I'm going to give you two perspectives on Global Warming and then a basic and simple resolve.

The Pros.

Although most scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a few still harbor doubts. But a new report, based on an analysis of infrared long-wave radiation data from two different space missions, may change their minds. Unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed, and that they can be attributed to changes in greenhouse gases over a long time period.

An international team says it has proven humans are driving up temperatures in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The team, led by Environment Canada climatologist Nathan Gillett, says greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere by cars, factories and human activities are a key factor fueling the change. "Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level," the researchers reported Thursday in the journal Nature Geoscience. The change underway, particularly in the Antarctic, has been one of the most contentious issues in the global warming debate. Some parts of the icy continent, such as the South Pole, are cooling, prompting skeptics to say global warming theories and models are wrong. Gillett and his colleagues say the variations seen on the ground are "consistent" with the theories and models, and do not rule out human impacts on the climate system.

The Cons.

Winter offered as proof of warming” declares a headline in the print edition of the Washington Post, although perhaps the irony of that later struck the editors and they softened it a bit in the online edition to “Harsh winter a sign of disruptive climate change, report says.” Nothing especially outrageous here. The environmentalists have been doing this for years; indeed, it’s why they adopted the term “global climate change” so that any change in climate or even just weather - which obviously this is - can be portrayed as a result of man’s nefarious activities in putting greenhouse gases into the air. The report, incidentally, is from the National Wildlife Federation that makes money by promoting global warming in the same way that GM makes money selling trucks.

Speech to Parliament; Tuesday, 2 September 2008 by Bill Rodney Hide MP. " I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science. It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phony and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle. Enacting this legislation will cost New Zealanders dear—that is the point of it - and it will drive up the costs of basic goods and services for New Zealanders probably by at least $500 or $600 a year. It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business, and put farmers off their farms. It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business. It will put farmers off their farms. And it will do all this for no impact on world weather, for no environmental gain, and for no conceivable advantage to New Zealand or to the world."

We talk about CO2 and the depletion of the ozone layer etc. etc. There are others contributing to increased greenhouse gases and global warming. What are greenhouse gases? Let's have a look. The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Chlorofluorocarbons is another contributor although non-atmospheric in nature.

The burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial revolution has increased the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are: water vapor, which contributes 36–72%, carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%, methane, which contributes 4–9% and ozone, which contributes 3–7%.

Now here is my question and my resolve. Does it really matter whether or not we are adding more of these gases to our atmosphere or not? Is it a cycle that our planet goes through every several millennia? One fact is definite. Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are on the increase. So, the solution? It doesn't matter if we are the cause or not. Cut these gases as much as possible anyway. What will it hurt? Our economy? Fuddle-duddle.

Will it make cleaner air for our future generations? Absolutely. Why do we humans always put a cost to everything? Gee. Might it be for heavy profits? Might it be for political gain? Naw. Not a chance. Could it be that those that really make the decisions just want to bicker back and forth to tie up actual progress? Or are they in a group of political or a cliquish environment that wouldn't agree on anything. Like the U. S. Congress and Senate. Like the Liberals and the Conservative parliaments of the world. " Let's set up a commission and get back to it in several years." Oh! Such hypocrisy.

If it's a good thing to do for all humanity, then let us "Just Do It." Do we have to be hit over the head with a hammer first to realize that it will hurt if we are hit over the head? Then it's too late. And that is exactly what we are doing. Waiting until it's too late.