Is the response to "climate change" dangerous?

[Gray-Wolf]

P.P., one persons 'defeatist' is another persons realism. Only by staring into the abyss can you hope to find a route through. By the time the 'Abyss' is upon us things will be happening pretty fast so the more you know of the place the better! Remember, hope springs eternal, it ain't over 'till the portly lady vocalises!

Laserguy, no it wasn't an aimed post, just my internalisation brought out. The world, and it's inequalities, has always greatly saddened me and I've never had the belief that anything could change it all, until this 'change' started to become real (add in your own reasons for the 'change', be it AGW,fossil fuel crisis, financial collapse,pandemic et al). I am sure that enough folk feel as we do and maybe ,just maybe, we (as a species) have grown enough to make a better fist of things next time around (God, I'm sounding quasi-religious now).

Lay your plans well my mucka and we'll see you on the 'other side'

[PersianPaladin]

P.P., one persons 'defeatist' is another persons realism. Only by staring into the abyss can you hope to find a route through. By the time the 'Abyss' is upon us things will be happening pretty fast so the more you know of the place the better! Remember, hope springs eternal, it ain't over 'till the portly lady vocalises!

That is IMO...a rather selfish thing to say; what about our future generations? Should we just sit and allow things to get even worse for them?

We have a duty to assist and aid each other not only here and now, but also in the future. And btw...this may sound pseudo-religious; but I believe that we are judged on our intentions, no matter what the result. If there is a God; then who would be judged the better? Somebody who had a good intention (and acted upon that intention) to help others around him and in the future be more sustainable and less wasteful...OR...somebody who just did nothing?

Ponder that.

[PersianPaladin]

There is a school of thought (more mind than matter) that the main driver in our minds is 'death anxiety'. As such many depressives have the clearer view of reality and the rest of us are all slightly mad. Mad in the sense that to really grasp the finite reality of existence is so disturbing to us that we all 'live in hope'. This unrealistic sense of 'hope' allows us to function without the constant crushing realisation of our situation.

I know from personal experience that even when the awful truth of a situation is spelt out for us, as clear as clear can be, we still seek to deny it and find reasons why it cannot be so.

Mmm...your post has reminded me of a book by Ernest Becker called 'Denial of Death'. Its basically based on the theory that virtually all forms of cultural development are based on this denial; and in order to try and deal with this problem; societies and cultures have created 'immortality projects' to maintain peoples' names, ideas and philosophies through economic means, buildings, institutions, etc that stand after the death of the person(s).

Edited January 26, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[Devonian]

Yes I think it is dangerous, even if we accept without question that GW is substantially man made (which I don't) AGW supporters have yet to answer:

What exactly they want to change the CO2 content of our atmosphere too, in otherwords when do they stop?

Isn't this a bit like looking a a polluted, foamy, filthy river and saying 'what do you want to change that to, when do you stop?'. Answer, when it's clean, when it's restored. So, for me, the river that is the atmosphere has a un anthropogenic CO2 conc of ~280 ppm - the nearer we can get to that the cleaner the river will be. Not that I think we'll even stop CO2 going above 400-450ppm first...

What climate are they aiming for and to for whos benefit?

Again, back to the polluted river analogy. Answer, as clean a river as possible (reality: the river will continue to be more and more effected by humanity).

Do they then take on the permanent management of the Earths climate for eternity? (they may have too, you may not just be able to put it down again afterwards).

I don't want to change the climate, ergo, I'd aim to keep humanities influence on it as minimal as possible in the way described above.

In a nutshell most AGW supporters run around like headless chickens shouting 'cut cut cut' without a clue where they want to go, or if they do then not a clue of how to get there! I have never seen one chart of the reduction in warming caused by our impending reduction in CO2 emissions, so where's the plan guys? Oh yeah, and that old chestnut that we can't do nothing gov can we does not hold water I am afraid because if you don't know what you are doing you should leave alone until someone comes along who does. Simply because you think that the machine is not running properly does not mean you can take it apart and fix it without fully understanding otherwise you might break it completely.

