To say that research on "global warming" is clouding the issue since "every one knows that it is not only real but we know the cause" is very poor science. No scientists stops studying a phenomena, because no one knows all the facts about any natural phenomena. After all the concensus of "all scientists" in 1890 was that all the facts of nature were known, and that all we needed do in the future was make more accurate measurements of physical constants. Several years later it was shown that most of what we "knew" was wrong.

When a scientist adds two, unfamiliar chemicals together, s/he generally do not add them together in large quantities for fear of what could happen. Caution is a good thing. Adding huge and unnatural amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is simply wreckless. Those citing economic reasons lack the foresight that if agriculture fails, weather becomes more unstable and extreme, there will be far more economic damage. If a new industry is created that will supply renewable energy is created, there will be new jobs, and Americans can actually buy something that is American (not Saudi, Venezualan, or even Chinese). Money would stay in this country. That sounds more like an economic advantage.

The natural range of atmospheric CO2, over the past 800,000 years was between 180 and 280 ppm. Today, we are at 381 ppm and this concentration is increasing 60-fold faster than the normal, maximum rate over that same time period. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
for further reading.

Exxon's standpoint is a dangerous one, posing a risk to everyone on the planet, all for a sweet profit. Yes, no one knows what will happen, as we are in uncharted waters- but why make it worse by ignoring it? The weather is already changing- where will it be 20 years from now?

Conservation is important:
CFL's, composting, efficient cars, clothes lines, rakes, reel mowers, solar hot water, and now solar electricity is becoming affordable: http://www.jointhesolution.com/mplante They are stating that panels can be installed, starting next year (2008), without the $40,000 financial investment.
All of this technology is available, we only need to start using it, and stop buying fuel from Exxon-Mobil. I have only bought 3 gallons of their product in the past 5 years. They will notice that, and possibly rethink their shortsighted policy.

MMR, RAINEY, YOU MIGHT DO SOME READING ABOUT BOB GIEGENBACK, A PROFESSOSR AT THE UNIV. OF PENN. ON THE SUBJECT OF GLOBAL WARMING. IT IS CERTAINLY HAPPENING BUT HE SEEMS TO TAKE A MORE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD OF THE ROAD APPROACH BY GOING BACK IN HISTORY THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS. HE MIGHT HAVE SOME GOOD POINTS, QUANNAH

The facts are that there are simply too many uncontrolable variables (including cosmic radiation) for ANYBODY to say with ANY investable certainlty that man has any effect on climate. Giving Al Gore the Nobel prize isn't going to change that, nor will all the babbles of Suzanne Sarandon, Barbra Striesand and that crowd. Now if somebody want to start investing in "doing something about global warming" it has to follow the first rule of reasonable investing. I has to have payback. That can only come from perceived value by that good old Great Equalizer...the consumer.

Cosmic radiation and reduced cloud cover is what Mr. Holben is mentioning. Yes, reduced clouds can allow more heat to the surface. However, what is never mentioned is what happens during the night: clear nights are always colder than cloudy nights, because heat can more easily escape without the clouds. As a result, there is no significant, net effect for any decrease in cloud cover.

The sun has also not (coincidentally) gotten hotter/brighter, coincident with our high CO2 concentrations and greater temperatures.

If cosmic rays and/or a hotter sun were the reason behind our greater temperatures, why has this caused atmospheric CO2 to increase?

in comment above, number 5, I have misspelled the name of the Univ. of Penna. dept of earth and enviromental studies professor. the correct spelling is Bob Giegengack. sorry and thanks, Quannah

EXXON-Mobil agrees global warming is real as most every knowledgeable person knows. Whether or not that is a serious problem or whether or not as humans we can do anything about it remains unanswered.Mars is having the same problem which would seem to indicate the Sun is the problem.Overreaction is the biggest potential problem.

One factor that variation on cloud cover does from changes in the cosmic is to change the concentration of water vapour which also affect night temperatures. Most climate scientists have only studied thermodynamics and meteorology and because of that favor greenhouse gases as a cause for global warming. They are very good at lobbying. How many look at the actual data http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com