Control is the name of the game
It works for the bosses, not that great for everyone else

The earth does go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It was hotter during the middle ages, colder in the seventeen hundreds. Life was unbearably hot during the dinosaurs

Greenhouse gasses do trap heat and cause temperatures to rise

The problem is that forcing people and companies to use energy efficient air conditioners is not even close to a solution. Us sheep may pay more for a low energy light bulb, but businesses will just move offshore to some third world country where they can get away with this stuff.

What they need to do is take the money they spend on conservation, and put it all into innovation. Have a huge factory shooting spewing frothing greenhouse gasses into the air for five years, but have that factory producing hydrogen fuel cells. Technology is the only way out

Also, I was hoping for a bit more of a heated argument. Clearly we disagree. That’s fine. we’ve been doing that on just about every charliechampion post I’ve commented on. We are both aware of how much we disagree on several issues and respectfully argue our points, and I enjoy that a lot. I would like to think that we are past the point of, “you’re young, and you’ll understand when you’re older.” If your latest response was based on the fact that I’m ok with big government in certain situations, then bring on the argument! I want your rebuttal!

If your response was based on your disapproval of my position on global warming, then once again, bring on the discussion! I would love to hear your side.

And if it was based on a general idea of my liberal views and my support for the current government, then there is certainly some validity, and I would like to argue that too! Because my support for the current administration is hardly unwavering, and I certainly disagree with many things that are going on, including almost $1 trillion in debt that we incurred with one pen stroke.
And I would also be willing to argue that I was much less free for the past 8 years than I have been in the past few months, and will be for the next 4 or more years. If nothing else, the Patriot Act was pretty offensive, among other Bush/conservative initiatives.

I’ve never heard a strong argument that refuted global warming, and if I did, I would be more than willing to consider the idea to be false. The people/scientists that argue against have their own agenda as well. Call it the conservative agenda, free market agenda, laissez faire agenda, or whatever you like. The agenda of big businesses that don’t want to spend the money to clean up all of the pollution they are creating, because it will cost them. If global warming is a socialist agenda because people are unwilling to do what’s right for the world and mankind on their own, then I say let the government step in. Keep the government out when they invade my private life, but let them protect me from people trying to harm me, whether they are doing it directly, or slowly over time.
I wouldn’t even say that the other side doesn’t get press. I’m completely aware that scientists argue against it, but I would hardly say that the sides are even. There are scientists that for years have argued that smoking isn’t bad for you, that completely deregulated markets are what’s best for economy, and that evolution is completely wrong because it conflicts with what the Bible says. There will always be two sides to any argument, even if the facts are as clear as daylight. I think you should take a look at this one again. I must adamantly disagree.