Nice try at stereotyping, but this AGW 'supporter' does not run around like a headless chicken but instead tries to answer peoples questions with what he'd do.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Devonian

[Stratos Ferric]

...

In a nutshell most AGW supporters run around like headless chickens shouting 'cut cut cut' without a clue where they want to go, or if they do then not a clue of how to get there! I have never seen one chart of the reduction in warming caused by our impending reduction in CO2 emissions, so where's the plan guys? Oh yeah, and that old chestnut that we can't do nothing gov can we does not hold water I am afraid because if you don't know what you are doing you should leave alone until someone comes along who does. Simply because you think that the machine is not running properly does not mean you can take it apart and fix it without fully understanding otherwise you might break it completely.

First of all the term "supporter" applied to AGW is semantically careless. I believe in AGW, but I don't support it: there are some in the US who do - and for a variety of self interested reasons some of which I detect you might share. Nor do I run around like a headless chicken shouting "cut, cut, cut", though I do accept - and this is logic so simple as to be undeniable - that IF man IS causing the warming, and a lot of that is driven by CO2 production, then the only course of correction is to cut the CO2. If you were suffering blood poisoning, say be inhyaling a toxic gas, the medics would do two things, perhaps three. First try to manage the body's response to the poision; second, stop more poison entering the system; and third, remove what's there already.

Your challenge re "what to do" is sensible. However, if I am on a sinking boat, in the dark, I probably don't know what will happen if I jump, but I know for sure that doing nothing and hoping for the best probably isn't a wise course of action.

Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed in that one way. There are many times in life when searching for either high probabilty or certainty makes sense, particularly if there is no danger in a period of inaction, or maore danger in making a poor decision than in not making a decision at all. At other times the need is more pressing. I think we're moving into the latter, if we're not already there.

[Bobby]

What many people don't realise is that we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground. What's the point in using less now if we will just use all the rest in the future anyway? I believe we will use every single bit of fossil fuel we can find because they are so cheap, versatile, energy dense etc. They are the best energy sources we have. Why would we voluntarily leave our best energy sources in the ground while we turn to more expensive, less useful and difficult ones (renewables)? Not going to happen. As long as fossil fuels are the best we will keep using them until they're all basically gone.

Besides, recent studies have a peak production of all fossil fuels by around 2015-2025. Though CO2 may actually keep increasing a bit from then on as more and more of the stuff left is less energy dense and dirtier.

[HighPressure]

I don't often agree with Magpie but I do on this occasion, simply that CO2 cannot just cannot go up and up, Mother nature has safety nets that will not allow us to continue down a single path, the resources will dwindle and associated emissions will be by default reduced. This is an entirely natural process which includes man as just a part of the machine (we are not separate from the Earths ecosystem). The machine which is climate has had the ability to control itself against far worse situations than the one it finds itself in now, in fact mans CO2 output is chicken feed given historical information.

There is such a thing as jumping out the frying pan into the fire, I have asked this question before and will again, where do you (AGW supporters or any other term you like) want to take our climate? If you find you can control global temps then what you going to do, keep them there forever stop the next iceage? There is nothing wrong with sensible environmental policy, but what we are seeing is a mixture of blind panic and bandwagon jumping. No one appears to be giving any thought as to what is outside the frying pan merely saying can't stay here, but maybe we can and maybe we should. I have no real worry about massive global cuts in emissions because it won't happen because money and economics rule the human world and they will dictate what sources of energy are used.

The nightmare scenario is that humans find that X amount of GHG reduction equal X amount of cooling and leads us to be able to have a level of control over our climate. Staying in the frying pan with resource availability dwindling coupled with economic restraints plus nature itself is a far better gamble then jumping out into who knows where or what?

[PersianPaladin]

I don't often agree with Magpie but I do on this occasion, simply that CO2 cannot just cannot go up and up, Mother nature has safety nets that will not allow us to continue down a single path, the resources will dwindle and associated emissions will be by default reduced. This is an entirely natural process which includes man as just a part of the machine (we are not separate from the Earths ecosystem). The machine which is climate has had the ability to control itself against far worse situations than the one it finds itself in now, in fact mans CO2 output is chicken feed given historical information.

