think the opposition comes more from the football mentality that has overtaken our national dialogue -- the other team is for it, so I'm against it.

@Hawk07:

"This is a free country. If you want to buy carbon credits and make yourself feel good when you tuck yourself in at night, that's fine by me."

This is the hypocrisy of "American democracy" that made me leave the country. You claim you have no problem with others doing something by being condescending. Obviously you DO have a problem with what their doing, so why resort to the platitude that you "live in a free country".

About carbon emissions: Being an American living in Europe, I had to fly a lot to visit family. I also fly a lot for my job. I don't worry about my carbon footprint, though, because there is no way in hell it could possibly be bigger than it would be if I still lived in America. I have no car (I do own a scooter that gets 100mpg), I try to buy local produce (not possible in Las Vegas, where I am from), I have no a/c, rarely use my heater, and I generally buy very little stuff. So before I go about making further changes I want the SUV banned, I want all plastic shopping bags in the world to cost and be made of a better quality plastic (so one uses less), and I want recycling bins available in every city (I would recycle, but the closest drop-off point is 500 miles away!).

@sixsnowflakes: "Why doesn't anyone mention methane (CH4) releases?"

They do. To the point that my local farm group (I don't know what it's called, it's when all the farmers get together to increase their political clout on something) is having a knock-down, drag-out over methane vs. carbon and cow farts have become a major topic of conversation.

@Christovir: Oh look! We have a member of the Church of Global Warming among us!

Let's see, there was the EU study that found that the warming we're experiencing fits into an overall cycle millions of years long, the Russian study that found that Venus and Mars are seeing the same percentage of warming we are, and the UK study showing that the impact man has on overall climate change is not even measurable. There was even a documentary done in the UK about it.

Me thinks you should start reading, and stop believing everything Al Gore tells you. Oh, and you can stop using just ONE sheet of toilet paper - it's OK, the toilet paper is made from FARMED trees.

@Michael: "This is the hypocrisy of "American democracy" that made me leave the country. You claim you have no problem with others doing something by being condescending. Obviously you DO have a problem with what their doing, so why resort to the platitude that you "live in a free country"."

It IS a free country. No one said that other people wouldn't express their own opinion about how stupid or smart you were being. If you can't handle allowing others to have the freedom to think what they want and comment about what you do, then yes, by all means, get the hell out :)

A list of 167 articles that say global warming is not man made.

http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html

Since when is "consensus" a part of the scientific method? I'm just going on my high school science class, but I don't see it as a step in the scientific method.

Here's what Wiki people say about it:

"All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_process

Earth will take herself, unless everyone nuke's everyone else at the same time.

Glad to see thinkers here on this board instead of kool-aid drinkers from both sides. (except Christovir :)

Remember when we were supposed to run out of oil by 2000? Thats what they said in the 70's. Remember when the rainforests were dissapearing and we weren't going to have oxygen (which is silly, because o2 comes from the ocean)? I've been there many times, its all still there. Remember when AIDS was supposed to claim one out of three people? How about acid rain destroying the water? The coming ice age? These are all flash in the pan environmental fads. Much like global warming.
Much like scientology, which requires its followers to give large sums of money to be "saved" or whatever; the church of global warming is intent in draining your wallets. Its amazing how all these granola crunchers are giving away all their hard earned cash to fight off the boogeyman.

@Michael: Charging for plastic bags (and deposits on shopping carts) are useful in modifying European comsumers behavior. Some European chains in the US maintain this practice, such as Ikea and Aldi. My hometown grocery store actually gives me a $0.25 rebate when I bring my own bag. If you are in LV, there is Silver State Disposal in North Las Vegas (333 W. Gowan Rd., NLV 89030), which recycles almost everything. You could also go to Abbie's (6351 E. Vegas Valley Dr., LV 89122), but they don't take plastics there. There is also a bit of a mentality difference in considering the European vs. American sides of this debate. Most Europeans believe actions need to be taken against climate change, but they think companies and the US should take the actions. Many Americans are rightfully skeptical, but I believe Americans are more likely to act themselves when they are convinced. Thus, my totally alarmed German friend does nothing except think the US needs to change its ways, and I, not convinced of impending disaster, take my own grocery bags and bike to work. (Does anyone think the US has taken or will take a blame China approach? Note the parallels of CO2 emissions to the discussions and legislation on Hg emissions.)

