Actually, I was a fervent advocate of Global Warming for many, many years until I read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".
While it's an interesting work of fiction, he's pulled mean temperature data going back two centuries from various locations around the world. He makes a compelling case that two centuries ago, most of the data collection sites were in wilderness areas and over the decades, gradual urbanisation has encroached on those sites.
Data from these sites show an increase in mean temperature, that is beyond doubt. However, data collected from sites that have avoided urbanisation and remain otherwise undisturbed show a slight fall in mean temperature over the decades.
As we all know, cities and towns produce heat. Air conditioning units, domestic heating and car usage all produce large amounts of thermal energy. Crichton's arguement is that the theory of Global Warming is flawed because of this.
He goes on to show evidence of polar ice crusts actually appearing to grow over the last 100 years and points to data taken from ice cores which appear to support his assertion that a slight fall in mean temperatures is in evidence at the poles.
I'm not a scientist, but I am open to the idea that the issue may not be as clear cut as we think it is. However, I agree with Crichton that the very worst thing we can do is interfere without proper analysis of the data. With the scientific community apparently being split in their opinion as to whether Global Warming is an issue it would appear that we need to pour government (and not commercial) funding into extensive research.
