And I agree with the above, particularly the "only fair conclusion you can draw from Monckton's work is more data is needed" part, which is why it is clear to me that before we rush off and spend billions, we really ought to be scientifically certain of cause and effect here - not just pandering to the crisis of the day to be perceived to be doing something. I don't think that Monckton is correct for the reasons you give; he just makes it very much clearer that we really don't know what the hell is going on here.

Waiting until the facts are in?
 

.
It may not be scientific, but there are rather alarming photographs of many glaciers...

I also noted the observations of Børge Ousland, one of the world’s most experienced Arctic explorers, about very different ocean currents and weather patterns this year. (I was editor of Børge’s website during his recent winter expedition with Mike Horn to the North Pole.)

Then again there is the reported weakening of the Gulf Stream. (I know; some believe that is cyclical...)

Granted, with so many variables there is a need for continued questioning and for greater intellectual honesty than we’re seeing. As a layman, I must admit that I am pretty convinced by the strong international consensus. It is not just the UN Climate Panel.

Global warming may seem to be a misnomer. We’re also talking about hurricane frequencies, changed percipitation, and many other pattern changes in the ecosphere.

Did someone mention frogs and other amphibians? Fascinating, sensitive creatures. I have yet to read a good explanation of why populations are taking a nosedive – and why this seems to be a worldwide phenomenon.


I am not particularly worried about someone "rushing off and spending billions" before the facts are in. Seems to me that far costlier, "better-safe-than-sorry" foreign policy decisions have recently been made on much thinner data bases...

The costliest choice of all may be to "wait until the facts are in". Naturally, if so, it won’t be our generation paying that price...
.

We shouldn't continue with business as usual while more studies are done just because we don't know exactly what's going on. The fact is, we are spending billions of dollars on things that pollute the environment and we do know that the results will not be good, whatever they are. Pandering to absurdly rich businesses like the oil industry is a far bigger problem than "rushing off" to clean up after their mess. What I find really aggravating about all this is that we teach our children to clean up after themselves, but rarely hold rich companies responsible for cleaning up their messes. Exxon for example, has yet to finish cleaning up after the Valdez spill and that was over 17 years ago!

I didn't say that. I said we shouldn't spend billions on the global warming problem until we know what's going on and most particularly, until we know that what we are paying for (all of us will pay in prices or taxes) let's not rush in half-cocked just to be seen to be doing something.

And, therefore, here's where we should rush in, absolutely. Not for some vague objective, but to specifically target known causes of smog, serious changes in environmental chemistry (like estrogen in the lakes), risk to our potable water (from settling ponds, garbage dumps, etc.), endangering wildlife, etc.

It's always easy to say "Pandering to absurdly...." until you consider the screams of anguish with every brownout anywhere, the carping and complaining about gas prices and the taxes on fuels, the infrastructure of a nation built on energy consumption that would crumble (think millions of electrically heated homes - exactly 1/3 as energy-efficient as burning something yourself, half as efficient as heating with a heat pump - provable numbers), and finally, the truly huge number of people who are employed in all aspects of the industries supplying and delivering energy in all its forms.

Scientific American, some years ago, published a study of the "cleaned" areas versus the "yet to be cleaned" areas, in which the authors found that life was returning to the shallow seas and beaches (the littorals involved) that had not been treated substantially faster than to those that had been steam-cleaned and therefore sterilized. Nature took it's course more successfully than Exxon did.

It's simply not an easy problem. We've spent a century spreading out so that we need vehicles to get to work. We've located our factories outside of cities away from where we live. Ditto our shopping centers - also on the fringes. We've grown accustomed to a throw-away life - if the coffee maker craps out, we toss it and buy another: a biennial event. We own boats, seados, ATV's, and skidos and need more powerful cars to drag them around. We subsidized North American highways after WWII to build a self-defense network of interstates and therefore subsidized trucking to the point where shipping by rail is nearly extinct by comparison - which do you think is more efficient? Times Square can be seen from space when all it really needs is street lights. Niagra's Falls are lit up like Christmas trees. Perhaps we should be spending money on mitigating some of those things.

It's easy to say pandering when that's exactly what's happening.
To give billion dollar tax breaks to an industry where individual companies like Exxon make nearly a billion dollars per week in profit is not merely pandering, it's disgraceful. Consider that they weren't ready for the Valdez incident, and as your post demonstrates, they couldn't manage to do a decent clean up after it! That simply letting the sludge sit there was better than their "best efforts" is a testament to their callous disregard for the environment and the other industries (fishing, for one) that depend on that environment.