The hypocrisy of "carbon offsets" is that the companies selling credits typically find projects that are already underway and would occur without their donations. So when a landfill decides to capture their emissions or a dairy farmer decides to collect his cow poop instead of letting it decompose on the field, they have already taken credit for reducing these emissions. When offset credits are sold to multiple entities, multiple groups are claiming to achieved "carbon neutral lifestyles" or CO2 emission reduction, but this is an ineffective political game since the claimed reduction is multiple times greater than the actual reduction. The "carbon neutral" claim is where the hypocrisy lies. A genuine international cap and trade system would produce more interesting results.

A similar problem arrises for wind power. Some power companies do buy available wind power. On the consumer side, many power suppliers allow you to pay the increased price of wind power (and you assume they will buy a proportional amount of wind power) but in fact your additional money won't go to purchasing wind power unless it is convenient, or it might go to development projects. Carbon offsets might be a charitable donation for you, but Terrapass and electric companies do not happen to be nonprofits.@julian: burning methane to produce CO2 increases CO2 emissions, this being overall better in terms of the discussion. Do you know how TerraPass converts a methane reduction to a CO2 reduction?

@Hawk07: The "Al Gore mansion" business has been explained:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075

Summary:
* Al Gore's house's energy usage per square foot is average for his region of the country (Tennesee has hot summers AND cold winters)
* The house is large, but he and his wife have offices there, and they accommodate secret service as well.
* They buy the maximum allowable green electricity from his supplier, and most electricity in that region is from hydroelectric and nuclear anyway, leaving a small carbon footprint.

--

My own thoughts about global warming: either there's a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to prove it's real and man-made, or there's a vast conspiracy of oil companies trying to prove it isn't. Which has more to gain? Ah yes, the oil companies.

Plus, if there's even a chance we can do something to prevent the Earth from warming, I suggest we try it. We're not talking about sacrificing virgins here, we're talking about making some different investments, put up with some mild inconveniences, spend a little more money. If the US can throw billions of dollars into a missile defense shield on the off chance that someone will fire a nuclear missile at us (instead of, I don't know, flying a plane into a building), then it can spend the same amount of money on the real chance that Florida and Manhattan are going to be underwater by the end of the century. If "conservative" meant "cautious" rather than "go back to the good old days", then this would be a no-brainer.

Call me a cynic, but isn't "carbon credits" just another way of saying "remove your guilt through spending money"?

It's interesting that American culture is so rooted in giving money to fix problems instead of taking personal responsibility. I've heard we're the most generous nation in the world. But I'd suggest it's because we're one of the laziest and least proactive when it comes to supporting a cause. We'd far rather spend the money supporting causes so we can feel like we're "doing our part" than getting out and working those causes ourselves.

Sad thing is, a lot of that money we kick in gets wasted anyhow. True charity is not buying a carbon credit so someone else can do it for us; true charity is changing our lives so that the rest of the world can benefit.

@dbeahn: Oh, shut up, you goddamn conspiracy theorist. Are you saying that all of the following...

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

have been "bought out" by some evil group of fearmongering exploiter of our gullability?

Next you're gonna say that Fluoridation is an evil plot by the aluminum industry, or that information about UFOs is being supressed.

@Hawk07: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Oh, so just because a single book, a few articles in popular magazines, and a little bit of scientific speculation suggested "global cooling" back then was obviously wrong, we are to ignore the global consensus now- by the majority of the scientific community, and not some fringe individuals- that global warming is both happening now and is anthropogenic?

@lorddave: OMG THE VERY BASIS OF OUR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AM BROKEN!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111

@dbeahn: First of all, it is true that there are natural cycles of cooling and warming, but we were supposed to be cooling at this time. Yet we're warming at a rate 10 times faster than normal.

And secondly, (from gristmill): "As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years).

Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles. "

@BK88: I don't see how articles reporting on TV specials and Ad Hominem attacks count as evidence against global warming.

Marketing ploy. Not too clever, but it'll take care of their corporate "look like we give a crap about the Earth" quota for a little while.

Its sad how much people's views on this issue are clouded by their opinion of guys like Al Gore. It makes it look like some sort of left-wing conspiracy, when the science pretty much speaks for itself. Not the cherry-picked "thus-and-such doesn't fit an outdated model, so the whole thing is bunk" science, or the "pop scientists said this in the 70's and they were wrong so they must be wrong now science", or even the downright asinine "there's no consensus" examples (not only are you wrong that there's no consensus, but active debate is the backbone of science -- you could find papers from the 50's refuting DNA as the genetic code, for example), but the overwhelming amount of observed upshift in surface, borehole and sattelite-measured temperature, as well as glacial, permafrost and sea ice melting that is most certainly not part of a natural cycle. Say what you will about the models or interpretation, but the data is there in black and white, and the skeptics present no valid alternative hypotheses. I'm shocked how many people, seemingly completely unawares, are willing to side with the fringe minority on this.

