What’s the conclusion of this blog post? Could it be to consume less and consume respsonsibly? Hmm… Looks like that to me!

So, am I being a little SLOW here or is there something really nonsensical about your comment, Tom?

Did you even READ my post? The ENTIRE post? Or are you one of these people who reads the title, scans the first paragraph, then assumes you know what the rest is so jump straight to the comments section to give us all the immense benefit of your vast intellect?

And what is your conclusion? That I have some screws loose!

Sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to read my work and then start talking drivel, it’s not me who looks a fool.

Steve

Andreas, I’m sorry, but I don’t honestly know who your comment is aimed at - me or the commenter above you? I think it might be me. Sorry, if you feel I’m being a wise ass, but did you read the entire post? I’m sure if you had, and you managed to read between the lines, you’ll have gathered exactly what I think about global warming. Even if you didn’t, the article clearly states that we should do everything possible to protect the environment. I honeslty can’t see what more you could possibly want!

Thomas, thanks for that. (Damon, you’d do well to take note!) There’s nothing like a list of respected authorities on a subject to close the debate. Sadly, I doubt that will happen in this instance. But your contributionis very much appreciated.

Paul, just because we ‘might’ not be to blame for a problem doesn’t mean we should do nothing about it if it’s within our power. Natural cycles? Yes. Just like life and death is a natural cycle. But do we embrace one and do all we can to stave off the other? Thanks for adding to the discussion, though. Much appreciated.

Lewie, thanks for adding a comment. Yes, it’s all about consumption, or should I say, over-consumption, isn’t it? If we got that right, so much else would fall into place.

Thanks everyone. I’m sorry for the late reply but the software is supposed to tell me automatically when a new comment has been added - it didn’t, so I never came back to look. Sorry.

Steve

Jeez, this is as scientific as the Moon hoax….
:))

• The “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) The climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) The major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) If CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) A climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by …
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Great facts on the global warming debate. The conclusion that you draw is a valid one. Either way, we’d all be better off if we consumed less.

As always, thanks for something interesting to think about.

I usually try to interact with readers as the comments are added, as many of you will know, but I decided to simply let this post run.

I have another post on Global Warming already planned which will address many of the things I would have said, so I hope no one minds waiting for all my thoughts in one coherent mass instead of a few snippets here and there.

It is good to see so many people are passionate about this issue. But then, there’s a lot to be passionate about.

Steve

I think that the money that you think will be spend on global warming is many times higher if the war on Iraq has cost 720 Billion why should not the earth waste 120 Billion on global warming protection i am sure that
Haliburton has some kind of global warming weapons!
Many people did not know what to do with your story!
Better luck next time!