[BigTone]

I have only just found this part of the AV forums, and as its a slow (and warm day at work) I thought I'd drop in a little hello!

I like the name of the forum, as it specifically states Man Made Global Warming, rather than just the usual Global Warming - which means that there is a degree of credability going on here. The planet warms up anbd cools down all by itself, without the need of us pesky humans. And now there is a debate as to whether humans are making a contribution to this natural cycle.

The problem, and hence the reason there is a debate, is that humans have a very short lifespan (compared to the planet) and as such can't really think in terms of 1,000,000 years, but has to break things down into 'lifetimes' etc. So, given that the planet heats up and cools down all by its lonesome, the timespan that this occurs over is not well defined. The actual temperature records that have been recorded directly (only for the last 100+ years) don't show any statistically significant change in the global temperatures (and yes I do have a mathematical and statistical background, and I took the time to download the data and perform my own analysis on it). So basically the measuremenst are only useful for determining the 'noise' (the expected variation in temperatures year on year), and as this 'noise' shows no structure (i.e. there is no trend either up or down) one can conclude that the global temperature isn't actually moving much in any particular direction. However, this is only a small slice of data, 100+ years isn't a long time to predict the global weather changes - and if it was then the weather forcasters would be able to tell us what the temperature will be next week, next year - which they can't!

One piece of important eveidnce in which is overlooked many times is the Medievil Warm Period, when the temperature of the planet did trend slightly upwards (again - this is difficult to quantify as the data is hard to collect and quantify - how much error is there in the raw data, and how does it effect the overall results) - and in the MWP there was no massive human output of any greenhouse gasses.

So will human intervention add to the planets cycle of warming and cooling (don't forget we are in between iceages - its going to get hellish cold soon too!) thats pretty hard to tell. Wastign energy is a bad thing and we should conserve as much as possible - that just makes plain sense, but whether this will prevent the cycle of the planet is not a given.

What worries me is that the global warming issue will allow the developed world to hike up the energy prices and so reduce development in the 'undeveloped world' - by starving them of cheap energy we keep out place at the top of the tree secure. Which is why I think the politicians are keen to support any measures that will keep the status quo.

So why, in the face of the known data, is there so much talk about man made global warming? Well the easy money is on the funding of mathematical models to predict the effect of pollution on the planet as a whole. And they went for sexy stories that need more funding to build a better model to investigate.... don't for a secodn think that the scientific community is a flock of sheep - they can be a bunch of hard nosed b******s when it comes to research funding - and there is a lot of pressure to write papers for publication in the 'high impact factor' journals .. so it is a rich vien to mine.

So how do we know they are being selective with the results ...well the quality of any model can be measure by its ability to predict .. so using all the avaialble data, build a model and then predict the CO2 levels, the sea temperatures, the global temperatures etc .. and prin them in the red top rags, fopr the nexct year, so everyone can then see just how good these 'predictions' and the model they came from are? I wonder why this doesn't happen? is that because they can't actually predict anything, except wave there hands in the general direction and say .. 'erm its getting hotter!'

Lets face facts, if they could model the weather, then they could model the financial markets, and we all know that more money has been spent on modelling the financial markets - and the last time I looked there is no successful model. To be honest - the quality of the predictions are about as usful as predicting next weeks lotto numbers saying ' there will be 6 numbers between 1 and 49' - and you'd have to aggree that the prediction isn't wrong, but the prediction isn't going to help very much!

BT

Care to share your analysis of the temperature records with us? Where did you source the data?

You might be misreading the forum title. Stuart's sticky at the head of the forum says

A note to people who do not believe that global warming is a result of man's influence, this forum is *not* for you. Arguments as to whether global warming exists or not; or that it exists as a result of man's influence or not are mute.

[BigTone]

The data can be downloaded from here :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...thly/index.php

BT

Originally Posted by BigTone

The data can be downloaded from here :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...thly/index.php

BT

Thanks. And your analysis? It shows no temperature trend such as the one should in the RH graph at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcag.html ?

