Bill, what information is there to suggest that global warming does not exist?

Again, there isnt much debate about global warming itself. The debate lies with whether we can do anything about it, and how it will affect us.

Is "govt101" one of those courses you allegedly took at an Ivy League university?  As for me, I merely took an honors semester at the London School of Economics.  My discussion of free market dynamics was intended to illustrate generally how market forces operate to deliver desired goods to consumers.  I set forth specific impediments to American markets that need to be addressed if we are to move toward a greener industrial climate and advance technologically.  

Maybe it's presumptuous of me to tutor an Ivy Leaguer such as yourself (and no KGV, volunteering for bladder control experiments in the university med school doesn't constitute "taking a course") but positive/negative externalities deal with indirect benefits conferred on a third party by particular conduct -- for instance running a factory may cause pollution, which is a negative externality affecting the surrounding public.  Externalities don't deal with impediments to market forces and the removal thereof to facilitate economic growth, which was the thrust of my post.

Might I suggest you go back to you Ivy League haunts and pick up a healthy dose of Smith, Keynes and Friedman before you attempt to correct me.  On the other hand, anyone who uses the term "scientifical" must be a raving genius.  Isn't that the equivalent of W coining the term "strategery"?  Be honest KGV, are you and W related?

im no genius, never claimed to be.. especially in contrast to the people im surrounded by in school... i originally brought up the type of school i went to in order to signify the level of classes i had taken in regards to the environment.

Im no expert in the field of economics, but i do know some basics. I'd be foolish to try and challenge your opinion on the market side... I don't really disagree either, i just completely misread your post, sorry. I dont know why, but I mistook it for a cookie-cutter explanation of let the free market figure out global warming.

Now that I've read it closer, it makes more sense, but how do you deal with the inneficient market? And how do you deal with the problem of the "Tragedy of the Commons", where individual actors do not want to pay extra to save the environment when it does not belong to them. 

 Also, no, I am not related to W. Although I do have W moments from time to time.

to suggest global warming exists as a man made problem. .2 degrees - big deal.

I apologize for being so caustic in my previous reply.   It's mindboggling and oftentimes frustrating to realize that we are so close to the dawn of a new industrial revolution premised on "green" technology, yet sit idly by as we continue to employ outdated methods of production that denigrate the environment and hamstring economic growth. 

The sad reality is that the impediments I listed (red tape/over-regulation, influence of lobbyists and lack of access to capital) will be difficult to surmount.  It will take genuine leadership and a bipartisan effort to overcome these obstacles.  In terms of encouraging a more vigorous market, the role of government should be to incentivize the utilization of and research into green technology through tax breaks and other economic stimuli including making seed capital available for fledgling companies.  Global warming aside, there is far too much commonality of interest to divide our nation when it comes to fomenting a green industrial revolution.  Economic growth and environmental idealism are not mutually exclusive concepts.           

Signing on to feel-good legislation is easy, promoting conservation with consumption sanctions and taxes is not. Shaking one's tambourine to "save the earth" is pure self-promotion at its finest. The earth doesn't want to be saved, only left to its natural cycles

......the following points> """ In terms of encouraging a more vigorous market, the role of government should be to incentivize the utilization of and research into green technology through tax breaks and other economic stimuli including making seed capital available for fledgling companies. Global warming aside, there is far too much commonality of interest to divide our nation when it comes to fomenting a green industrial revolution. Economic growth and environmental idealism are not mutually exclusive concepts."""

Sadly, many of y'all here have allowed your sheer partisan hatred of Gore to bilind you to the very real possibility that he is right about the threat (even if you don't agree with his prescriptions).

Someone made a remark that belief in Global Warming as a valid theory was tantamount to atheism; now that's just silly.

The good Lord gave us free will, and that means that we certainly have the "power" to foul our own nest and "extinctify" ourselves.

Yes, there are some scientists/studies that offer up alternatives to the idea that GW is driven by human activity....but virtually ALL agree that it is REAL; and a threat to the future!

Let us not forget that there are still "scientists" who say that there is no proven/direct/causal relationship between an individual smoking and their contracting cancer.......sure, the arguments CAN be made in a case by case level; but the vast preponderance of the evidence shows that cancer is made more likely by smoking and that GW is "enhanced" by greenhouse gases being thrust into the atmosphere.

Look, you know how a greenhouse works to keep the temp up so you can grow stuff in the cold weather, right? It's basic cimate/physics. Doesn't it simply stand to reason that the burning up (in the geologically brief span of our indudtrial revolution) of hydrocarbons that have taken hundreds of milions of years to bio-accumulate sphere is going to have the effect of making the atmospheric "greenhouse" more effective? Adding greenhouse gases to a greenhouse increases the temperature: period.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that I am wrong, and that the GW that is clearly happening is not caused by human activity: The "worst case scenario" would be that America becomes the cleanest country on Earth and that we save many billions of bucks on health care from decreasing rates of all manner of environmentally caused illness, that we become the worlds leader (exporter) in clean technologies, that the quality of life (AND FOOD) for Americans rises, that we become totally FREE from the need to import energy (and the need to spend trillions of bucks "securing" the middle east), that millions of Americans become employed in the development and manufacturing and distribution of the new clean tech.....and on and on.

If China/India etc were so STUPID as to continue to copy our economic robber baron ninteenth century economic model to the bitter end; they would find themselves economically and ecologically dead nations as they would choke and die on their own toxic short sighted corrupt policies.

Please put aside your ugly raw hatred of Al Gore.....to hell with Al Gore, forget about Al Gore....this GW stuff is REAL!!!

It's not a matter of fear/hate/partisanship. I sense that most of you who write hear are older white males who are economically secure; and will never feel the brunt of what the future may hold.

It's a matter of LOVE! I beg you to give a crap about the possiblity that your children and their children may someday curse the people who sabotaged America's response to this reality.

Republicans should "hijack" this issue and offer a better way to deal with it; not deny that it even exists.

It's almost as if (some of you) you are willing to see all future human life degrade/die, simply because you don't want to give Al Gore credit for maybe being right about something.

How sad.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.