reply to post by mc_squared
This whole debate, IMHO, is a total red herring - and always has been.
Whilst we were all yelling about CO2, AGW, and whether a rise of two degrees in 'x' years may or may not lead to Waterworld, what might we have
focused on instead?
* Poisoning of our oceans
* The chopping down of rain forest
* Over-fishing of the seas
* Loss of natural habitats/ paving of the planet
* Emergence of new diseases due to environmental pressures (Ebola)
* Extinction/hunting of hyper-sentient species (gorillas, whales, dolphins)
* Emergence of super-bugs and hybrid-bugs due to intensive agriculture practices (bird flu, swine flu, MRSA etc)
* Poor use of land (eg for so called 'biofuels' rather than food)
* Overuse of pesticides, herbicides and GM techniques
All of these things are far more tangible, more predictable and measureable, less speculative and more easily resolved (apart from population: the
real 'elephant in the room') than trying to counter the 5% man-made component of a benign gas that sustains plant-life. Even if CO2 did affect
planetary warming, how were we ever going to influence the other 95% for which we weren't responsible?
This nonsense about AGW and CO2 has done an immense disservice to environmentalism. Those who perpetrated this nonsense, whether in ignorance or
criminality, joined hands with the despoilers of the planet.
History will judge them.