Isn't a large part of the concern rate of change as opposed to absolute change? Previously 'climate change' would occur over periods in which communities (of species, as opposed to villages and the like ) could adapt, whereas now we might be seeing rates of change which could be significant. We might be better to define man made change as a potentially adverse affect on the rate of change, which overlies normal climate variability

I am sure polar bears have experienced a number of climate changes in their existence, but if the rate of change exceeds their ability to adapt (probably as a species as opposed to as individuals), and that rate of change is anthropogenic, then bye-bye polar bears and it's our fault.

The impact of the loss of polar bears to human existence is debatable of course, and becomes a more philosophical debate of whether we have an ethical responsiblility to 'look after' the planet on behalf of our furrier associates.

Now, if the rate of change helped stress bee populations, then we really would be in trouble. I heard recently a suggestion that if bees went extinct the human race would last seven years...

...as there would be no crops.


The polars bears would be p**sing themselves then .


You are quite correct that there is little data to rely on, and it is on the wrong timescale to be able to extract meaningful trends. But that does make the models (theoretical as they are) even more important, or we move to the conclusion that we don't have sufficient data to be certain, therefore we will do nothing. Personally, that camp is slightly too 'Dubbya' for comfort.


And we have to bear in mind that weather isn't climate change, which is important. One of the potential scenarios for climate change is a colder UK, and so our weather may not necessarily be representative of a planet where overall temperature has risen. James Lovelock suggests that the UK may become one of the few reasonable places to live (if, of course, climate predictons are true) as climate increases average temperature.

I would have to say that it does annoy me when a week of sunny weather in April has people shouting global warming... I think it belittles what could be the most important factor to human society since, I don't know what, the Black Death? Malthusian Check, anyone?

[BigTone]

The temperature in Europe has decreased over the last decade if you compare is to the long term average - but its not certain what the average actually should be as the sample is small compared to the timescale.

As for a full analysis - well I'll post a link to the pdf when the article is published

I've spent quite a large number of hours extracting data from various databases and the results pretty much conclude that for every region that is warmer, there is one thats colder! Again, for rate of change, there is no statisticaly significant changes - i.e. changes there are greater than the variance in the measurements compared to a statistical limit.

BT

[Corey USA]

Its more than Just global warming it is "what Humans are doing to the planet"

The scientists and environmentalist were trying to tell us we were poisoning the environment and that we were killing our ecosystem (No one in the general population would listen for the most part or it was too far away or it did not impact them personally. Coral Reef is the Biggest example. Its Die off is "Not" related to the natural cycle. Its related to the (Co2+human made pollution), that we are putting into the (Atmosphere and water) which is changing the acidity or killing plant life{herbicides}) of the ocean making it difficult for coral and shellfish to calcify calcium for shell structure and killing of vital water plants and plankton. The global warming term was used to make the issue personal to every living person on earth to put into perspective that what we do impacts us directly or indirectly in a negative fashion if those choices are not "environmentally sustainable". We do not have much time to lessen the severity of the dammage that we will be seeing from here on out. What we are seeing right now is the tail end of our actions from 10-20 years ago up to now from all our pollution. Our ecosystem is compromised from our direct influence and because of this it is also extreemly sensitive to the temperature change. Making it difficult for it to adapt to the "Accelerated" change. No Ecosystem we are as good as dead we are all interconnected.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by BigTone

The temperature in Europe has decreased over the last decade if you compare is to the long term average - but its not certain what the average actually should be as the sample is small compared to the timescale.

As for a full analysis - well I'll post a link to the pdf when the article is published

I've spent quite a large number of hours extracting data from various databases and the results pretty much conclude that for every region that is warmer, there is one that's colder! Again, for rate of change, there is no statistically significant changes - i.e. changes there are greater than the variance in the measurements compared to a statistical limit.

