Global Warming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yullie

well it's already happen in here... in indonesia jakarta city.. the sea level is up and already flooded in some area... every afternoon and night... it's said because of the global warming... i can see the sea is really up than before since my place is near to the sea :(

---

Are you sure it's from the sea rising and not from the land sinking? I only ask because it is my understanding that there are some islands in the Pacific which, if the kind of rise you are talking about was happening, they would already be underwater. Yet they are not, or were not last time I checked. Some coastal areas can be extremely unstable and slowly sink over time, such as Venice, Italy. Even simple erosion can make it seem as though the sea level is rising when in actuality the land is being washed away. This is especially prevalent around barrier islands. Also, that area is very active geologically: lots of volcanoes and earthquakes, all of which can cause settlement of the land masses.

I'm not disputing your observations, but I should think that rising sea levels of the magnitude you are indicating would be observable worldwide and not just locally. As far as I have been able to find out there is no real evidence of any major increase in sea level. I don't deny the possibility, I just haven't seen any indisputable proof.

a few links i have..

http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2785477.ece


http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWa...RiseIndex.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/eff...tal/index.html :

Quote:

---

Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast, and around the world. In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

The IPCC found significant uncertainty in the analysis of 20th century sea level change. Also, there is little knowledge about the regional pattern of sea level change. IPCC identified a number of recommendations for reducing uncertainties (IPCC, 2001).

EPA, in coordination with other agencies, is leading the development of a federal study titled “Coastal Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise.” The study is one of 21 such studies being conducted by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. The study will include maps and other information useful for community and environmental planning. The prospectus for the report, which will be completed in late 2007, can be found at the CCSP Web site.

Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The IPCC estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.3 and 2.9 feet (0.09 to 0.88 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2001 ).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

---

This is what I was saying. Subsidence is causing more of the rise than actual increases in sea level.

All three of those source you linked to seemed to be saying the same things: future rises in sea level; sea levels may rise; potential increase in sea level. While I do not doubt that global warming is occurring, and that the sea levels may rise, there does not seem to be, as yet, any conclusive evidence that it's occurring yet, at least not to any significant degree.

Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" is a fictionalized account of the politics of environmental terror. I have checked on several of his sources and found his basic premise to be fairly accurate. Environmentalists in particular, and even some governments, are using the potential for environmental catastrophe as a lever to raise the level of fear in the general population. This allows them to siphon more and more funds into their own pockets.

And even conceding that global warming is occurring, which I do believe, there does not seem to be any scientifically valid evidence to determine just how much of it is of natural origin and how much is caused by humanity.

I know I tend to go off at irrelevant tangents in these discussions, but I do wonder just how many subscribers to the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system visit this site, and if they are also members of the Flat Earth Society.

Global warming is as certain a fact as natural evolution is (well, if I'm going to be controversial, why stop at global warming?). Actually, global warming isn't controversial: all the major and respectable scientific academies and institutions agree. It's controversial to deny it - just like denying the holocaust. This summer, the Arctic ice cap was the smallest it's ever been since records began, and the North West Passage was open for the first time; Greenland will soon be able to live up to its name; and Antarctica is sloughing off icebergs as large as countries. All that melted water has to go somewhere, and consequently, Tuvalu faces total submersion as the sea levels rise, despite the fact that that poor nation produces virtually no pollution at all - less than the pollution produced by a small American town.

I also understand that Indonesia is one of the places suffering already from rising sea levels. And so far as land falling into the sea is concerned, land erosion is speeded up by rising sea levels and harsher weather conditions. Weather conditions are changing noticeably – or maybe you hadn’t noticed? Look at Bangladesh, then. That might not be due to global warming, but, hey, who are you fooling if you say it isn’t?

Earth is now 9 degrees warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age, and in 100 years time, it's expected to be us much as 6 degrees warmer still. Unless, of course, someone has evidence to prove those projections wrong. Ther is a long-term trend towards higher temperatures. I don't know whose fault that is: Nature's or mankind's, but it is within our power to influence it.