There is such a thing as jumping out the frying pan into the fire, I have asked this question before and will again, where do you (AGW supporters or any other term you like) want to take our climate? If you find you can control global temps then what you going to do, keep them there forever stop the next iceage? There is nothing wrong with sensible environmental policy, but what we are seeing is a mixture of blind panic and bandwagon jumping. No one appears to be giving any thought as to what is outside the frying pan merely saying can't stay here, but maybe we can and maybe we should. I have no real worry about massive global cuts in emissions because it won't happen because money and economics rule the human world and they will dictate what sources of energy are used.

The nightmare scenario is that humans find that X amount of GHG reduction equal X amount of cooling and leads us to be able to have a level of control over our climate. Staying in the frying pan with resource availability dwindling coupled with economic restraints plus nature itself is a far better gamble then jumping out into who knows where or what?

Human beings IMO, will never be able to control the climate. We do, however, have an ability to influence it to a considerable degree and evidence is mounting that we are overloading the atmosphere with greenhouse-gas levels that are just not healthy or sustainable. What impact this has further down the road...is not yet fully clear; but it seems to me that stresses will increase on more people and its a risk worth avoiding or mitigating against.

I don't agree with the original poster of this thread or the premise. We are indeed a natural part of the contribution of gases to the earth's atmosphere; but so are millions of other species. Its all about making sure that we maintain in equilibrium and do not disturb the natural state by exarcebating anamolies past their tipping-point. Reducing carbon emissions to more sensible levels doesn't mean eradicating humanity and their natural greenhouse gas inputs from simple living or bodily emissions; it simply means cutting down on excess waste and needless overproduction. We need to adopt an altruistic agenda and mentality in all areas of our societies and politics. This will cut down on overproduction and waste as people live less selfish and consumerist lives and concentrate more on redistribution and capitalism with social consciousness.

Edited January 26, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[Thundery wintry showers]

One question about burning fossil fuels, is that if we cut down on consumption of them, thus freeing up more that can be used in the future, if we can slow down the rate at which the whole lot are dumped into the atmosphere, surely that in itself could help the situation. After all, it's not the change that's the main problem, but rather the rate of change, and the slower the rate of greenhouse gas increases, the more chance there is that the climate system won't react as abruptly with as many side-effects.

To be honest, I find these defeatist attitudes quite annoying- if we assume limits and bind our actions by them, it follows that we won't ever overcome those limits, whether they're really unavoidable or not. I recall seeing a post "let's burn as much as we can now, because we'll burn it all anyway", which illustrates the problem with defeatism- accepting that a problem is unavoidable, and doing everything we can to make it as unavoidable as possible, so we can turn around on those who suggested it might not be unavoidable, shout "We told you so- we were right because we were right!"

Rant over.

[PersianPaladin]

One question about burning fossil fuels, is that if we cut down on consumption of them, thus freeing up more that can be used in the future, if we can slow down the rate at which the whole lot are dumped into the atmosphere, surely that in itself could help the situation. After all, it's not the change that's the main problem, but rather the rate of change, and the slower the rate of greenhouse gas increases, the more chance there is that the climate system won't react as abruptly with as many side-effects.

To be honest, I find these defeatist attitudes quite annoying- if we assume limits and bind our actions by them, it follows that we won't ever overcome those limits, whether they're really unavoidable or not. I recall seeing a post "let's burn as much as we can now, because we'll burn it all anyway", which illustrates the problem with defeatism- accepting that a problem is unavoidable, and doing everything we can to make it as unavoidable as possible, so we can turn around on those who suggested it might not be unavoidable, shout "We told you so- we were right because we were right!"

Rant over.

Agree absolutely.

There is enough stress and negativity in the world ALREADY. We do not need anymore pressing on our minds. We always have to keep things positive...its what keeps us active, creative, innovative. I myself used to suffer from clinical depression for years...and threads like this and the general world attitudes are not helping my recovery.