BT

Reason you seeing the local weather decreasing is that the global warming is melting the Greenland ice sheet adding fresh water which interrupts the oceans "conveyor belt that moves warm water north from the equator" This is the result of overall Accelerated temperature change along with depletion of the ozone layer.

I'm not sure that you can use available data to postulate that there is no man-made impact - one of the reasons set out is there is not enough data - and then use the data to demonstrate that average temperature has 'gone down'. Whether this is correct or not is irrelevant really, you can't use it for both. Either we have data which allows us to draw conclusions, or we don't.

If we don't, but we have sufficient data to calibrate a model to a reasonable level of accuracy (ignore margins of error for a minute), and many of the scenarios run in those models suggest that there is a measurable impact of man-made sources, then I think we have to take along hard look at what we can do about it.

I know that there are complications, and the models are necessarily simplistic (global dimming, for instance, is not accounted for and may be significant) but as a body of evidence starts to support a particular outcome, and that outcome is broadly detrimental to our society, we probably should see if there is something we can do about it.

As far as I can see, the body of evidence broadly supports a contention that there is a risk of man-made global warming impacting our society (globally). That level of risk, IMO, supports a cautious approach.

Which means we put plans into place to do something about it.

If later data means that we didn't need to reduce our energy consumption, then we will simply have extended the life of our energy resources - I am not sure how we lose.

Admittedly, we may have to make concessions about having a 'right' to own two cars, flying to holiday destinations, leaving the heating on (insert air conditioning if appropriate), etc, but in reality as a society we would adapt to that very quickly - because society on the whole is very good at adapting to requirements.

We -in the developed world - have to make the first stand, because that is how things will move. If you do not change the goalposts that other people aspire to, then they will continue to aspire to the condition which may be harmful to us all.

Note I am trying not to say 'is happening' 'we must' 'proven global warming' simply because I can't - the proof isn't there.

But in terms of risk management, the potential consequences would seem to demand a solution, just in case we are screwing everything up.

[Corey USA]

I like your point daffy. I would like to expand it a little to show a potential risk/consequence, if we don't change based on current understandings. the "Human variables of Pollution" is killing our ecosystem(which includes Accelerated Global Warming) So does it not make sense as a "Precaution"
to change are way of thinking and doing things? In order to slow the rate of change to give our environment time to adapt in order to keep whats left of our ecosystem intact which we as a race need to survive?

This following comment is a "possibility of an example" notice I used "If"
If the microorganisms on Mars is any indication that Mars "may have been like earth once upon a time" goes to show that if the balance is tipped to far, life for the most part ends.

It is the risk vs the benefits on a planet wide scale.

Risk is the extinction of most life on earth vs pollution derived from consumption.

[njp]

Originally Posted by BigTone

The problem, and hence the reason there is a debate, is that humans have a very short lifespan (compared to the planet) and as such can't really think in terms of 1,000,000 years, but has to break things down into 'lifetimes' etc. So, given that the planet heats up and cools down all by its lonesome

We are perfectly capable of investigating the distant past, and indeed this is what climate scientists routinely do. Your claim that that the planet heats up and cools down all by its lonesome simply ignores the existence of known external forcings - Milankovitch cycles and the like - which are not a factor in recent warming. It is also highly unlikely that recent warming falls within the range of natural variability caused by the chaotic nature of climate mechanisms.

The actual temperature records that have been recorded directly (only for the last 100+ years) don't show any statistically significant change in the global temperatures (and yes I do have a mathematical and statistical background, and I took the time to download the data and perform my own analysis on it).

That is not what the people who provide the data you used for your analysis say. Where did their analysis go so badly wrong, do you think? Why has nobody else spotted it?

100+ years isn't a long time to predict the global weather changes - and if it was then the weather forcasters would be able to tell us what the temperature will be next week, next year - which they can't!

Climate is not weather, and your statement makes no sense. The point about recent warming is that it is anomalous in a long-term context - a context established by many independent paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions.