We must all wake up and smell the coffee ...yuck - it's tainted with salt water! I do detect an "I'm OK, so the rest of the world can f*** itself attitude emanating from the west.” Fortunately, it’s the poorer and least influential countries that will suffer the most, so why worry? Certainly not politicians. (By west, I am don’t mean USA alone, although USA is probably the most blatant, I mean ALL developed countries.). We have a duty to ourselves, and to the whole world to minimise the adverse consequences of global warming – and to take advantage of any beneficial windfalls – maybe English wine will replace Californian. But burying our heads in the sand isn’t a viable option.

We can't shoot the sea as it breaks into our homes and washes away our property and drowns our loved ones, can we? So what are we waiting for? Why aren’t we “shooting” the intruder now before it gets us, by taking serious steps to mitigate the potential damage? We all have an inalienable right to keep our feet dry, and God help the bastards who try to take it away from us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Greenland will soon be able to live up to its name;
Earth is now 9 degrees warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age, and in 100 years time, it's expected to be us much as 6 degrees warmer still. Unless, of course, someone has evidence to prove those projections wrong.

---

Just remember, Greenland was named so about 1000 years ago, when it was green. Was humanity responsible for that bit of warming?

It would be hard to understand if the world today were NOT somewhat warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age. That's why we're not in an ice age now, isn't it? And projections for future temperature increases are just that: projections. They are based on statistical models and the models are constantly changing, being refined, as our data collection improves. The problem is that the ways we collect that data are so much improved within the last 20 - 30 years, with the advent of satellite weather monitoring, that much of the data we are trying to compare it to from prior times is unreliable. How can we know what kind of evolution the Greenland ice sheets have undergone in the last 10,000 years or so? Sure, there's ice core sampling, but that's like looking at an elephant through a microscope and trying to decipher its shape with only a handful of views. Possible? Perhaps, but it's unlikely you'll get it exactly right.

As you noted, it would be foolish in the extreme to deny the existence of global warming, just as it would be foolish to deny that the earth is round. The big question is how much of that warming is caused by man's actions? If it's a lot, then yes, we should be able to have a large impact by reducing our carbon footprint. If it's only a little, than any attempt we make to mitigate it will also be quite minor.

well support by generator pumped the water...(sorry didn't know the english word for that) but if the sea level going up well it's flooded but until now it's safe :) hope it's gonna be like that forever...

as the sea level rises the salinity actually will decrease. think...

also the temp rising will eventually cause a rubberband effect actually snapping back to a another iceage "at a future point" much as in the past cycles. a geological event that is repeated just as the climate is to change.

We may contribute to speeding it up but I seriously doubt we are going to change it or hinder it at this point perhaps a couple decades agao our influence to speed it up would have been possible.. now I think that choice and it's impact is inconsequential.

There's no evidence that the rise in temperature creates a 'rubberband' effect per se. Some believe that the (modest) desalinization of the Arctic Ocean, as it spreads into the North Atlantic, can stall the Gulf Stream and THAT would cause an iceage... but there is no historical evidence that this is what causes iceages... or even that the mini-iceages that have occurred in (relatively) recent times, over the last 1300 years. No one had measured these currents before the last century.

We just don't know. Nor do we know if all this worry will be offset by a huge series of volcanoes throwing ash into the air... and creating a 'shadecloud' that cools the planet... (maybe the cause of the Dark Ages?) and we'll be scrambing to increase the greenhouse gas effect.

It's the world... and the solar system. It's been around for a long long time and we haven't... and don't really know how it all works.

Where's that hole in the ozone? Oh yeah... went away on its own. Turned out to be a cyclic phenomenon... we just jumped to conclusions... because it was the FIRST time we happened to be able to measure it.

Thorne says: Just remember, Greenland was named so about 1000 years ago, when it was green. Was humanity responsible for that bit of warming?

Was that a slip? Greenland got colder after its original discovery.

