What is an undisputed fact is that the earth is currently in an ice age, at the moment in an interglacial period. Another glacial period, if on a par with the last one (where the 200m thick ice sheet reached as far south as Manhattan and London) would be orders of magnitude more catastrophic for humanity than would global warming. I know what I would prefer to deal with!
Another undisputed fact is that for 90% of the time that there has been life on earth there has been NO ICE at the poles - this is the natural state of the planet; the current ice age was triggered by the South American plate colliding with the North American plate. This closed the 'gap' and disrupted the equatorial ocean current, gave rise to the Gulf Stream and led to the build up of ice at the poles.

Whilst I believe that global warming is a problem for us, we should never think for one minute that the earths climate is a static system that should forever be preserved (If such a thing were possible) in it's current state just because it suits Western civilisation. The current climate patterns are in fact one of the reasons why Western civilisation developed in the way that it did and other civilisations did not. (Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for further enlightenment.)
The recent changes in climate due to glaciation led directly to evolutionary advances in humans. Who is to say that future climatic changes will not lead to homo sapiens evolving yet again?
Who can say whether global warming may not open up currently uninhabitable areas of the world to settlement - at the expense of some of our most prime real estate? I think it's all about the West wanting to preserve it's comfortable way of life and screw the rest of the world.

If you don't believe in the Theory of Gravity, do you float away?

I used to be a skeptic of "Global Climate Change", and to a small degree I still am. Skepticism is totally healthy, so long as the skeptic does not become entrenched with waht they were originally skeptic about, if so they simply become a believer in another point of view, and therefore are no longer skeptic.

The reason for my skepticism is really simple, we really have no idea of what our planet (and sun) is doing (and will do) all on its own, without any human involvment, therefore we dont have an accurate idea of what harm humans are doing to the planet in real terms, or as a long-term cause. What we do know should be put into perspective with what we dont know. We do know what humans are doing to the planet on a day to day basis, and we have a fairly good idea of what the effects will be. But what we dont know is what the planet is doing to iteslf (in terms of harm as we see it), and we dont know what the planet is capable of doing by means of repairing the hard done by iteself and by humans, therefore there is still a great deal that we simply do not know.

So on this point I would suggest that people be skeptical about everything that we do not know, and open minded about what we do know in relation to damage that is being done, and ways that damage can be avoided, and even mended.

I would certainly not say that humans are doing no harm, that is obviously not true, we are doing a great deal of harm to the lump of rock we live on regardless of any natural phenomenon beyond our control. Unlike the natural phenomenon, we can take action to reduce (ideally stop) the damage we are causing, and many of us (any many nations) are doing so (with varying degrees of success).

I will agree with a single point that many hardcore (not the healthy variety) of "Global Climate Change" skeptics say, that people will not discuss anything else. They are right, there are 2 huge points that people will not discuss in public.

1, The population of Humans on this planet is still growing at a remarkable rate, the more people there are the more resources will be used (I dont just mean fosil fuels, food, water and building materials can and often do make a huge impact on our shared world environment).

2, The poorer masses that live on our planet are becomming less poor, and as they do so, they will use more resources than they did (fosil fuels, mining and manufacturing are the major problem areas for this point as a populous becomes richer, these become more obtainable, and then a commodity practice).

Multiply problem 1 with problem 2, and you understand why many people are getting annoyed that "Global Climate Change" is the only thing being discussed, not the prior, current, and future causes of it. We are only currently looking to treat the symptoms, and not the cause itself, this is a very foolish mistake and this point annoys many people (including me), therefore it is not just the Skptical crowd that thinks that the wool is being pulled over their eyes.

If people dont start to discuss the cause vs relieving the sysmptoms then more people will become skeptics, and all of the good work that is being doe currently (to relieve the symptoms) could slow down due to a backlash from the masses. This is something that no-one wants to see happen.

My question is when is the discussion going to take place about the 2 huge problems that wont just overshaddow the work to relieve the symptoms, but will make it look insignificant in the next two decades, if not even sooner.

As you can see from the graph below, comparing the current champion of CO2 emmisions (the USA), to the future champion (China), by looking at the emmisions per capita, it does not take a genius to work out the problem involving those 2 points I made. Specifically note that the emmisions produced in China (per capita) increased by 60% (sixty percent) in just 4 years from 2002 to 2006, if that carrys on at that rate it would equal the USA's per capita output in just 12-years, although that is unlikely to happen it is a very worrying trend that few people are even willing to discuss.

It is nice to see the UK's graph as well, a steady decline since 1979, but not nearly enough, France have a lower rate still, and is dropping faster.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... HN:USA:GBR

Just thought I would spell out the problem as I see it for points 1 and 2 unless someone missed it.

People are the cause for all of the people caused damage to our planet, that is obvious. Point 1, is specifically about the quantity of people, and regardless of how rich they are, they are still causing harm to our planet, the more people the more harm. Point 2 is essentially industrialisation, we all know what that caused, as it is heavily documented and often reffered to by people who constantly talk about CO2 as though it was the only subject.

The problem that people seem to have is in discussing these issues openly.

The problem with point 2 is that no-one wants to stop someone else having what we already have, that would be unfair, probably why the people who talk about CO2 always point to the industrial revolution up until now, that is a fair statement, and no-one would say to the people of (choose a poor country) you cant have what we have because it will create loads of CO2, and we want to create less.

Which brings me to point 1, no-one wants to say to the people of (choose a poor country), stop breeding, you are wearing out our planet, it can only sustain xxx number of humans before we utterly destroy it.

Lets discuss this in a sensible manner.


Andy