One piece of important eveidnce in which is overlooked many times is the Medievil Warm Period, when the temperature of the planet did trend slightly upwards (again - this is difficult to quantify as the data is hard to collect and quantify - how much error is there in the raw data, and how does it effect the overall results) - and in the MWP there was no massive human output of any greenhouse gasses.

And where is your evidence for the MWP as a globally synchronous period of elevated temperatures? It hasn't been "overlooked". It's been looked at and no evidence has been found for anomalous global warmth during this rather ill-defined period.

So will human intervention add to the planets cycle of warming and cooling (don't forget we are in between iceages - its going to get hellish cold soon too!) thats pretty hard to tell.

Ah! Another global cooler. What's your evidence for this claim, and how soon is soon?

So why, in the face of the known data, is there so much talk about man made global warming? Well the easy money is on the funding of mathematical models to predict the effect of pollution on the planet as a whole. And they went for sexy stories that need more funding to build a better model to investigate....

You are just another conspiracy theorist, aren't you?

Lets face facts, if they could model the weather, then they could model the financial markets, and we all know that more money has been spent on modelling the financial markets - and the last time I looked there is no successful model.

It's hard to know where to start with such a ludicrous analysis. Once again, climate is not weather, and you really ought to try to understand the difference before hurling criticism around. And financial markets have human motivations and irrationality as a confounding factor in any attempt to model them. Nature may be complex, but she is not perverse.

[Steve.J.Davies]

Is there one climate model anywhere that can successfully hindcast ?

[Stephen Wilde]

I think nature is perverse. We know so little about the interplay of natural processes that perversity is a good description of nature's conduct.
In a war between humanity and nature it is humanity that at least tries to behave morally. Nature doesn't know the meaning of the word.
The implacability of nature is hard for many to accept so they blame humanity for provoking nature into behaving perversely. Perhaps that is why this Forum exists.

[Corey USA]

maybe the reason it seems so perverse is that we do not understand all the interactions. We do not understand what will happen to the ocean current once the Greenland Ice sheet melts. Only thing we do understand it won't be good.

Just because we don't know, right now, how everything works does not make it chaotic it just means simply we don't know beyond educated guess based on observation.

What we do know Is Humans is the cause and its human factors we do know about and can change with certain amount of certainty.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I think nature is perverse. We know so little about the interplay of natural processes that perversity is a good description of nature's conduct.
In a war between humanity and nature it is humanity that at least tries to behave morally. Nature doesn't know the meaning of the word.
The implacability of nature is hard for many to accept so they blame humanity for provoking nature into behaving perversely. Perhaps that is why this Forum exists.

Please don't get the "current nature" mixed up with a "SICK or polluted" ecosystem. When things are out of balance is when things get so adverse as you put it. The reason it is adverse or "perverse" is because of our pollution in action which is changing our environment to a hostile one..

[njp]

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

Is there one climate model anywhere that can successfully hindcast ?

All of them can hindcast reasonably well, otherwise they would not be used. Model validation is what climate modellers spend most of their time doing. Lots more information about model evaluation here (plus another 40MB of supplemental material for this chapter available on the website).

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I think nature is perverse. We know so little about the interplay of natural processes that perversity is a good description of nature's conduct.

I guess we'll just have to disagree about that, as with so much else.

I find it interesting that in many considerations of 'global warming', there is a stress on the damage or threat there is to the Earth.

I think we should concentrate on the threat to human society. I have every confidence in the Earth's ability to adapt to whatever we think we can do to it, but it is questionable whether we can adapt to what we might be doing, in a manner sufficient to maintain our society at its current levels.

I think that part of the issue revolves around the arrogance of the human condition. We consider ourselves so important that whatever we do MUST have an impact on the Earth - almost as if our actions have to be superlatively destructive in order for us to feel proud of them - which is perverse I would agree.