I reiterate this to other people as well but people don't listen. Honestly people...make the most of what you have and think of others and future generations; because one day it may get taken from you sooner than you think and others may also get but a fleeting chance to benefit from their inheritance.

Edited January 26, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[HighPressure]

To be honest, I find these defeatist attitudes quite annoying- if we assume limits and bind our actions by them, it follows that we won't ever overcome those limits, whether they're really unavoidable or not. I recall seeing a post "let's burn as much as we can now, because we'll burn it all anyway", which illustrates the problem with defeatism- accepting that a problem is unavoidable, and doing everything we can to make it as unavoidable as possible, so we can turn around on those who suggested it might not be unavoidable, shout "We told you so- we were right because we were right!"

Rant over.

Its not defeatism to live in the real world, rather than a rose tinted one, ideology is fine but I have yet to see a coherent plan of action on cutting global emissions which means tackling real issues such as social and political ones not to mention economic.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But is it rose-tinted to have an open mind? I am certainly open to the possibility that we can't do anything of consequence against the AGW issue, but also to the possibility that we might be able to.

The fact of the matter is, if we accept defeat, that's what we'll definitely get. If we try to avoid defeat, we might not succeed, but then again we might. In my experience, there are many injustices in the world which are unavoidable for circular reasons- "it's unavoidable because people accept that it can't be helped, and they accept that it can't be helped, because it's unavoidable" etc, it's a vicious circle of inertia.

The problem with thinking of a coherent plan is that, as you say, it will require discussion of all kinds of inter-related issues, including political, social and economic issues. I personally reckon that we may need to move away from the capitalist extreme of the political spectrum if we're to have a hope of achieving anything, because if we keep being so reliant upon laissez-faire free-market capitalism, consumerism will continue to dominate above all else, leading straight to Magpie's conclusions. I don't agree with abolishing capitalism, but I'm in favour of taking a more moderate position that combines elements of both socialism and capitalism.

The other problem with thinking of a coherent plan is that it requires a lot of analysis. In my experience, if someone has a fixed position, or there's a status quo somewhere, and someone else challenges it, chances are, their suggestions will be rejected as soon as a flaw can be found in them, no matter how trivial or irrelevant the flaw. It's like bashing your head against a brick wall for no gain. As I say, I'm open to the possibility that the AGW issue might be unavoidable, but it's unlikely to be because it's physically unavoidable, it will be because of social inertia. Hence my taking a stand against this inertia.

[Stratos Ferric]

...There is nothing wrong with sensible environmental policy, but what we are seeing is a mixture of blind panic and bandwagon jumping. No one appears to be giving any thought as to what is outside the frying pan merely saying can't stay here, but maybe we can and maybe we should. ...

No hyperbole or sweeping generalisations in there then.

I see no "blind panic" HP, and be assured that there are a lot of people thinking about the questions that you ponder, The fact that they aren't singing about it doesn't mean they aren't working on it. I'm assuming your answer is "leave me be because I don't want to take a personal hit". Hardly far sighted.

One thing's for sure, hoping for the best - which seems to be what your manifesto would be - is a pretty poor bet on the basis of what we do know already.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Stratos Ferric

[Devonian]

I don't often agree with Magpie but I do on this occasion, simply that CO2 cannot just cannot go up and up, Mother nature has safety nets that will not allow us to continue down a single path, the resources will dwindle and associated emissions will be by default reduced. This is an entirely natural process which includes man as just a part of the machine (we are not separate from the Earths ecosystem). The machine which is climate has had the ability to control itself against far worse situations than the one it finds itself in now, in fact mans CO2 output is chicken feed given historical information.

There is such a thing as jumping out the frying pan into the fire, I have asked this question before and will again, where do you (AGW supporters or any other term you like) want to take our climate? If you find you can control global temps then what you going to do, keep them there forever stop the next iceage? There is nothing wrong with sensible environmental policy, but what we are seeing is a mixture of blind panic and bandwagon jumping. No one appears to be giving any thought as to what is outside the frying pan merely saying can't stay here, but maybe we can and maybe we should. I have no real worry about massive global cuts in emissions because it won't happen because money and economics rule the human world and they will dictate what sources of energy are used.

