You also have a very dim view of science. Scientists are looking at and studying naturally occurring cycles too, they understand them a heck of a lot better than you do, and they can separate them from this human-induced change, which is happening an order of magnitude faster than any natural cycle would predict. But you are obviously much smart than the thousands of scientists working on this problem.

You are also wrong about volcanoes. We can actually tell what percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made, because it has a different isotope signature than naturally occurring CO2. So we not only can calculate how many billions of tons we’re pumping out, but we alsi have a pretty darn good idea how much of it stays up there.

Couldn’t agree with you more.

However…the only long term solution is not presented here…

Human Culture is to blame - Culture in the Anthropological sense, all things about humanity that are not part of our physicality, but are indispensible for continued existence…

I include:
language
fire
technology of all types
Social Structure - (the “big man” was our god…and became god…different discussion)
Agriculture
Health Care
Art
Math
Writing

Just as natural species find new energy niches to exploit, and therefore new species are formed over time, human culture allowed us to overwhelm the natural boundaries on our species, and thereby move into new energy niches.

Humanity could not have “evovled” in the Arctic, yet, through our culture, we came to dominate that extreme climate just fine thanks.

We evolved (alongside our culture!), to ignore all natural limits, and take advantage of energy niches!

Currently we’re the only species IN THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE OF LIFE to have no governor on our procreation, and that’s what is overwhelming the natural systems…but, we are just doing what comes NATURALLY!!!

VOLUNTARY HUMAN EXTINCTION

The planet cannot withstand our presence.

If everyone, voluntarily, did all they could to minimize energy use (turning off lights, changing all lights to flourescents, hi-mileage vehicles, etc. etc. etc.) it would only decrease our usage by 20%.

That doesn’t consider India/China/Indonesia/Brasil/Mexico all increasing their use of electricity, having cars, etc. etc. etc.

Given our population trend, that isn’t buying us ANY time.

Human caused climate chaos is a better way to talk about “climate change”. It will be wetter/drier/colder/wetter selectively, but the ultimate effect will be bad, and the changes will occur far faster than any natural systems can cope with (normal climate changes occur within the range of evolutionary capabilities, but, here WE are!).

There is no moral justification for ANYONE on the planet to have children.

60,000 YEARS AGO THERE WERE ONLY 2000 INDIVIDUALS ON THE PLANET…DO THE MATH, NOTHING WE DO IS SUSTAINABLE OR LIKELY TO BE…THE DIE OFF IS INEVITABLE, AND, THEREFORE, TO REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING (AND TO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY THAT OTHER LIFE WILL SURVIVE OUR PRESENCE), ALL OF US SHOULD VOLUNTARILY REFRAIN FROM HAVING OFFSPRING.

ALL OF US.

Sorry to hear about your mom. However, while it is true that some people are killed by chemotherapy, it remains a very useful therapy that helps the majority of people who receive it.

Second thing is that global warming is not about the USA as you seem to indicate. It is a global crisis and we’re all in it together. As for war, the price of oil and the economy, these are largely self-inflicted gifts from your beloved Bush the 2nd. The instability caused by your government in the Middle-East and the falling US dollar are largely responsible for the rise in oil prices. In turn, the rise in oil prices and the stupid run towards biofuels are largely responsible for the food crisis that is unfolding before us.

You also fail to recognize several facts related to global warming: it will make world poverty a lot worse as poor countries are by far the most affected, and this is already happening. It will increase food prices as droughts spread further. Conversely, reducing oil consumption would not only help with climate change but it would also help reduce the price of oil.

Finally, investing in conservation and green energy would be a big boon to the economy. It’s just plain common sense: you save energy, you save money! You reduce pollution, you save money! And the USA is missing a huge opportunity to gain the upper hand in new green industries and technologies. Meanwhile countries like Germany and some Scandinavian countries are creating thousands of jobs, saving money, and creating entire new markets and industries while the USA keeps catering to the oil and coal industry.

The sad part is that for a fraction of the cost of your illegal and completely unnecessary war that has destroyed Iraq and is ruining your own country, a fraction of that cost would have enabled the USA to completely ween itself off of middle-eastern oil while creating lots of jobs and improving the environment.

The cost of doing nothing about climate change will be far greater than the cost of weening ourselves off of oil. And 50 years from now the problems caused by climate change will be so bad that the current problems will seem trivial.

Which one of these is the most important to focus on? Whoever is right or wrong about climate change, niether can definitively prove their point, or prove definitively that we can in fact do something to slow our climate change down. Or, I also believe that it can’t be proved that paying for a solution to these percieved problems will be better than the problem itself. My mother went through Chemotherapy for cancer, the Chemo ended up killing her. I think that focusing on more immediate threats for us may prevent our own focus on healing the planet from killing us.