Anyway, I looked it up and it seems most likely that it was called Greenland by Erik the Red or some other Norse character to make other settlers think it was a pleasant place to live, rather than because it really was green and lush, although it might have been in a very few places in the extreme south: this was during the Mediaeval Warm Period, as I'm sure you are aware. (I didn't know that myself, however, and was just making a play on the country's name to emphasise my own arguments.)

I have already conceded the point regarding whose fault global warming is. I don't necessarily blame mankind for it now. But that's not my argument now.

Wolfscout: It would be utterly selfish and grossly inhumane to sit back and do nothing to avert the worst consequences of global warming if it is within our power to mitigate it. On an individual level we should do all we can to minimise our own effect on the planet - to reduce our carbon footprint as it is quaintly called. And on a global level, we should be taking steps now to protect those at greatest risk by helping build flood defences, reclaiming land and, where necessary, relocating whole communities.

We're not defeatists, are we? I'm sure we can find a way if we want to. See below.

Ozme: Good point about the hole in the ozone layer. The hole fluctuates in size according to the season. In 2006, the hole over Antarctica was the biggest ever due to tropospheric ozone depletion (am I convincing you that I know what I'm talking about?). The stratospheric ozone layer - which does more to protect us from the sun's radiation than it affects global warming - is/was slowly diminishing, by about 4% every decade.

It was thought that the reduction of ozone was due to the emission of CFC's at ground level. I wouldn't dare to suggest who or what was emitting them, or how long for, but as soon as international resolutions to replace CFC's with something not quite as bad (HFC's) were implemented due to the Montreal Protocal (yay Canada!) in 1987 things started getting better, or at least, stopped getting worse.

This demonstrates mankind's ability to influence natural events.

However, the hole over Antarctica is still there and, provided global warming doesn't slow its repair, it will remain until somewhere around 2024, while the hole over the Arctic is likely to be there much longer: possibly until 2075. So make sure you're using factor 40+ sun lotion for quite a while yet.

TYWD

We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun (other than geo-thermal heating, which is not used very much, and the heat humanity itself creates, which is pretty small as well). If the Sun increased its output by only 1%, the Earth would (within the span of several months to a year or two) become completely uninhabitable. Luckily, the Sun is a very stable fusion engine - it's been going for billions of years, and it will continue to go for several billion more. However, all these temperature fluctuations on Earth could be due simply to the Sun changing its output by a fraction of a percent. That does not mean that humans are completely innocent (I'm sure all these greenhouse gasses don't help the situation any), and it doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregortT

We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun (other than geo-thermal heating, which is not used very much, and the heat humanity itself creates, which is pretty small as well). If the Sun increased its output by only 1%, the Earth would (within the span of several months to a year or two) become completely uninhabitable. Luckily, the Sun is a very stable fusion engine - it's been going for billions of years, and it will continue to go for several billion more. However, all these temperature fluctuations on Earth could be due simply to the Sun changing its output by a fraction of a percent. That does not mean that humans are completely innocent (I'm sure all these greenhouse gasses don't help the situation any), and it doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

---

While it is very stable, by comparison to some variable stars, the Sun does have some variability of its own. The sunspot cycle runs 11 years from maximum to maximum, and their is a slight increase in luminosity at the peak of the cycle. The sunspot cycle has been shown to have an effect on global temperatures.

There is also a study here (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html) which indicates that the Sun's radiation has increased by .05% over the last decade. Though they've only been able to monitor it since the advent of satellite technology, there seems to be some evidence that the increase has been occurring over the last century and may be a significant factor in the current global warming scenarios.

Sunspot do go in cycles, but since they're cyclical they are not a cause of global warming (at least not the global warming that we are talking about) because the duration of the cycle is only 11 years, while the warming that is generally discussed is over the course of the last century or so. As was stated above, such global temperature phenomina have occured in the past over several centuries (if not millenia), so you could argue that even an entire century is simply too short a time-scale to tell. Remember: a century may seem like a long time to us, but it's almost negligible compared to the age of the Sun or the Earth. On those scales, an 11 year sunspot cycle is practically the blink of an eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregortT

Sunspot do go in cycles, but since they're cyclical they are not a cause of global warming (at least not the global warming that we are talking about) because the duration of the cycle is only 11 years, while the warming that is generally discussed is over the course of the last century or so. As was stated above, such global temperature phenomina have occured in the past over several centuries (if not millenia), so you could argue that even an entire century is simply too short a time-scale to tell. Remember: a century may seem like a long time to us, but it's almost negligible compared to the age of the Sun or the Earth. On those scales, an 11 year sunspot cycle is practically the blink of an eye.