The nightmare scenario is that humans find that X amount of GHG reduction equal X amount of cooling and leads us to be able to have a level of control over our climate. Staying in the frying pan with resource availability dwindling coupled with economic restraints plus nature itself is a far better gamble then jumping out into who knows where or what?

Can I draw you attention to what seem to me to be a contradiction in you post?

I'd be entirely unconcerned about CO2 if I though it's conc is regulated by nature alone - but clearly it isn't, we've added more than 100ppm CO2 (more than a 30% increase) to the atmosphere already. Likewise how much we ultimately pump into the atmosphere is also up to us. There is enough fossil fuel left to easily drive CO2 up to 400-500 ppm, - what CO2 feedbacks will then come into play either drying/melting bogs, deep sea clatherites/dried forests heated oceans?

Now, if as you say massive cuts in global emissions wont happen then I think logically you mean we'll burn every scrap of fossil fuel (all the coal, all the tar sands, all the oil, all the really dirty low C sulpherous coals, all the peat) because they are convenient energy sources, and then where will CO2 go?

This is, please, not me running around headless chicken wise, it's me trying to see how mankind doing nothing about emissions is other than nuts - because doing nothing means Co2 will reach serious concentrations. But, yes, we wont do anything, and thus, yes, we're 'nuts'. Why? Well we've form on this, we pillaged the cod, the bison, the temperate forests, the rainforests, we do normally take the lot and move on - but we can't move planets.... Have we the wit to stop this time? I think not.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Dev!

It bemuses me no end to see posts from folk who push the 'natural' root for our current warming, and defend it by pulling up endless graphs of past warmings showing CO2 'lagging behind' temp rises in it's increased concentrations (before then driving further warming), without grokking that we still await the 'natural CO2' to kick in!

The only 'natural' cause for current CO2 increased concentrations is via a scruffy mammal called Homo Sapien Sapien and he is merely sowing the wind...... he is yet to reap the whirlwind!

[pottyprof]

Can I draw you attention to what seem to me to be a contradiction in you post?

I'd be entirely unconcerned about CO2 if I though it's conc is regulated by nature alone - but clearly it isn't, we've added more than 100ppm CO2 (more than a 30% increase) to the atmosphere already. Likewise how much we ultimately pump into the atmosphere is also up to us. There is enough fossil fuel left to easily drive CO2 up to 400-500 ppm, - what CO2 feedbacks will then come into play either drying/melting bogs, deep sea clatherites/dried forests heated oceans?

Now, if as you say massive cuts in global emissions wont happen then I think logically you mean we'll burn every scrap of fossil fuel (all the coal, all the tar sands, all the oil, all the really dirty low C sulpherous coals, all the peat) because they are convenient energy sources, and then where will CO2 go?

This is, please, not me running around headless chicken wise, it's me trying to see how mankind doing nothing about emissions is other than nuts - because doing nothing means Co2 will reach serious concentrations. But, yes, we wont do anything, and thus, yes, we're 'nuts'. Why? Well we've form on this, we pillaged the cod, the bison, the temperate forests, the rainforests, we do normally take the lot and move on - but we can't move planets.... Have we the wit to stop this time? I think not.

Woah... Dev.. Steady on mate.. 3 paragraphs and I'm agreeing with what you're saying..

[HighPressure]

Lets try to be totally clear here, I think reduction in all GHGs is a sensible prudent policy, but it needs to be done alongside its economical and social constraints. You cannot just shut your eyes to some very serious (yes man made issues) which fall outside the direct argument of reducing CO2 emissions. Having said that it is what in reality will happen, no matter how governments play CO2 ping pong and make use of creative CO2 accounting economics will prevail.

