For those who firmly believe that CO2 is a real and present danger I would suggest a simple method of a personal reduction of CO2 by about 8% by reducing strenuous physical activity and/or by simply not breathing for one hour daily. You could also create a market for selling 'breathing rights'.

STEWARDSHIP should be our guiding principle, not profit.

In regard to the stewardship of the earth, there appear to be conflicting views,

1/ The denial of any science which suggests that unending exploitation and profit should be curtailed.

2/ The view that such exploitation is dangerous and will bring about the eventual (but not too distant) destruction of the planet.

The 2nd view seems more tenable, as it is not based on 'greed', though I observe that while it does have a lot of scientific backing, there appears to be a 'spiritual/religious' aspect to the position, which uses science to advance its cause. The religious view here seems to be more of the 'eastern/hindu/buddhist' type.

The first view attempts to use science also to back its position, but it also seems grounded in some kind of dogma or is it just plain greed ?

The Biblical view of the environment is clearly one of 'responsible stewardship' and would suggest a position in the middle of the 2 opposing views above. The old testament laws about land and crops and food, were all aimed at sustainability. Not that we would seek to impose them today, they do have some well grounded science behind them.

To me the idea of pumping continuously increasing amounts of toxic gas into our atmposhere does not need a lot of science to tell me its not a good thing. One only has to reduce onces living space to a 'room' size and put a smoker in it with you to 'get' that message.

If we generate huge amounts of CO2 or any other toxic agent, it would be in our interests to reduce it as much as possible, or perish while thinking about it.

I dont know what all the fuss is about.I thought Carter was putting the case concerning AGW in a more balanced perspective.
As for Funkster I thought the points he lists are also valid. The whole issue, then comes down to what extent does increases in Co2 cause increase in temperature and what is the prognosis for the future, and thats where it gets rather messy.
Temperature may be rising, but how much is provably caused by Co2.? In truth they dont know. There could be four or more other contributing causes that are convenienty discounted/dismissed.

The predictions for the future are based upon computer based models full of assumptions and manipulations. To suggest that they can model what it will be in fifty years when they cant even predict it for next month is laughable.We know more about economies than we do climate, and they sure as hell cant get econometrics even half right half the time, but for GW it is almost a certainty.What a joke

Ice cores and other geological records show considerable variation in temp and levels of C02, variations that go way beyond what we have experienced in the entire human history.

More particularly, I thought there was well accepted evidence that in most cases the temperature rises preceded raised levels of C02.
That sort of puts a big question mark over the whole game does it not.

As for Kyoto it was a poor solution to a poorly defined problem and deserved to be criticised for what it was, a badly run Eurocentric piece of nonesense.

The earth has been hotter and colder is the past then now and will be in the future no matter what we do. Species become extinct because of habit lost or competition in the past and will in the future. The atmosphere is full of both positive and negative feed back mechanisms. With out substantial greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere then life on earth would be quite different maybe impossible. That we are effecting the climate by our activities is past reasonable debate within the science community. Any dissenters now are motivated by personnel ideologies or funding sources. The real issues is how much are we effecting the climate, how much should we and are we in danger of tipping the balance and getting a run away green house effect like Venus. Those questions need to be answered and we should not let us be distracted by flat earthers like this author.

We should also remember that for the vegetable half of the planet biota, (greens excluded) CO2 is nectar of the gods. So when I burn an excessive amount of wood in my woefully inefficient open fireplace I can do so with a very clear conscience because the CO2 wafts through my trees where they lap it up with glee.

The carbon fertilisation effect, increased growth in vegetation with more efficient use of water, is well documented and easily observed on any roadside culvert where young trees thrive on exposed substrate, minimal topsoil and a steep slope with minimal moisture retentive capacity.

One man's problem is another man's opportunity. The greens and eurospivs see a problem because they lack the wit to recognise the fact that the stuff going out the chimney in a city would actually have a value if it were placed in a forest or farm where the CO2 could be distributed effectively. Ditto for newsprint in a landfill.

The problem is not CO2. The problem is the excessive concentration of people and resources in large cities in a manner that turns unused resources into problems needing disposal.

I would agree with Bob. More research and less alarmism. More accurate statistical analysts over longer time cycles is appropriate.

Suggesting the developed nations should subsidise the pollution to be created by the non-developed nations (Kyoto) is a complete crock of rubbish.

I guess the real point is this, It is always easier to get research funds for something which sounds dramatic and of world consequence, rather than something which might happen or might not happen because of cycles of meterology which no one understands.

To be honest, if you want to get real about global warming and everything which influences sustainability, get real about population control.
Put all the resources into resolving how to reverse global population growth, on that note, the developed world has made great inroads into the issue and has achieved stable population sizes. The problem is the underdeveloped nations continue to breed and breed themselves up to unsustainable populations.

Want to be really cynical, I guess HIV is helping but it has not fixed the problem.