The real question about climate change is: is it anthropogenic? We know, for example, of a cause-and-effect relationship between CFCs and the ozone hole: when CFC emissions dropped, the ozone hole got smaller. The whole CO2 debate is a lot tougher; in my opinion it's a good idea to reduce pollution of all types just to make life easier for all who live on Earth.

There is some evidence of rapid (decades-scale) climate change in the past. Some suspects have been: solar cycles (the Sun is a variable star); volcanic activity (the Year without a Summer in the early 1800s); and even asteroid impacts!

Both sides of the debate have an axe to grind. The oil companies want to continue to explore for, drill for and sell oil. The solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, etc. sides want funding (Federal or otherwise) to fund their research.

People want to improve their standard of living; this is natural. Heinlein said it best: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. This TANSTAAFL principle must be kept in mind; everything we do takes resources, energy and has an impact on the planet.