Yes humans will continue to burn fossil fuel until it is not economical viable in otherwords replaced by something that is cheaper. The simple fact is that if China get up tomorrow and say hey guys you were right we are going to seriously reduce our CO2 output and use more expensive energy sources instead, the UK would be the first country to say well done then go off and buy its goods from somewhere still using cheap energy to produce cheap goods, go ask a retailer like Argos what they would do? All I am saying chaps is this is how it is, there is not one single government or business really interested in environmental issues unless they make money out of it and that includes the UK.

My earlier point was that even if you could have the impact on climate you wanted, would you really want that control, I say no you would not. The reason is that if cuts were made to CO2 which had a measurable effect on global temps where would you stop, and who would make that decision? Can you just imagine the UN trying to decide who should have what climate?

I have no problem excepting humans have put CO2 levels through the roof as far as modern history is concerned, but believe that nature has far more ability to correct than many give it credit for and a damn sight better plan of action than any human has ever shown. I point to millions of years of previous climate data which shows a proven track record of environmental control in far worse circumstances to these. I also to point to a few thousand years of human history and its track history, not very good is it? Now it pops along with some theory it can save the planet because it has been enlightened by the wonders of science, even though it has only just learnt to read and there are some long words in the book they don't understand, but worry we got the gist of it and what we don't know can't be that important can it?

I am uncertain as to how much human activity impacts on our current global temps but then again so is everyone else, what the heck 'significant' is meant to mean is anyone's guess 20% / 50% or 80% of what?

I trust mother nature to control climate in the face of anything we humans throw at it, I would rather face high emissions of CO2 then humans trying and succeeding in climate manipulation, which I suggest is a far more dangerous prospect then the one we currently face.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm not convinced at all by the "we're better off risking high CO2 emissions than manipulating the climate" argument. The idea of reducing emissions is to reduce the extent to which we may be manipulating the climate, not to manipulate it in another direction!

However, I certainly take the points on economics- which is why I believe that if we're to take serious action, we may well need to move the focus of the political system towards a more centrist position, rather than the current far-capitalist position, so as to maintain decent economic growth, but allow altruistic actions to be taken without being swamped out by social inertia tied in with laissez-faire free market policies.

There is some evidence that in some areas, the free markets might get the message, for instance someone posted an article suggesting that some oil companies want to move to alternative fuels because oil is set to become very expensive, but I think if we leave it up to the free markets, it will be too little, too late.

[Roger J Smith]

It can't be helping to create a sense of urgency about global warming in China, when they are having their coldest winter in ages and tons of snow cutting off rural areas, etc.

Also the people living in western Greenland are saying, hey surprise surprise, the ice has returned here after many years of being absent.

Sooner or later the political rhetoric and the science may decouple completely, and then this strategy for developing cleaner technology will be obsolete. It would be better to have a more truthful exposition -- the climate has always varied, it may now be getting a lot warmer for good, we may have something to do with it, but within the range of uncertainty, it could also cool off again, we may have very little to do with it, and if this is why we are developing clean technology, perhaps it would be better to do so for other reasons, such as benefits to the economy, health issues, etc.

Perversely, I fear that wrapping up technological change in the global warming wrapper will prove to be a mistake if the climate cools, then a lot of people will say, oh what was the fuss all about, who cares if we have cleaner technology?

[HighPressure]

It can't be helping to create a sense of urgency about global warming in China, when they are having their coldest winter in ages and tons of snow cutting off rural areas, etc.

Also the people living in western Greenland are saying, hey surprise surprise, the ice has returned here after many years of being absent.

Sooner or later the political rhetoric and the science may decouple completely, and then this strategy for developing cleaner technology will be obsolete. It would be better to have a more truthful exposition -- the climate has always varied, it may now be getting a lot warmer for good, we may have something to do with it, but within the range of uncertainty, it could also cool off again, we may have very little to do with it, and if this is why we are developing clean technology, perhaps it would be better to do so for other reasons, such as benefits to the economy, health issues, etc.

Perversely, I fear that wrapping up technological change in the global warming wrapper will prove to be a mistake if the climate cools, then a lot of people will say, oh what was the fuss all about, who cares if we have cleaner technology?

