An Inconvenient Truth Mark II

[Later]

My last post has been hijacked by some children, so I'm going to start again.

Global warming. Two views:

1. Al Gore: An Inconvenient Truth: humans are causing global warming and we need to reduce our carbon emissions or sea levels will rise between 20-40 feet.  An Inconvenient Truth is available on DVD.  I first saw it on TV, then rented it before buying it online for less than £5.

2.  The Great Global Warming Swindle: increased solar activity is causing the temperature of the earth to rise, which in turn is  causing an increase in carbon emissions (from mostly natural sources especially the sea - which is a great big carbon sink).  I.e. this says that Al Gore has got it the wrong way round - the earth is heating up and this is causing an increase in carbon emissions.  The Great Global Warming Swindle can be downloaded from Google Video.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62022478442170

I think we need to look very suspiciously at an argument that says

humans must reduce their carbon emissions because it is causing

the world to overheat. Now I've had some time to read up on this issue,

I think this is nonsense. The amount produced by humans is a drop in

the ocean compared to other sources. And any increase in the

temperature of the earth attributable to man's activities is nothing

compared to the impact of the sun pumping out a lot more energy than it

has in recent times.

I think there are two sets of arguments here. Separate unrelated arguments.

1. We must consume less and look for alternatives, because (i)

non-renewable resources are going to run out (eventually) and (ii)

we're messing up the planet with all our "stuff".

------- AND --------

2. We need to put our amazing brains to work to deal with the

consequences of something that is beyond our control - global warming -

because these consequences are going to make terrorism and the raft of

other social and economic issues dominating the world look

inconsequential.

I can't see any politician making a case for 2. Especially if he can

blame global warming on human activities and legislate to hell to curb

those activities - they do so like to legislate... You can't legislate against the great fireball in the

sky having more and much bigger solar flares etc etc. Like Don Quixote,

lots of people interested in this subject are tilting at windmills (not

a lot of people knew that Don Q was concerned about global warming :-)  

). We shall feel very deceived if, in 5-20 years time mankind has

thrown enormous resources into reducing carbon emissions, when we

should have thrown enormous resources into dealing with a substantial

rise in sea levels. This will result in the displacement of literally

hundreds of millions of people.  Where are all those people

going to go? What lengths will they have to go to to secure food and

shelter? Many of the big cities of

the world are near the coast and on river.

[cooperlola]

If we tackle no. 1 in your scenario, the chances are we'll help to reverse the human contributions to global warming at the same time (if it exists - I'll leave you to weigh this up properly with more evidence in front of you than that from two mass-market documentaries.)