Pollution is a problem but global warming is a different matter altogether and the two should not should not be lumped together, solving pollution will not stop global warming because that is a natural thing that will happen come what may, the earth has been warmer before and it has also been colder, these things happen, by the way a lot of scientists believe that higher levels of CO2 follow the the global warming and not the other way round, plus the biggest emmitter of CO2 is the sea, should we concrete that over perhaps?
Regards, Bradders

This a small piece from a press release by the Americam Senate in january 2005.
What do we really know about temperatures in the Arctic? Let's take a closer look. As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. [Chart #1] As Dr. Taylor has explained, it's all relative-in other words, it depends on the specific time period chosen in making temperature comparisons. "The [Arctic Climate Impact Assessment]," Dr. Taylor wrote, "appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s-cool decades in much of the world-and end in the warmer 1990s or early 2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed in the last 40 years, and the implication, 'if present trends continue,' is that massive warming will occur in the next century."

Dr. Taylor concluded: "Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early 1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably higher than) those observed today. Why not start the trend there? Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?"This is pretty convincing stuff. But, one might say, this is only one scientist, while nearly 300 scientists from several countries, including the United States, signed onto the Arctic report. Mr. President, I want to submit for the record a list of scientists, compiled by the Center for Science and Public Policy, from several countries, including the United States, whose published work shows current Arctic temperature is no higher than temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s. For example, according to a group of 7 scientists in a 2003 issue of the Journal of Climate: "In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s." Or how about this excerpt from the 2000 International Journal of Climatology, by Dr. Rajmund Przybylak, of Nicholas Copernicus University, in Torun, Poland: "The highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s and can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation."
Regards, Bradders

So that's it. The politicians have decided what is true.

No matter what you believe about global warming and its causes, this is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The science must be tested and debated openly (something which doesn't appear to be being done).

Government declaring truth on scientific matters is only one step below declaring truth on religious issues.

To answer the bradders comment first.

Using a local evidence is not prove. The Artic is a very small part of a enitire globe. The same can be said of the UK where global warming would cause the collapse of the warming current from the atlantic making the UK colder. Your study only says that the artic is getting colder not that CO2 is reaching dangerous levels. I wonder if the press release you quote from was seen my Phil Cooney a white House spin doctor who edited scientific reports and left for a job in Exxon. The White House also sacked and hired key advidsors at the bidding of exxon.

nice blog global warming is a problem some usefull info about online casinos
and some casino games