To accept the premise that global warming is caused by mankind, you have to also accept this:
1: After billions of years of radical and constant changes in global climate, the earth suddenly "stablized" around the turn of the century. Mother earth was apparently happy to remain in that precise mode. Anything after that magical date is caused by people.
2: The sun is now causing temperature changes on other planets, particuarly Venus, as noted by many astronomers. But earth is not affected by this, because all climate problems are man made.

Sheesh...!

It is clear that there is global warming, recent volcanic activity is a clear indication of this. The core of the earth is liquid, when most liquids are heated they expand. When they cool they contract. So much for plate tectonics.

Global warming or cooling can be affected by any of these variables. Some of these variables are man made, but most are not. Solar output is probably the most realisitic place to start and is readily measurable.
Of course, there is no way to regulate the sun.
Slight variations in solar output coupled with variations of solar absorbtion and reflection due to green house gasses, cloud cover, solar reflection on ice, dust in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions all contribute to the equation. A net one degree C global core temperature shift could have a tremendous effect on the earth's crust, with more resultant volcanic and tectonic activity.
The real question is not what you do about global warming, but rather how do you survive it.

HUMAN ACTIVITY SOUNDS LIKE THERE ON TO SOMETHING.I live down the road from a lake that smells like you know what. TO many gas boats gas this gas that.you know what i mean WE take to much never give back

I have studied the topic of Global Warming extensively, and this report has many fundamental flaws, namely that past warming trends were due to natural events releasing greenhouse gasses. Past natural events such as volcanic eruptions reflect sunlight and tend to cool the entire planet significantly. (Just research the Indoneasian volcanic eruption of the early 1800's and the subsequent years, such as the year with out a summer).

Infact my research has concluded that most scientists (those not politically motivated or
require 'disaster scenarios' to maintain funding) are starting to believe that CO2 emmissions are the effect of warming and not the cause. And the cause is a cyclical pattern of the Earth's distance from the sun (our orbit does variy of decades and
centuries) and the raw solar output with reaches the surface (measured in Watts per square meter).

The fact that CO2 and other emmissions play little to no role in climatic temperatures can be viewed even by a non-scientist. The CO2 levels started to rise slowly in the 1850's. The rise began to increase slightly faster up to the early 1900's. The rise accelerated between the 1940's and the 1970's. And today the CO2 levels are increasing at an even
faster rate. However the temperatures between the 1850's and early 1900's say the most rapid increase, between the 1900's and 1940's continued at a must slower pace, between the 1940's and 1970's actually (with the fastest increase in CO2 levels today) temperatures actually decreased slightly). From the 1970's to late 1990's temperatures began rising again, but between 1998 and 2005 the rise in temperatures began to level slightly. The two trends do not line up on a double y-axis chart with out a lot of "fancy" manipulating of of both scales to force the appearance of a trend.

It is interesting is how much faith some groups put in climatic models. Climatic models, dare I say it, are the most unreliable, misunderstood tools of this science. All climatic models rely on several user inputs, where by the result has been consciously or subconsciously engineered. Proof #1 that these models are faulty is the fact that all their calculations produce a linear trend, when all know from a paleo-climatic perspective, there is nothing linear about our climate. Proof #2 that these models are faulty is that I've taken these models input known conditions from the early 1900's and none, NOT ONE, predicted a trend that lead to today's climate. Further EVERY model produced a result that suggested that by year 2000, doom's day would be here.

Another interesting fact is that the polar ice on Mars, far away from any human influence, have been melting at an accelerated rate which parallels the melting of our own polar ice.

What really concerns me is that if this study becomes too polarized by enviromental groups and scientists with a vested interest in seeing the globe warm due to human activities (because government funding puts food on their table), we may never know to what extent humans can control the environment and how much of this warm period is natural climatic variability.

Sadly responsibility seems to be a hard sell theses days with so many of our politicians willing to tell voters what their contributions would like us believe.
Big coal ,big oil & gas have been getting away with the negative effects their emissions have on this planet for decades, but finally the tide seems to be turning in the electorates favor with these new economically viable alternatives that can now compete with big oil and coal thanks to the good old fashioned forces of supply and demand.
Why exactly Do so many of these good people who call themselves conservatives have such a problem with conservation.

By the way, were you consulted by way of Exxon, Chevron, and others? It seems to me that there is always someone with the oil industry who would like to soften this bent toward concern and to just have all of us contend with a soft-peddled point of view. Just ask the White House and its Oil Industry maven aka science reporter!

You really don't have to be to smart to realize that there is a problem. I notice President Bush sees no problem. As the only country not concerned is the US and yet the US is doing most of the damage that makes since. To stop the problem would hurt big business and that can't happen theres to much money to be made. But earth will suffer until America gets what we want to destroy earth. Al Gore's movie is true but he's called a liar. Bush is to be believed because he never lies (right) Soon other countries will take matters and control themselves without the US. Some value the earth America doesn't. America sees greed and more important then saving the planet.

I guess all of us "flat earth" people are just idiots because we don't agree with such an unproven and unproveable theory that you believe in. Since you are a news reporter, who are we to disagree. It has certainly been proven in recent years that the news media is always right and have never been led down the science path before. But thanks for the reporting and your opinions of it and of your readers and viewers.