I don't think we should kid ourselves tho' - the Earth will trundle on if we stumble and fall, the same as it would have done if we had unleashed a nuclear catastrophe instead of the climatic one we may be embarking on. It may be different, and the ecology will certainly change, but that is a natural occurrence and has always, and will always, continue.

It may be that if we look at this issue as a direct risk to 'us', and only us, that it will help in galvanising some action at all levels of society - individuals, local communities and government levels.

It would be interesting if the symbol of the World Wide Fund for Nature, for instance, didn't use a Panda as a symbol, but used an image of European children starving in a drought-stricken western country. I know I am mixing up messages a bit there, but hopefully you see the point - we can compartmentalize the risk to other parts of the world at the moment, or convince ourselves that it is only polar bears at risk, when really it is all about us.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Please don't get the "current nature" mixed up with a "SICK or polluted" ecosystem. When things are out of balance is when things get so adverse as you put it. The reason it is adverse or "perverse" is because of our pollution in action which is changing our environment to a hostile one..

Nature has a habit of destroying on such a grand scale that humans can barely grasp it's enormity. Humananity however, has never seriously impacted on the planet and probably never will. However the greenies will always try to convince us otherwise.

[Corey USA]

Then explain to me in detail how human pollution and habitat destruction is directly causing the extinction and rapid decline in all life plants/insects/ animals/the seas ecosystem/(with the exception of humans) is at a greater rate right now than in our accumulated history?

I am starting to suspect that you have no interest in being responsible for your actions and not interested in doing the right thing. which will ultimately make the rest of us force you to change because of Anti-social behaviors. I do not want to see that happen I would much rather you step up to the plate and do it on your own so as not to need us to come down on you and force a way on you that you do not like..

We are here to effect change and to cut our pollution by sharing information and Ideas on how this can be done.Is being the only Super predator and Being the only species to force are will on the environment we have great power With great power comes GREAT RESPOSIBILITY.

[AgentCool]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

I am starting to suspect that you have no interest in being responsible for your actions and not interested in doing the right thing. which will ultimately make the rest of us force you to change because of Anti-social behaviors. I do not want to see that happen I would much rather you step up to the plate and do it on your own so as not to need us to come down on you and force a way on you that you do not like..
[/U][/I][/B][/COLOR].

"Force you to change". I can't believe I just read that. Fascism is not tolerated in any western society and any attempt by environmentalists to impose hostilities onto us would be dealt with severely I'm sure. The last thing the world needs is yet another terrorist organisation prepared to force people into seeing their way because they think they're "doing the right thing". Hitler thought he was doing the right thing as well...

[toycollector]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

You might be misreading the forum title. Stuart's sticky at the head of the forum says
Quote:
A note to people who do not believe that global warming is a result of man's influence, this forum is *not* for you. Arguments as to whether global warming exists or not; or that it exists as a result of man's influence or not are mute.

Watch out Big tone,
you must follow the M.M.G.W mantra, or you will be banned!
Free speach is not allowed on this part of the forum.Tow the line or else.
Their is far to much money to be made.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by markwpage

"Force you to change". I can't believe I just read that. Fascism is not tolerated in any western society and any attempt by environmentalists to impose hostilities onto us would be dealt with severely I'm sure. The last thing the world needs is yet another terrorist organisation prepared to force people into seeing their way because they think they're "doing the right thing". Hitler thought he was doing the right thing as well...

"Force you to change" only applies as a last resort to the Anti-social behavior
when ample time is given for people to voluntarily change so that there behavior does "NOT" harm others. When you harm others then you must expect punishment. Or is there no accountability for personal actions anymore??


