Not if they map Methane emmissions. (snicker)

Hail yesterday, snow this morning, very cold outside.
USA warmest was in 1934 or 1998 ?
Heading for Little Ice Age or colder ?
Even if we dodge Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25 will get us.

Bad news is that Earth is in Greenhouse effect saturation;
Burning more carbon will only decrease warming effect of water vapor.

Sea level is a lagging temperature indicator. Last 3 are down.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/index.html

Not vegetation, but frozen water in the future.
The Greenies need to change their color to white  ! 
 

http://www.westernfuels.org

The research cited by Manaev, who wrote the story for CNN, is solid and peer-reviewed. The "truth" you cite is, with all due respect, on a little bit of thin ice.

I always cringe a little when the messengers get shot for delivering the message. I don't know of any of my colleagues in the media who doesn't hope that the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming turns out to be wrong. I really hope we get egg on our faces on the global warming story. It beats having my kids cope with the dramatic, mostly bad, changes we apparently have in store.

You are right that there are dissenters. Pat Michaels, the editor of the World Climate Report, is one of the most prominent. We've had him on CNN a lot – by my informal count, more than any other individual scientist on any side. But the weight of the research that disagrees with hm, and with the Western Fuels Association, is substantial and growing.

Thanks
Peter Dykstra

The story concerning 'Warming Island' is not true and should be corrected.

The facts about 'Warming Island' are here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/03/31/warming-island-another-global-warming-myth-exposed/#more-315

This myth has been propagated throughout the news media, and it is blatantly untrue.

One unexpected result of pollution is Global Dimming, altering weather patterns, suspected cause of famines in Africa. (see google video) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382
  

We've reached "peak oil" more than once already. For instance, in the US, we've only depleted around 40% of the oil estimated to exist in the ground. The more of that remaining oil we go after, however, the more work it takes: oil that wasn't profitable to produce at $10/barrel is highly profitable at $115/barrel. That takes care of oil.

The next obvious fact you're missing is that oil accounts for only around 25% of the energy we consume. About half of our energy comes from burning coal, which is an even worse source of CO2, sulfur, and general pollution than oil is. The available reserves of coal are many times the available oil, so we can keep polluting with coal for at least 250 years, or until we're all dead, whichever comes first.

Take heart, though. Climate change is already causing widespread famine and pestilence around the world. In case you haven't heard, there's currently a worldwide food crisis inflating the price of basic food grains like rice, wheat, and corn to the point that a subsistence diet costs poor families more than half their daily income. The lack of safe water supplies is bringing about a resurgence of cholera, dengue fever, malaria, and any number of diseases that adapt to changing environmental conditions far faster than people do.

You may not be surprised to learn that the millions of people subject to starvation and sickness are becoming discontented with their lot in life, and have begun rioting and overthrowing their governments, as happened in Haiti last weekend. As living conditions continue to deteriorate, we can reasonably expect more and more desperate people to start fighting for their lives, trying to take what they need to survive from the rich (that's us).

Is any of this sounding familiar yet? Famine and pestilence are here now, on a rapidly-increasing scale; war is on the doorstep; there's only one horseman left, and he can't be too far behind the rest.

To answer your question, you don't need an economist; you just have to take a step back from arguing about oil, look at what's going on the world around you, and try to care a little. I know that last part's hard, but it'll come to you when things get bad enough.

There is no Doomsday paradox. We have more than ample means to put an end to human civilization just by clinging to the status quo that's not-so-slowly killing people already. Don't worry about running out of oil; if we last long enough for that to happen, there's plenty of coal to finish the job.

Supposedly, we are ruining the planet with the ever increasing CO2 emmisions we are putting into the atmosphere, something which is melting the ice caps and will ruin the lives of billions of people with rising sea levels.

However, on the other hand, we have supposedly surpased Peak Oil (or are close to it), the point in which we will see ever decreasing amounts of oil produced.

So my question...How is it we are going to continue our exponential rate of atmospheric polution when we are running out of the very material (oil) we use to polute? If we are running out, we won't have anything to polute with? On the other hand, if we do have it, all of the dying people (due to global warming) will likely kill the demand anyway. I'd just like an unbiased economist to tell it to me straight, without the politics involved.

Especially important is Ferenc Miskolczi and Miklos Zagoni
Greenhouse effect is self – limiting
One effect is negated by another, and only little change.

All the extra CO2 will not save us from the coming Ice House ?
Hell on Earth will not be warm !

New England, California and Flordia should be carring the majority of the cost burden since their creating the majority of the carbon burden.