---

True, the sunspot cycle itself, while contributing to fluctuations in weather, do not directly affect climate, as far as we know. What they are showing at that link is different. I quote:
"The recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared, or the amount of solar energy that falls upon a square meter outside the Earths atmosphere. The trend was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years." (Bold emphasis is mine.)

It's my understanding that these kinds of measurements have only been available for the last 30 years or so, but that IF this kind of trend has been going on for the last century then it very well could be affecting our climate.

This site (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/cycle.html) states that during the period between 1645 to 1715 there was virtually no sunspot activity and the climate here on Earth was "unusually cold."

The point I'm trying to make is that, while there is no question of mankind having SOME influence on global warming, there is so much else happening that it is impossible to truly understand exactly how large an influence that is. The solar cycle is only one of the possible culprits. Tectonic activity within the Earth also plays a major role. Scientists have also recently (within the past 20 years) discovered huge deposits of methane ice buried under the sea bed. Disturbances, such as undersea mudslides and earthquakes, can uncover enormous quantities of this ice which then sublimates, releasing methane gas, a major greenhouse gas. All of these things seem to have a far greater influence on the global climate than anything we can do.

Sure, reducing our "carbon footprint" can reduce greenhouse gases somewhat. How much good it will do is questionable. One thing is practically certain. Any changes we make will be far less effective, and far more expensive, than politicians and conservationists want you to believe.

GregortT says: We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun ... [That] doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

Quite right. My point of view exactly.

Thorne says: Sure, reducing our "carbon footprint" can reduce greenhouse gases somewhat. How much good it will do is questionable. One thing is practically certain. Any changes we make will be far less effective, and far more expensive, than politicians and conservationists want you to believe.

Sounds defeatist to me. We all know that politicians and activitists tell lies, but that shouldn't divert us from what we believe to be a sensible course of action.

TYWD

This should settle the Global Warming question once and for all!

TYWD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Sounds defeatist to me. We all know that politicians and activitists tell lies, but that shouldn't divert us from what we believe to be a sensible course of action.

---

The key word there is, "sensible." In any group of ten people, you are liable to have 12 different ideas of just what "sensible" means. For myself, it's a matter of convenience. If it's easy and cheap, it's sensible. If it's a pain in the ass and expensive, it's crazy.

What the hell, we're all going to be killed by a rogue asteroid anyway. Or by super-volcanoes. Or by plagues from outer space. Or some whacko religious freak is going to "save" our souls by incinerating our flesh in a nuclear holocaust. Defeatist? You bet! I can't do anything about those things. In my opinion, I can't do anything worthwhile about global warming, either.

And like religion, I don't really care if other people believe in global warming and conservation and all that stuff. What pisses me off is those who want to force me to adhere to their rules for making this a better world. Where I live the city pays a "recycling" company to transport trash from "recycling centers" to the dumps. Fine, no problem. But then that company decrees that I must SEPARATE my trash into recyclable and non-recyclable items. Then I must deposit my trash into the appropriate containers. Wait a minute! Isn't that what we're paying them to do, through taxes? It is! So I dump ALL of my trash into one container. Let THEM separate them out if it means that much to them.

It's the same thing with global warming. Al Gore (among many others) tells me I MUST reduce my "carbon footprint" (I hate that term! Makes me want to take a nice, hot bath!) while his own "footprint" grows ever larger. Why should I do what he wants me to do when he isn't even willing to follow his own advice?

It's all a shell game. People will use whatever means possible to try to control other people. Whether it's environmental fanatics, or religious fanatics, or any other kinds of fanatics, they want to keep your attention focused on things which cannot be helped in order to divert your attention from their inability to correct those problems which CAN be helped.

