Hello again. This is the original poster. I'm mildly surprised at the
enthusiasm towards my post, thanks for the replies. I was begining to
think that not as many people were reading this newsgroup these days.
On occasion, I have refered to this newsgroup because I'm a big weather
buff (perhaps I should have been a meteorologist or a climatologist)
and I like to get an idea on what the weather is doing around the
World.
I hesitated to mention that I was American at first, in order to
solicit a more neutral response, but felt it pertinent to mention my
nationality so that the reader might get an idea of what media I am
used to being exposed to.
I would like to make just a few comments on what has been addressed so
far:

1. My real intention was not stir up a political debate, although I
guess in regards to something like global warming the connection is
hard to avoid and I did allude to media references. I was a little bit
disappointed nonetheless that some folks avoided my central question of
' how much is Man, whether it be collectively or a special group,
contributing to GW.'
2. To post 2, alan. I will check out the books you mentioned. Thanks.
Some of you might want to see reader's comments on 'State of Fear' at
amazon.com
3. Excellent reply from Graham. And I didn't know that about Margaret
Thatcher.

I have a colleague who is quite versed but seems to be biased towards
the far right. He was surprised to find out that NOAA conforms to the
findings of the IPCC and it openly admits that "Human activity has been
increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
(mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a
few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point."
I praise NOAA for such official commentary because it strikes two
blows: One, to those, like my colleague, who like to think that
man-induced climate change is still speculative; and two, to those that
seem to have an exaggerated idea of the suppression of climate studies'
findings by the U.S. - not to say that either point is deniable.

Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that most scientists have their own
opinions, are not conspiring to upset social order and are not
infallible.

4.I can understand the concern raised by Chris Smith, my country is
wealthy but wasteful and I wish we were better environmentalists and
setting a better example for the World. Consider though that China now
consumes more coal than the US, the EU and Japan combined. Pollution
for the sake of economic progress is not a peculiarly American trait.

5. Thanks, Martin, for the Guardian link (an issue of which I am
already well aware) and I see I share similar views with Michael
(tentative post 28).

In regards to Britain, I've been there a few times and on occasion
invited discussion by some of the older residents. I have yet to meet
one that did not see, at least in their memory, a very noticeable
difference between the weather there now and and how it was some
decades ago. A common reference was made to increasingly snow-free
winters, for example.

My community was directly affected by Katrina last year so the
potential effects of global warming mean something to us too.