If you change on your own, in your own way, to get your emissions and consumption down by 90% based on "monbiot book heat." USA needs to reduce by 96% I am using some guides from this site as a guide for my reduction. I personally am aiming for 90% of my base line not national average. I am doing fine and healthier as a result. http://simplereduce.wordpress.com/ri...erity90-rules/

some of us here in the USA are taking the whole thing seriously and are volunteering to do it on our own because we want to retain are freedom for new rules would be unnecessary. We are also showing our government that it can be done without a lot of adjustment pain. If we go as usual then rules would be applied and those rules may effect us in ways we find "NOT" acceptable. We are living the way we want to, but consuming 90-96 percent less. NO PAIN we have accepted responsibility for our actions.

Please stop taking things I say out of context and twisting it to a meaning that does not represent my views.(this is often times why my posts are long. If you are confused ask.) "The Force" is only applied as an absolute last resort to "ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR." Anti-Social behavior is doing harm upon others directly or indirectly.

Big business forces us to do things we don't want to do or like why are you not in an uproar over that?

[Stephen Wilde]

I've just looked at the simple living site.

It's wholly simple minded. Nothing has been thought through in practical terms and it shows no appreciation of how modern economies work in getting supplies and resources to a huge number of individuals in a wide range of locations. There are so many potential unintended consequences that the mind boggles.

If we all did as suggested the population would collapse as a result of a worldwide economic implosion. Perhaps that is the idea but it's not exactly humanitarian.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Then explain to me in detail how human pollution and habitat destruction is directly causing the extinction and rapid decline in all life plants/insects/ animals/the seas ecosystem/(with the exception of humans) is at a greater rate right now than in our accumulated history?

I am starting to suspect that you have no interest in being responsible for your actions and not interested in doing the right thing. which will ultimately make the rest of us force you to change because of Anti-social behaviors. I do not want to see that happen I would much rather you step up to the plate and do it on your own so as not to need us to come down on you and force a way on you that you do not like..

We are here to effect change and to cut our pollution by sharing information and Ideas on how this can be done.Is being the only Super predator and Being the only species to force are will on the environment we have great power With great power comes GREAT RESPOSIBILITY.

Which species going extinct are you referring to? Can you name them? Where are they? Or are you paraphrasing the faceless greenatics who contend that we are losing species at the rate of hundreds a week with not a shred of evidence to support this claim?

As for antisocial behaviour.... I will continue to consume and waste as much I see fit to consume or waste. I will not change my lifestyle in any shape or form, which is the cumulation of thousands of years of progress, in order to bow to the fictious gods of the greenatic fringe!

The pollution you refer to is a natural gaseous reaction which has been happening since the planet was created. The ecosystems have dealt with huge differences in climate from what we see now and will continue to adapt and ajust in future.

[AgentCool]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Please stop taking things I say out of context and twisting it to a meaning that does not represent my views.(this is often times why my posts are long. If you are confused ask.) "The Force" is only applied as an absolute last resort to "ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR." Anti-Social behavior is doing harm upon others directly or indirectly.

Big business forces us to do things we don't want to do or like why are you not in an uproar over that?

In that case, what about the anti-social behaviour of environmentalists which has evidently already begun? There was the lightbulb sticker incident I saw first-hand last week (criminal damage) and I've recently read that extremist environmentalists are planning to damage/destroy Drax Coal Power Station in Yorkshire. The latter - if carried out and I have no idea how it could be done - would be nothing short of a heinous act of terrorism capable of bringing down the majority of the British power grid (if not the whole thing) for an indefinite amount of time (Drax alone could supposedly power the entire country on a low-use day), putting the economy into freefall and causing mass chaos.

Surely these actions are accountable and they should expect punishment?

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by markwpage

In that case, what about the anti-social behaviour of environmentalists which has evidently already begun. There was the lightbulb sticker incident I saw first-hand last week (criminal damage) and I've recently read that extremist environmentalists are planning to damage/destroy Drax Coal Power Station in Yorkshire. The latter - if carried out and I have no idea how it could be done - would be nothing short of a heinous act of terrorism capable of bringing down the majority of the British power grid (if not the whole thing) for an indefinite amount of time (Drax alone could supposedly power the entire country on a low-use day), putting the economy into freefall and causing mass chaos.