10 people; 12 "sensible" ideas; and at least one loony one - and a conspiracy plot into the bargain.

I certainly don't want to "control" you, even though I do advocate you sorting your rubbish. It must be twice as expensive, and half as effective to sort it out after it's all been mixed up with everyone else's crap. But I'm a liberal, as you know, and I can only point out what I think is the right way forward.

You admit you're a defeatist, so what more is there to say?

In my opinion, the biggest reason for reducing our carbon footprint is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

That it 'kills two birds with one stone' is just gravy.

I prefer to say realist when someone mentions defeatist.
It Tells me their ideas are only ideas or theories being bantered about and not actually in place.
Most liberal ideas don't come into fruitation because for the most part their ideas are expensive and there's no way to fund them.
Many great ideas , aye and most any thing put forth by .gov , take away from personal freedom. Trying to impose their idea of a utopian society that if enacted would be so screwed that it would be no better than what is here now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

In my opinion, the biggest reason for reducing our carbon footprint is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

That it 'kills two birds with one stone' is just gravy.

---

On the other hand, the sooner we use up the fossil fuels, the sooner governments will have to turn to alternative, cleaner energy sources. We can't keep stretching out the oil and coal without seriously considering something else. But don't anyone tell that to the oil companies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

I prefer to say realist when someone mentions defeatist.
It Tells me their ideas are only ideas or theories being bantered about and not actually in place.
Most liberal ideas don't come into fruitation because for the most part their ideas are expensive and there's no way to fund them.
Many great ideas , aye and most any thing put forth by .gov , take away from personal freedom. Trying to impose their idea of a utopian society that if enacted would be so screwed that it would be no better than what is here now.

---

<Thorne bows to a fellow Carolinian.>

The original idea of government was to protect the people and maintain a secure life style. But now it seems that politicians only want to control their people and to use government to promote big business so they can really profit from it when they leave public office.

As for a Utopian society, I can't think of anything more boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

<Thorne bows to a fellow Carolinian.>

The original idea of government was to protect the people and maintain a secure life style. But now it seems that politicians only want to control their people and to use government to promote big business so they can really profit from it when they leave public office.

As for a Utopian society, I can't think of anything more boring.

---

exactly.. any other viewpoint of what governemnt is presently is a very narrowed view that isn't open to the reality that is just waiting to smack them on their collective *ok fine* silly asses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

I prefer to say realist when someone mentions defeatist.
It Tells me their ideas are only ideas or theories being bantered about and not actually in place.
Most liberal ideas don't come into fruitation because for the most part their ideas are expensive and there's no way to fund them.
Many great ideas , aye and most any thing put forth by .gov , take away from personal freedom. Trying to impose their idea of a utopian society that if enacted would be so screwed that it would be no better than what is here now.

---

I'll agree with a lot of that.

A side note as to the cost of some of these 'solutions' is that money (mostly) doesn't grow on trees. It's mined out of the earth and smelted into useful items. Manufactering creates wealth. Manufacturing creates greenhouse gases. So in order to fund solutions, one must realize one is adding to the problem. No one has determined the cost of some of these 'solutions' in terms of the offset to the carbon footprint. It does no good to reduce greenhouse gases on one front if it increases them on another. One needs to understand the "balance sheet" of gains and losses.

It goes to my issue with all electric cars. You offset clean(er) burning hydrocarbons with electricity produced by coal burning plants.

Another example. Aluminum is not the great 'green' metal everyone presumes it to be. Aluminum requires huge huge amounts of electricity to smelt the ore into useful metal. Yep, all that nice recyclable aluminum creates a huge carbon footprint. We don't recycle aluminum out of altruism or a love of the earth... we do it so we can have aluminum, light, strong, non-oxidizing. Without recycling the cost of making it in the first place would be prohibitive.

