Then I don't understand. Youc an't deny humans are outputing ipressive amounts of CO2 in the atmsphere. If you think humans have nothing to do with it, you either disagree with that statement, or the statement that CO2 causes climates to change.

@Football

Then I don't see why we're arguing if you didn't dispute it, probably just my fault.

I always though that, as with so much, we don't fully understand the Earth's climate in the way that mass media likes to convey. We have ideas, partial models, a fair bit of understanding of certain stuff.

But there is plenty we don't know and we are continuing to learn. My view has long been:

1 - we are probably affecting the environment adversely as a species, particularly since industrialization.

2 - the extent of this is hard to accurately gauge, as are the results

3 - we cannot accurately predict whether the Earth's climate can 'self heal' - i.e. absorb our changes without long term harm

4 - we cannot accurately predict whether we might be inflicting serious damage that will affect us long term

5 - we cannot accurately predict long term climate changes - we know they happen, but not why/when specifically - for example the World could be on target to have huge temperate rises for reasons that have nothing to do with us, or another ice age could be on the cards in our future


I therefore take the view of erring on the side of caution. You cannot generate masses of heat or dump harmful substances without some impact. If the impact cannot be accurately gauged then you err on the side of caution and take care about what you do. That means investing and and applying restrictions as well as being a lot more careful about what we develop and how we use it.

It also means investing in the research to improve our understanding so we do have a better idea of how the climate system works and what impact different actions might have.

Or ignore it and leave it to chance, but that seems a pretty poor choice to me.

We don't know just how much that has an effect on climate. I am sorry, but I'd rather stopdoing something with unknown consequences than leave it to chance. Now if you can accurately tell me "our CO2 does will have no big negative effects, FOR SURE" then I would agree with you that no precautions should be taken. Otherwise, leaving it to chance, is a very bad idea. Unlike human teenagers, the humans don't have parents to fix shit up for them, so let's not act liek retarded teenagers about this stuff.

Yes, and while I agree, I couldn't give a shit if someone proves if god exists or not. Meanwhile, fucking the climate over is just a slightly bigger gambit. Just saying "can't decide to fuck it" is how idiot teenagers act, somehow I don't see that as a good thing when it comes to the climate of the only planet we can currently inhabit.

So let's approach this scientifically. Can you promise me with 99% guarantee that our planet will not get fucked due to something we won't do? There is always a risk/consequence thing. With god, as you mentioned, the risk is pretty low. With the swine flu a bit larger. With the climate it's pretty much one of the biggest risks. So yes, scientifically predict me that our involvements, as minimal as they are, won't end the only place we can live on, and then we can talk about not treading lightly. Or find another easily accessible habitable planet where many of us can live on, the risk is greatly reduced if we can all move to another planet.

Currently you can't do either of those two, so no, we SHOULD tread lightly and take precautions. We shouldn't stop until the risk is much much smaller than now. Doing anything is just outright idiocy.

Having greater energy efficiency, switching to renewable fuels that aren't sourced from the Middle East, and putting money into researching both of those are all good ideas REGARDLESS of whether global warming is man-made.

It will still save money, conserve resources, reduce our dependence on unstable countries, make energy more available to poor countries and reduce air pollution (like SO2).

You can be anti-'manmade global warming' but surely no one is opposed to that?

It's the massive industry that's grown out of this that I'm opposed to.

Social and environmental responsibility I'm all for though.

I don't want to live in a dump, but I'll be damned if I'll pay for carbon credits. It should be common sense, not scaremongery and extortion like some kind of environmental protection racket.

Carbon credits are a stupid idea that could never work properly. It's impossible to regulate the actual effectiveness of the offset schemes for a start.

This debate needs to shift from 'is it happening or not' to 'How best can we move towards efficiency and away from fossil fuels?'. Because the former has no resolution (all the evidence in the world couldn't shift some people) and doesn't actually affect the nature of the right course of action.

Still, I don't think there's a 'massive industry' yet. Certainly not as massive and corrupt as the oil companies. Does Exxon feel market pressure? Ethical pressure? Why don't energy and oil prices properly fluctuate with demand? There's something wrong with the market; making it inefficient.

*TCP/IP based High-five*

edit: to your adendum, I dunno...Penn and Tellers reaserchers (might as well ready the club and baby seal) say the carbon credit and related industry in US alone is worth over $20 Billion...only God knows what it's like in more hippy parts of the world...

After a few searches, it's quite bad. $170b worth of trading and (as far as I can see) zero effective reduction in CO2 emissions because of it. Yeah, I agree it should go away.

I thought you were referring to research grant money being that 'industry', but I'm not seeing big excesses on that side. It's not overly easy to get funding and the results coming out are improving our picture of the climate, something that needs to be done anyway regardless of global warming.