I agree with you

Someone mentioned what I meant by headless chickens, I give you our prime minister world leader in the AGW cause: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...t.climatechange

In case you are not aware a headless chicken runs around in circles going first in one direction then totally the opposite

[PersianPaladin]

HighPressure....could you answer the following questions?

Was it a bad idea for industry to change their practices in this country and follow examples like The Clean Air Act? (No more pea-soupers is a good thing surely.)

How about the Montreal Protocol? Was that bad too? (After all...the ozone layer is recovering since that had been implemented).

Human beings can reverse their negative impacts before things get even worse.

Oh and Roger J Smith....I suggest you read up more about possible feedback mechanisms as part of the complexities of climate change.

Edited January 28, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[Roger J Smith]

Could you be more specific, PP ... this discussion seems to have nothing to do with feedback mechanisms ... and I am familiar with them in any case, so not too sure what you're suggesting here.

[Gray-Wolf]

Could you be more specific, PP ... this discussion seems to have nothing to do with feedback mechanisms ... and I am familiar with them in any case, so not too sure what you're suggesting here.

You mention a bit of snow in China but fail to mention the huge drought that they are in the grips of with water levels in the Yangtze so low that river traffic is beached???????? are we tyrying to not put a 'rounded' overview here Rog?

[Devonian]

I have no problem excepting humans have put CO2 levels through the roof as far as modern history is concerned, but believe that nature has far more ability to correct than many give it credit for and a damn sight better plan of action than any human has ever shown. I point to millions of years of previous climate data which shows a proven track record of environmental control in far worse circumstances to these. I also to point to a few thousand years of human history and its track history, not very good is it? Now it pops along with some theory it can save the planet because it has been enlightened by the wonders of science, even though it has only just learnt to read and there are some long words in the book they don't understand, but worry we got the gist of it and what we don't know can't be that important can it?

I am uncertain as to how much human activity impacts on our current global temps but then again so is everyone else, what the heck 'significant' is meant to mean is anyone's guess 20% / 50% or 80% of what?

I trust mother nature to control climate in the face of anything we humans throw at it, I would rather face high emissions of CO2 then humans trying and succeeding in climate manipulation, which I suggest is a far more dangerous

prospect then the one we currently face.

I don't believe this.

I'll also post what I said above again to try and make clear what you say about climate manipulation is wrong:

"Isn't this a bit like looking a a polluted, foamy, filthy river and saying 'what do you want to change that to, when do you stop?'. Answer, when it's clean, when it's restored. So, for me, the river that is the atmosphere has a un anthropogenic CO2 conc of ~280 ppm - the nearer we can get to that the cleaner the river will be. Not that I think we'll even stop CO2 going above 400-450ppm first..." I don't want to control but to leave alone - it's adding pollution to a river or CO2 to the atmosphere that controls things.

But, this is about a differing view of nature. You say we can throw what we like at it and you trust mother nature to control that. I say look at the evidence that shows the opposite to be the case, and then please explain to me why cleaning up a river (and thus letting the river 'get on with it') isn't like cleaning up the atmosphere and letting that 'get on with it'?

[Thundery wintry showers]

There are many other reasons for 'cleaning up our act'. For example, air quality, water quality, wildlife diversity, the list goes on. I'll also mention that chopping down vast areas of rainforest can hardly be helping the situation, but sadly the UK doesn't have much say over that issue. And above all, sustainable living. It would be good to achieve a stable, positive way of living, in all senses including economic and social factors, that could be maintained sustainably. At the moment, what we have is a way of living that is superb economically, dodgy socially, and nowhere near being sustainable in the long-term.

The above also rules out ideas that could be referred to as "going back to the stone age". It's no good protecting the environment in such a way that we end up sustaining a very low, primitive quality of life for future generations- that rather goes against the idea of giving future generations similar opportunities to our own. We need to seek a sustainable way of living that is also of reasonable quality.

If we reduced emissions and the climate started cooling (highly unlikely in the near future, by the way), we could at least say that in all probability, humans weren't 'tampering with the climate' significantly.