But of course, Michael, when those mammoths were frozen the climate at that location must have been mild enough to support those huge semi-elephants. They ate a lot, and it wasn't frozen tundra. And Earth was far warmer than that in the more distant past. Even if we are getting warmer than it's been in 10,000 years, that's not necessarily an unnatural cycle. I'm not trying to advocate against the idea that global warming is taking place; it is. I'm just trying to sort out how much of it is due to man. I think we have a tendency to believe we're the be-all and end-all of creation, without understanding much longer cycles. There was a mini-ice age in the 1350s or so that made the Viking settlement in Greenland uninhabitable (to the European approach to survival, that is). Then Earth bumped back into the warming trend. I doubt man had anything to do with either the original warming, the return to cold, or the resumed warming. When we think about the amazing amount of greenhouse gases that are flowing into the atmosphere from volcano eruptions and maybe hydrothermal vents, about the long, long, long term climate trends and other factors like the sunspot cycle, that's enough to warn us to be cautious about assessing blame or corrections. One suggestion that was pressed by environmentalists in the past was to increase gas taxes so we would drive less and therefore emitted less tailpipe pollution. Even assuming higher taxes would drastically cut down on driving, that would have a severe impact on families that can barely afford to send their kids to universities. Also, the effect on the economy could be devastating, with the cost of shipping food and everything else going up. You have to ask, is it worth is? Is global warming a true, harmful effect of man? If so, should we be willing to make such great sacrifices in order to attempt to correct it? That brings up another question that must be answered: how do we know global warming is a terrible change? What if, as I heard a botanist say, it would stimulate plant growth far beyond today's growth? With more carbon dioxide for them to suck in, warmer weather, more moisture, plants of all kinds could undergo an explosive growth spurt. That might mean bigger and better crops and jungles and rain forests. Is that necessarily bad? And do we really know that we're having an impact? What action do we take against countries that won't or can't go along with our belt-tightening? For example, the Kyoto Accords, as I understand them, give a pass to underdeveloped countries -- the very ones that are pumping out the most pollution. What do we do about them? Bomb them into the stone age in the name of global security? I think the issue is loaded with danger to our economy and international relations, and that the knee-jerk approach is wrong. I have yet to see proof that a) humans are contributing significantly to the warming, and b) its consequences are as bad as people seem to think. This is a stimulating conversation and I truly enjoy hearing both sides. Best wishes, Joe