Thanks for your feedback. It is easy to find documents that support the idea that global warming is caused by human activities, as well as documents that dismiss the idea as unproven. Given that both sides usually do have agendas and plenty to gain by either supporting or attempting debunking the claims, it is difficult to discern which position is actually closer to the truth. For these reasons, I think that it is important to try to assess whether there is a scientific consensus. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is composed of thousands of climate experts and scientists from over 100 countries and has concluded that human activities do indeed contribute to global warming and that global warming is real. The conclusions of this panel seem to me to be strong evidence that there is scientific consensus. Although there are legitimate arguments over to what degree greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, the argument is over how much they contribute, and not whether they contribute or whether global warming is real. Of course one can find strong objections amongst those who dislike the conclusion, but I feel that a worldwide panel of the world's best climate scientists have to be taken seriously. Those who disagree are far outnumbered.

By the way, if you google older documents by UCS, you'll find criticism of the Clinton administration in addition to criticism of the Bush administration. Although UCS does have a pro-environment agenda, it is not necessarily a partisan agenda.

As far as Kyoto goes, there are legitimate discussions about the fairness of the treaty. I think that if European Union can accept the current terms of the agreement that developing countries are exempt and at the same time reduce its emissions by 5% without drastically harming their economy, we can do the same. Kyoto called for a 7% reduction for the US, but because we have so much clout, we could have also demanded 5% instead of simply withdrawing. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to afford a 5% decrease if the EU could. As far as exempting the developing countries, I can't say that I can assess the fairness of that part since complex economic factors come into play. But if the EU can afford to cut greenhouse gases by 5%, I don't see why the richest country on the planet couldn't do the same. After all, we have 4% of the world's population and emit 25% of all greenhouse gases. We should at least be able to match the EU, if not exceed the EU given our economic status in the world.

Any further discussion and comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.