Beautifully stated! The science issues are: i) whether or not we have anthropogenic CO2 mediated global warming (settled in the affirmative); ii) what the magnitude and varied impacts of this warming will be (not settled). The complementary policy issue is what - if anything - should be done about this.

As a layman, I'd be happy to restrict my participation to the policy debate alone. So can I ask for reciprocal respect from the scientists? It's extremely difficult to find any reference material on the natural world prepared by scientists for laymen that does not advocate a specific - usually drastic - policy position, and don't get me started on the propaganda that is currently peddled in public school science lessons.

As for the policy options, failing to reference the following facts - not theories, but facts - renders any debate worthless (see International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 2007).

• Annual world population growth rates 1980-2005 were between 1.4% and 1.7%.
• Annual world GDP growth was between 2.9% and 3.4% over the same period; i.e., per capita GDP increased...happy news!
• A very large proportion of world GDP growth over the period took place in China and India...more happy news!
• The income elasticity of energy demand (increase in energy demand relative to GDP) was between 0.4 and 0.8 from 1991 to 2005; i.e, GDP growth requires the consumption of energy.
• China and India rely heavily on indigenous coal (roughly 16% of the increase in global energy consumption from 2000 to 2006 was due to Chinese and Indian coal), and will continue to do so far into the future.

So let's be clear, we're not talking about SUVs, plasma screen TVs, and A/C in North America & Europe, we're talking about the aspirations of something like one third of humanity for a better life.

So, given a choice between polar bears and people? For shame if it's not obvious.