Surely these actions are accountable and they should expect punishment?

This is of course parr for the course with the lunatic fringe. But there are other more serious concerns that, as usual, the greens have not thought through and have well and truely shot themselves in the foot. Take for example biofuels. What is going to happen here is that huge swaithes of rain forest from Brazil to SE Asia are going to be cleared to plant oil palms to meet his demand. The greens will go franatic trying to stop this. Meanwhile other factions will insist that the EU/US increases its use of biofuels.....

[njp]

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

The pollution you refer to is a natural gaseous reaction which has been happening since the planet was created.

Which "natural gaseous reaction" is that?

The ecosystems have dealt with huge differences in climate from what we see now and will continue to adapt and ajust in future.

Of course they will. That isn't to say that they will continue to support human populations at their current levels, or in their preferred lifestyles, however. Why do you imagine that they would?

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

Which "natural gaseous reaction" is that?


Of course they will. That isn't to say that they will continue to support human populations at their current levels, or in their preferred lifestyles, however. Why do you imagine that they would?

The burning of fossil fuels - the one that's causing all the furore! What evidence have you that a 0.6 degree rise in temperature over the course of a century was/is/will be detrimental to human survival? Or even if the mean temperature goes up by 2-3 degrees? None. In fact it may well be beneficial to the survival of the planet's life-forms. Nobody knows nor can they predict.
Read the paper on scientific forecasting - it's quite an eyeopener!

www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf

Its interesting to see a discussion polarised to such opposing views - and is the trouble with such a potentially important topic, but one which is difficult to definitively identify as a threat, or as a completely made up scare story.

There are a couple of points to consider (this may be a bit long-winded):

I think in a democratic environment it would be near impossible to force actions upon people who do not want them, even if those actions might be of overall benefit.

There is no incontrovertible evidence that action is needed.

It is also fair to suggest:

The Earth has a finite amount of resource.

It can therefore support a finite level of 'biomass' - if we define that as stuff which consumes/produces oxygen and CO2 at some proportion, and it is that biomass which provides the feedback systems to maintain CO2 levels at the levels our ecosystem regards as 'normal' at the moment.

The ecosystem the biomass finds itself in at any given moment is a result of a complicated set of interactions, a part of which will be regarding the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the flux of carbon moving between biomass and atmosphere, and the climate.

Our society's current state is a result of our given ecosystem, and how we have adapted to it - simplistic, but fundamentally true. The fact our 'ecosystem' now has cultural and economic parameters simply means we have made it more complicated - and possibly more vulnerable to the effect of change.

If we manipulate any of the parameters in a significant way, then there is a good chance that the ecosystem will change. The unfortunate bit is that we do not have any idea what 'significant change' actually means - this could mean gross changes or something we perceive as a very small change - butterfly effect stuff.

It is quite possible that ecosystem change equals societal change for 'us'.

I'm not sure you can argue that we haven't significantly altered the carbon flux - we have released probably billions of tons of locked up carbon over a very short space of time, which had previously been sequestered for millions of years. I cannot think of a 'natural' event which would lead to such a change.

It would therefore be reasonable to suggest that our 'ecosystem parameters' have been adjusted, and almost certainly in an acute way. There is a reasonable possibility that this is likely to have a significant affect, although we may not be aware of how that will express itself.

How many complex systems do we know of that can tolerate such acute changes without 'collapse' or at least significant re-organisation?

Its a question of risk management - if we don't understand the absolute effect, but we can be confident we have caused a lot of change (especially over a short time period) we should proably look at ways of moderating that change, on the basis that the [B]consequence[B] of our identified risk is greater that is acceptable to us.

In which case it is hopefully not an argument between 'green fascists' and 'energy squandering terrorists', but a consideration of the likelihood of our changing the place we live in a significant way, and hoping that we will get lucky and doing nothing will be OK.