Youngblood,

There are serious scientists who disagree about the *cause* of climate change - Reid Bryson, who more or less invented climatology, and Eric Dyson, the Princeton physicist. They don't disagree it's happening, they just think the change is orders of magnitude larger than what humans are capable of causing. So there is room for legitimate disagreement.

One way to settle the matter is to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels and see what happens. A good and relatively cheap way to do this would be to pay countries with a lot of grassland to manage it better. That means putting a lot of people on the land, moving herds around fast enough that they benefit, rather than destroy the grass and soil. I did the math, almost any improvements in range management, plus stopping the practice of annual burns, if done on a large-enough scale could take atmospheric CO2 down to 1972 levels.

As a side benefit regional grassland management would increase world food supplies, improve water supplies and quality, and give a whole bunch of unemployed people something to do besides fly airplanes into big buildings.

Well, that's my rant.

jn