It happens to cost less to smelt new iron than to recycle and resmelt old iron/steel. So the carbon footprint of new iron is less than that of recycled iron. Each item has to be measured independently. An all inclusive recycling mandate could make things worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

On the other hand, the sooner we use up the fossil fuels, the sooner governments will have to turn to alternative, cleaner energy sources. We can't keep stretching out the oil and coal without seriously considering something else. But don't anyone tell that to the oil companies!

---

I would hate to see us follow that policy. Once we have eliminated the need for using fossil hydrocarbons as fuel, it can all go to other uses. Plastics and dyes and petrochemicals, medicines, shelters, and clothing.

The oil companies won't suffer. They'll become more efficient. Did you know for all the money they make, it's all in volume. Their profit margins are a low single digit percentage. Any other major corporate would be crucified in the market for single digit profit margins. Get them out of the fuel business and get them focused on the other uses for hydrocarbons and the profit margins and overall profits will likely go up...

Wolf,

"Reason: "so.cial.ist" is a word not allowed?"

No, "so- c.i.a.l.i.s. -t" is the word not allowed. LMAO.
Neither is "so- v.i.a.g.r.a. -t" but I've never seen anyone spell it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I would hate to see us follow that policy. Once we have eliminated the need for using fossil hydrocarbons as fuel, it can all go to other uses. Plastics and dyes and petrochemicals, medicines, shelters, and clothing.

The oil companies won't suffer. They'll become more efficient. Did you know for all the money they make, it's all in volume. Their profit margins are a low single digit percentage. Any other major corporate would be crucified in the market for single digit profit margins. Get them out of the fuel business and get them focused on the other uses for hydrocarbons and the profit margins and overall profits will likely go up...

---

I would hate to follow that policy myself. My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek for that one. (I can think of better places to plant it, for sure.)

True, the oil company profits are a low percentage of their costs. But they have consistently fought against conversion to other methods of producing energy. It's only relatively recently that they, like the tobacco companies, are starting to expand their interests, mostly to offset the loss of profits from their mainstay products.

so******t.



Edit ok i posted "so.cial.ist" again take out the " . . " from it and that word is not allowed. stupid programing like it doesn't exist.

here it is again look
so******tso·cial·ist [sṓshəlist]
or So·cial·ist [sṓshəlist]
n (plural so·cial·ists) (plural So·cial·ists)
believer in so******m: somebody who believes in and supports so******m or a so******t party

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Lmao

Communism

well hell it likes communism
LMAO again

I had dinner with a environmental journalist a few weeks ago who explained it all to me.

1) We're heading out of an ice-age. It should get warmer no matter what. It has to do with our distance from the sun.
2) We're taking fossil fuels that have been locked up into the ground and releasing them. This is an unnatural state which will increase global warming more than it would otherwise.
3) The release of volcanoes isn't that big of a deal since it's always been like this.

We don't know how much of the global warming is our fault. All we know is that we're adding to global warming, but not how much. With or without our help coast line property is not a good long time investment. No matter what we'll do we will not be able to stabilize the temperature. It's supposed to get warmer.

The latest IPCC report managed to show that our impact was greater than what was previous thought. But it's not all our fault, and above all we're still mostly just guessing.

He said more stuff that for some reason I can't remember. But it was a very enlightening conversation, putting things very much in perspective for me.

Never forget that newspapers sell news. Scientific reports that aren't alarming will either not get coverage or angled in a way to make it worse than they are.

edit: there's also the issue of that we cannot cut down our emissions to zero impact. We can't even get close to denting the rate we burn without severely damaging our economy. It's not doable. It's easy to sit here in the west and have opinions on what poor people in the developing world should do when they're on the brink of starvation. Whether we eat more local produce won't really help much at all.

In my humble opinion we should put our money into research. It's worked in the past for all kinds of problems.

Right now money is being moved from research into all kinds of stupid ass environmental projects which don't do anything except alleviate peoples guilty conscience. That I think is cause for alarm.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) That's an assumption for which there is no real proof. Some think the European Dark Ages were called that because it was 'dark' from large amounts of ash in the sky creating shorter growing seasons, a harder life with less leisure time, and no time to do science... until the 'renaissance.'

I agree with most of the rest of your comments.