As the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit (or in this case, Bushit.) I think most laywers and/or politicians would agree that a good tactic to use when the facts are not on your side is to obfuscate the issue by casting aspersions on the facts, and on those who present them. Intelligent Design advocates (aka Creationists) can't provide any evidence the evolution is not an accurate description of biological reality, so they they use the word "Theory" wrongly in calling into question the preponderance of evidence in favor of evolution. A theory is not a conjecture or hypothesis, as they seem to think. A scientific theory is a reasoned and well-supported explanation of a natural process or phenomenon, based on experimental evidence. If/when the evidence becomes clearer, the theory is modified appropriately. A valid theory is not based on dogma or belief not supportable by evidence. Thus, the administration's claim that global warming is not man-made is ludicrous. The next claim that they make will be "More study is needed", despite the multitude of studies already indicating that we are killing ourselves with our excessive pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As they did in the marijuana controversies, they will just keep doing study after study until they find someone who will produce the results they are seeking.

I'm not so sure about this. NASA has already found global warming on Mars, Venus, etc. and there is strong evidence that solar output is actually increasing. It's likely this is above and beyond any man-made influence on global warming. In any case, the President might be right for all we know, but he and many liberals are all focusing on the wrong question, a question that we fundamentally shouldn't care about! To often in politics, the question wrongly posed is whose problem is it, not how we should fix it. So long as the wrong question is asked, all our research money is being wasted. That's the atrocity here.

Of course there is a natural warming/cooling cycle on the Earth - what is shown by the evidence is that mankind has vastly accelerated the warming far beyond what it would have been without our profligate burning of fossil fuels in the last couple of centuries. To deny that we have had a bad influence would be to ignore the evidence. To refuse to try to change our pattern of denial and continue to overheat our home world is suicidal.

Huh?, the modern definition of "debate" is all-encompassing gov. corruption?

I'm sure, scientists are having a field day on Mars, Venus, ect, yet under Governor Bush Texas "blazed" with a world-class pollution problem; while his state led the nation in air pollution, in toxic cehmicals released, in factories violating clean water standards, and while repeatedly declaring himself an outsdoorsman and pro-environmentalist, Bush stated, "I know this, though, you can't sue your way to clean air and clean water."

What a beastly joke--at the same time how true! Recently there was a case in DC district court where the plaintiff was attempting to use the courts to uphold the Clean Air Act, and after years and years of legal maneuvering the case has boomeranged back to step #1 again!!!

On the other hand, the Brotherhood of Teamsters successfully challenged the Dept. of Trans.'s failure to conduct the requisite environmental analyses prior to permitting Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate within the US beyond the current limited border zones (the problem was their lack of appropriate emission controls).

But what about the indigenous peoples of Venezuela suit against Texaco. Their fed. suit was thrown out because Texaco was only one of six companies involved, with the others being Venezuelan. But my point here is: There is no question that they've completely trashed the environment!!!

So..., what is the debate?

Can we trash a world to the point of no return, and then rationalize that we didn't actually know for sure whether George W. and Co. were sub-human, or what...

The question here should be: Don't we owe it to future generations..., not: Who is going to pay?

Plainly, the Gov. wants to put off properly addressing the "issue" of manmade versus naturally occuring global warming until the terrific threat of such warming "compels" the Gov. to pay for the pertinent INDUSTRY modifications out of absolute necessity.

But what if it turns out that this is far too little, far too late (as certainly seems to be the case--what with glaciers melting and seas rising, ect.)!!!

So..., isn't the question here: What kind of hellacious mentally sick criminals are in charge?

Yet isn't the answer so very, very obvious!!!!!!

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...