@BK88: "A list of 167 articles that say global warming is not man made." Um, I checked out some of those articles and some of them don't even relate to global warming (i.e. #62, "Al Gore full of hot air"), and the first three are all mirrors of the same movie. #155 actually claims that global warming is partially caused by rice paddies, and has nothing to do with disproving global warming at all...it offers a potential answer for some global warming. That makes the list just a few articles shorter. I also wonder why a reader of the Consumerist would trust an article from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (#9), which state "We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace." A little intervention goes a long way, but total free-market economy? Another 5 focus on the debate about Al Gore's house, one more decries celebs who don't live up to their eco-potential (#30), #40 refers to Mars, #31 discusses economic impact of green power, #36 claims global warming is a problem and offers some strange solutions. #38 advises caution but seems to accept the idea that global warming is a possibility...So we're down to 152 articles, and I've just gotten started. (On the rest of the list, there are many editorials, which don't cite any sources, as well.) And I just got started. I don't really feel like spending my whole day sorting through this list. Of course, I'm personally skeptical of all morning radio hosts, liberal and conservative, and their random lists...So perhaps I am biased. Watch out for your own "kool-aid", BK88!

As for "I don't see [consensus] as a step in the scientific method"--As the wiki says, "The scientific process is iterative"--this doesn't just mean that one person repeats his or her experiments--it's something that is repeated all over the scientific community, until there is a working theory of what's causing a particular phenomena.

Anyway, I think we're going to be surprised about global warming. The world is an amazingly complex system, and complex, chaotic systems are very hard to predict the outcome of. This doesn't mean that I don't believe that we as humans are making some kind of impact, and that we should attempt to minimize that impact, (thanks, Lihtox!) but I don't think we can reliably predict the global response to human impact. I'm not sure about those carbon offsets, though. Seems kind of sketchy.

@badgeman46: Actually, estimates varied on the date, and we ARE going to run out of easilly extractable, readilly available oil, and are gonna have to consisitantly pay alot for gas.

And rainforests ARE dissapearing can't be easilly replaced, and they DO provide alot of the world's oxygen. The biosphere is the main driving force behind the oxygen cycle, after all. The ocean is actually a resevoir of CO2, it doesn't emit oxygen.

And if the proper response wasn't taken by health authorities worldwide, AIDS would have been a much more catastrophic epidemic. And just because you yourself haven't seen areas hit hard by AIDS doesn't mean that they don't exist- AIDS is a huge problem in some parts of Africa, and it claims many lives each year.

And if you looked in some of the above comments, you would see how Global Cooling wasn't even supported by the scientific community to begin with.

And I don't see how any of these things show how environmentalists are demagogues trying to cheat us out of our money.

It is amazing how the eco-nuts continue to blame those who drive SUV's or don't buy Al Gore's latest movie as the reason for global warming.

The earth has been around how long? And how long have we been around?

You eco-nuts are as arrogant as you are gullible. You actually think you have a major impact on Earth. This is not giving carte blanch to go and leave nuclear waste on every corner. But there is no way humans are as responsible, especially Republicans, SUV owners and those who didn't vote for Kerry in 2004.

All your shrill whining will not change the fact that tomorrow a massive super-volcano or earthquake will do far more damage to the human race than Buffy going down to Starbucks in her Range Rover.

The same eggheads who predicted we would all be living in igloos without a drop of oil freezing our butts off are now screaming "buy stock in Hawaiian Tropics, because it is going to be a scorcher."

And it is no coincidence at all that every time these eggheads scream the sky is falling, they get yet another big wad of sweaty palm cash to further their cause...

@Trick: Right. Its the SUV-owning Republicans. It couldn't actually be the industrial and factory emissions or anything.

You pretty much proved my point -- you're letting your stance on this issue get clouded by the "arrogance" of fringe "environuts" who may not understand the relative impact that a Hummer has verses, say, a power plant.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux...

See the upswing around the mid-1800's? If you harken back to your jr. high school history days, you'll recall a little thing called the "industrial revolution" that occurred about that time too.