IANACS (I am not a climate scientist), but then neither are most of the people taking sides in the climate "debate", for example, Rush Limbaugh. I don't like to encourage attention to Rush, or encourage anyone to visit his web site. However, he seems like a good example of what is wrong with the coverage of this issue. Rush likes anecdotes, such as a story about one scientist, Nir Shaviv, (HINACSE, he is not a climate scientist either), an astrophysicist who has a theory involving cosmic rays, solar wind and the climate. I don't know much about the theory and I'll bet Rush doesn't either. Rush managed to spell Shaviv's name wrong on his web site also. The problem as I see it is that this is the typical of the whole "debate". The climate change deniers have anecdotes and very few facts. They trot out one or two scientists who they claim doubt the anthropomorphic climate effects and that's their argument. I just got done watching Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It lays out its case reasonably well, using available research. There are many web sites where the science of climate change are explained in a way that is understandable to an intelligent lay person. I have yet to see anything as detailed as An Inconvenient Truth from the deniers. Why not? Why can't they make a case, if as they claim, the anthropomorphic climate change hypothesis is full of holes? This seems reminiscent of the creationism/evolution "debate". One side as facts and science; the other has anecdotes and faith. I think the "debate" may be over.

President Bush has said that taking action against global warming would hurt the US economy. Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, thinks otherwise.