In light of other global crises at this point, I think we are much better off to put off our differences about climate change and focus on problems that we know we can solve today. I believe that the cost will be too great to shift more political focus on the climate over our current economic state and it’s effect on the rest of the world. Sure, let’s revisit it, but not now. We didn’t react immediately to threats of global cooling either, and we’re still alive to talk about it.

The climate is changing, it will affect our lives. We may be able to have an impact on it and we may not - but we sure as hell can do something about hunger, and economics today.

How about it?

Sounds a lot like the guy who writes at this site

First of all, the science of climate change has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore. Sure, he was instrumental in promoting the issue, but whatever he does or doesn’t do has no impact on the validity of the science. He’s been doing this spiel for over 20 years and was not taking any money for most of that time. He’s also not taking any profits from his film. And rather than buying what a few pundits say on Fox News at face value and buy the idea that Gore’s film is not based in reality, why don’t you do a bit of research? While there are a few innacuracies and a few selective and debatable emphasis for effect, the film is by and large right on the money. If you really believe that anything in the film is wrong, and truly want an intelligent debate, why don’t you tell me what you think is wrong and then back that claim with some facts and data? That would be an intelligent debate, just repeating what Fox News say in their hyper partisan rethoric just doesn’t cut it.

This is also not a political or ideological issue, although the right sure likes to make it so, and you clearly fall into that camp, letting your political ideology and hatred of everything liberal (especially Gore) cloud your judgement.

And of course, you don’t even want to hear anything I say about Fred Singer. To begin with, I’m not the one who called him a corporate whore first. One of the commenter here cited him and then said “but of course you’re going to dismiss him as a corporate whore”. So of course, I said “as a matter of fact…”

If you only took a few minutes to read what I said, and to research Fred Singer’s background, you would understand what I’m saying rather than just dismiss it. Singer has been retired as a scientist for over 20 years, and has not done any scientific research since. He has been employed by a series of PR agencies and so called “think tanks”. During all those engagements, he has come out as a denier of science on a series of issues that were inconvenient to his corporate employers. These included the science that showed that phosphates were bad for the environment, that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, that cigarette smoke caused cancer, and now that CO2 is causing global warming. Every time he painted himself as a scientific expert in those fields, and every time he said the scientific community was wrong. I can show you at least a dozen fallacies he constantly repeats in his speeches, and if you were in fact interested in reality, I could also show you the fact that disprove those fallacies.

Just do a bit of research, you’ll see for yourself. And clearly, anyone who says “what’s wrong with a little warming?” is incredibly naive, ill informed, or dishonest.

As for the books advertised here, they are a futile attempt at trying to recover the cost of running this website, and believe me, it doesn’t even cover that cost. So spare me your lecturing on the leftist evils.

The irony in all this is that the very agenda put forward by the neo-cons and repeated ad-nauseam by Fox News is all about preserving corporate profits at the expense of not only the environment but the little guys like you and I.

Do you have kids? I sure not for your sake.

I have looked around your site more and realize there is an awful lot of advertising for books for the religion of global warming and the evil that man is. I remember a pastor called Jimmy Swaggart and most recently an Elliot Spitzer. Both had a campaign against literal whores, but they were both caught in bed with whores themselves. Just because you sleep with different whores than does Exxon, Phillip Morris (and I still don’t know what they have to do with the global warming debate) and the others you despise, that does not make you and Al Gore any better than the rest.

And just because you give that advertising revenue to the poor children dying of hunger in New Orleans or wherever you donate it (as I am sure you do,) does not change the fact that the money was made using the capitalist pigs model.

Good luck with your quest. I trust some good will come out of the hypocrisy. Just as Al Gore’s new houses and big planes have created jobs for us little people.

This comment will probably not be posted as censorship is also another good that is only wrong if used by the far left’s detractors.

I’m done…I can’t believe I even got into this absurd conversation.

If anyone doesn’t see that Fred Singer is a professional corporate whore of the highest calibre, one who has made a career of working for the PR Industry and denying science about the negative impacts of phosphates, CFCs, cigarette smoke and now CO2, and with documented finances from the likes of Phillip Morris and Exxon, then frankly I know exactly who I am dealing with too.

Show me a real scientist doing real science that goes against the climate change theory and I will respectfully discuss his work. But when jerks like Singer try to pass themselves as active scientists when he hasn’t done any scientific research in 20 years and makes a living repeating the same old fallacies tirelessly, than yeah, I will call him a corporate whore.