Even if we had proof of climate change we might not be able to show that is caused by pollution or a natural climate cycle.

Scientists should continue to study and be more willing to accept change to their models. Energy executives should start to act more conservatively and responsibly.(1) And energy consumers should be more aware of their energy consumption.(2)

We know some of the green house gasses are dangerous, energy demand is only increasing and if the "climate" scientists are actually correct then now is the time to act.

I prefer to take a cautious and conservative view on this. What are the costs of implementing stricter green house gas controls and it is proven that man does not affect the climate? What are the costs if we do not implement controls are we find that green house gasses do cause global warming?

An alarmist view, however, will solve nothing.

(1) I have seen too few energy executives state that global warming maybe a possibility. I guess I would feel better if I heard someone say "I don't think the climate changers are correct but what if they are?"

(2) It would be wonderful to see how much energy goes into the production of items: can of cola, bike, house, skyscraper, television, etc. Part of this is my fascination with information graphics and another is this is an area I really don't know much about.

This should not be done to make consumers feel guilty about their choices, but simply enlighten them and help them understand that everything is interconnected. Energy is more then the electricity at home and the gas in the car.

Finally it would be good if there was more education on energy. Few consider that oil, coal and natural gas are little more then the sun's energy stored. I doubt many realize that virtually the only energy sources we have are from the sun, the moon, the earth's core and nuclear.

The trouble with global climate models is that it includes the variable L (for left-wing politics). The value assigned to L is so large that it renders the results meaningless.