Since this thread is likely to devolve into a discussion of Global Warming policy, I am going to link to Bjorn Lomborg's TED talk about why we still shouldn't spend a lot of money or effort to fight Global Warming:<p><a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...</a><p>Text version:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus</a><p>I would love to hear any environmentalist's objections to Lomborg's conclusions if you disagree with him.
I'm not much for global warming debates, but I did find this sentence from the article particularly ironic:<p>"If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above."
The article didn't include many of the satellite images that were mentioned. Here is a pdf of the images with some discussion.<p><a href="http://belgingur.is/nmm2008/wp-content/uploads/utdraettir/gorm_nmm2008island_extended-abstract_gormrl.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://belgingur.is/nmm2008/wp-content/uploads/utdraettir/go...</a>
So the Earth is obviously getting warmer, but most people ignore the question of whether humans are entirely to blame or if the larger factor is a natural climate cycle. Certainly when the Bering Land Bridge melted (near the end of the Ice Age), no one was blaming that on carbon emissions. Is all the environmental hoopla really going to make a difference?
I don't want into this debate, but I'd ask the readers to use a little reason and common sense here.<p>Pointing out that things will change over the next hundred years is not very interesting to me -- it's what I would expect. Pointing out that we effect the environment is also a non-starter -- of course we do. Assuming that since we exist and change nature that somehow we must "un-change" it is muddle-headed, in my opinion. It's a religion looking for a science. Since the first microbes colonized the oceans life forms have been changing the climate. It is a natural part of this planet's evolution. There is nothing immoral or unethical about it.<p>Now if we want to have some artistic discussion about what the global thermostat should be set at, let's have it. But let's be honest about what we're doing and not wallow around in dire predictions of global calamity. It seems to me the reason the environmentalists scream so loud is because they have such a thin case.<p>I'm only trying to comment on the type of political discussion we're having. The science may be sound or not. But science is just a prop in this discussion. The real issue is all around the religious feeling that we should feel guilty for existing, consuming, and changing our world to suit us -- basically for becoming an evolved species.
.... until it comes back. Then we'll all be fretting about what to do about "global cooling", and how it's obviously caused by us not doing enough excersize any more which starves the planet of valuable body heat.