Actually, we all get to vote on global warming every day - - with our wallets and our activities. A tenant of mine just traded in his 4x4 King Cab for a Honda Civic to save money on gas, but he also cast a vote for less greenhouse gas - although that does not appear to have been his intention. Gov. Schwarzenegger is harder to figure out. He just signed a agreement with Tony Blair to cut greenhouse gas in California, but on the other hand, he personally owns 12 Hummers. I am not sure how to count Arnold's vote on global warming.

Here are the legitimate undebatable facts (or, as the wonderfully quotable Don Rumsfeld would call 'em, the "known knowns"):

1. There is planet-wide warming occurring on the land masses of earth.
2. The time period of, roughly, 1400 to 1900 A.D. was the "Little Ice Age," an exceptionally cool period in recordable history.
3. It was pretty darn warm about 1000 years ago, too, much warmer than it was 150-200 years ago.
4. We cannot "forecast" weather with any reliability more than 72-96 hours in advance.
5. How the hell then does anyone have a freakin' clue as to a "weather forecast" 50, 100, 500 years into the future?

OK, the last one is not a "fact" but an irrefutable observation posed as a rhetorical question.

Again, to put it in the Rumsfeldian, the "known unknowns" are:
1. Is this observable warming caused (or at least exacerbated) by human activity?
2. Can humans do anything to change the warming?
3. Is this warming trend good, bad or indifferent? It could be good: different crops would grow on different land, thus "recycling" the soil ... and isn't "recycling" always a good thing.

Anybody who thinks they have the real true answer to the any of the last three questions falls into one of three categories: (1) liar; (2) idiot; or (3) lying idiot.

Now, my rant was the comment above. This comment will respond to the question posed: Is the debate over?

Actually, which debate are you referencing? The political debate or the scientific debate?

The scientific debate shouldn't be over for anyone who cares for the scientific method. The debate is over only for the closed-minded who are enslaved to their anti-human, anti-western, anti-American ideology.

There is way too much we don't know about climate and weather. To name two: (1) the role of the oceans; and (2) the role of solar activity.

I'm not one to argue that everything should be open to debate. For example: I think we can get a consensus on 2 + 2 = 4. And there is no legitimate scientific debate about evolution and the development of species (even if the question of the origin of life itself is open to debate). But climate is still too much of a mystery to declare the debate over.

As for the political debate: it's only starting.

So, some idiots think the debate about global warming is over. Well, folks, take a good long look at the latest issue of Archaeology magazine and the article about the climate in Scotland about 8000 years ago. Guess what, that climate was "Mediterranean" in nature. Gee, I guess that was due to anthropoid Lucy setting the Serengheti savannah on fire to ward off Neanderthal predators!

The debate is far from finished -- not even close!

I vote for warmer winters and cooler summers. And the cooler summers bit is conditional. I want it hot on the days I go swimming. But not hot until I arrive at the water.

As for winter sports enthusiasts. Are you nuts or something? Who gets off on a face full of snow? It is some kind of perversion.