My feeling is that we should "rush" to take back the billions in tax breaks to the oil companies so that we can spend them on efforts to mitigate the effects, whatever they are, of burning massive quantities of oil.

It is worth pointing out that a hefty proportion of that money is going to be spent anyway - oil is on the way out, and something has to replace it.

I think there is already an economic forcing at work driving energy capture and its use in a different direction - and that direction might as well be renewables. Global warming is just added impetuous.

Responsibility for individual and collective choices
 

This is where I definitely agree with Bramley and NovaScotian. We need to look at the whole picture – both when policy decisions and individual choices are being made.

Things are hardly all black. Very significant progress has been made on many fronts: Fish are swimming in the Thames, Norway is getting far less acid rain from Great Britain and Germany, hybrid cars are polluting but a fraction of vehicles a decade ago, etc etc etc.

The changes in global climate and weather patterns that we are witnessing really are an added impetus. On the other hand, I truly pray that this may inspire more responsible decisions from quarters where such responsibility has been sadly lacking.

And no thanks, I don’t want to purchase ocean-front property in Florida or the Gulf states.

Yes there is, but there is a much larger and very determined economic force pushing back. A billion dollars per week in profits can buy huge amounts of political will and disinformation. The "more study needs to be done" line is just one example that Big Oil has borrowed from the cigarette industry.

Renewables mean that people will get at least some of their energy from solar, wind, or hydro electric sources. Big Oil knows that whatever takes the place of oil will not be nearly as profitable, so they're stalling for time. Individuals are no less guilty, still driving around in big SUVs even while complaining about the price of gas — which will surely be going up now that the elections are over.

What amazes me is that I care about this, yet I have no kids. What the heck, the world will probably last until I die, why should I care? But those of you with kids, what do you want for them?

Since (in my opinion) the world is too greedy and selfish to ever do anything about it, I am hoping for a pandemic that will knock us back into the stone age and give the world a chance to recover.

Can't comment on 'billion dollar tax breaks' because I know nothing about them (Didn't make Canadian news).

I'm reluctant to comment on whether "nearly a billion dollars a week in profit" is sinful or simply successful business since that's clearly a political point of view. Similarly, even if, in your view, it's sinful, it wasn't a sin by Exxon - the government gave the break and you had your chance to change that yesterday.

Your last statement: "... simply letting the sludge sit there ..." does bear comment, CWTnospam. Exxon didn't independently choose how to remediate those beaches - they were directed by the EPA in the face of reasonable arguments to the contrary from environmental scientists. I'm not arguing with the "disaster" label. I'm pointing out that what to do about it wasn't and still isn't clear - the point I've been making about global warming too.

I think I'd argue that the general idea of what to do in both situations is actually fairly clear (if not completely clear perhaps). We know pollutants are changing the enviroment, even though we have no idea what the effect of those changes will be. So perhaps we should slow down the polluting until we know what's going on?

I mean honestly, is it wise to charge ahead with anything that could possibly hurt you, or even kill you. Yet, that's what we do.

Why then are obesity rates in the US climbing so precipitously? Why then do some folks still smoke? Why are so many still eating trans-fats? Why are so many letting their kids play vicious and violent computer games? Why are street drugs still so prevalent? Why then do folks freeze to death on the streets of Chicago? I could go on...

let's not get started on that :) I think that'd split the forum down the middle. I'm on the other side and do not attribute the "rise" in shooting to video games.

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerev...act/myths.html

Because they are idiots? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to prove my point even more?

Why do birds suddenly appear? Why is the night sky black? What do you do with a drunken sailor? Why do threads go off on irrelevant tangents? I won't go on... ;)

Apologies. I'll not go on either. We've established firm positions now. Ciao.

You're forgetting that when Exxon and others wanted to drill in Alaska they promised first that they would take every precaution to prevent such a disaster, and then they promised that they would be ready to handle one if it should somehow occur. It simply does not matter what the EPA did after the accident. Exxon bears all of the blame for the accident, their failure to contain it, and finally for their failure to clean up after it. EPA orders only came about when Exxon tried to leave the mess.

I'm pointing out that what to do about the inappropriately named "Global warming" is clear, even though we don't know the full extent of the consequences if we do nothing.

Sounds good. And by the way, thanks for pointing out the article. I didn't move me to far from where I was, but it was informative, and I do have a few more things to consider now.

Has anyone noticed that the author of the original article's main claim to fame is that he invented a jigsaw puzzle? That and forcibly quarantining all HIV sufferers. Hardly who I'd entrust with the future of the world.

Anyway, I'm muck-raking. Not exactly a fair contribution to the debate.

How about this http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...of-denial.html