[Response: The uncertainty about feedbacks cuts both ways. Negative feedbacks could help bail us out but positive feedbacks could increase the risks to society. Scientists do their best to figure out the range of possible and most likely outcomes (see IPCC) but what we do with that scientific information rests on value judgements. -phiggins]

In the bigger picture, we are in for some serious problems with the 3rd world population explosion and wasting of arable land anyway. How do we actually know that increasing CO2 is not a good thing in the biggger picture?

[Response: This last question is difficult. We know that human civilization developed during a relatively stable period for climate and that our societies, and the biological systems that we depend on, are often highly adapted to existing climate conditions. We also know that relatively small changes in climate in the past have had dramatic consequences on the Earth. So while we aren’t able to quantify the impacts of climate change well, the dice are loaded toward the unpleasant outcomes. Probably not for everyone or when viewed from all perspectives, however. Even if there were an equal probability of good and bad impacts from climate change, the downside risk (what we could lose) may outweigh the upside potential (what we could gain). But this all gets heavily influenced by individual preferences and perspectives. And for virtually all societal choices for dealing with climate change there will be winners and losers. We’ll be having many posts on all of this in the weeks and months ahead. -phiggins]

Thanks,
Harry

Although I am convinced that global warming is a hype, I agree with you that the best no-regrets strategy is indeed full steam ahead with nuclear power, so we’ll get rid of all air pollution. Don’t let the anti-nuclear lobby dominate this energy policy debate, the citizen has a right to the cheapest clean source of electricity.

The only reason we are committed to climate change is because we are brain washed into accepting a commitment to powering society on fossil fuels.

Let’s not kid ourselves; it’s impossible to stop Global Warming if we continue to burn oil, gas and coal. Ending global warming is both fundamentally simple and totally necessary. This is what I argue at my website. www.yeomansplow.com.au and in my book , PRIORITY ONE Together we Beat Global Warming . It’s what I firmly believe. I have made the entire book free to read on line or download. For ending global warming is so critical to us all. Read the book reviews at www.amazon.com

I believe we must decide that ending global warming should be the immediate and urgent mission of all responsible environmental movements and that halting climate change should take precedence over the millions of minor environmental causes currently bandied around.

I maintain it is practical, economical and responsible for Western Societies to switch totally to biofuels for transport. As ending global warming is such an imperative we should do things like plowing up the Amazon Basin to grow sugarcane and oil palms. Do that and we could shut down every oil well on the planet. Is it really that silly? The alternative is to wait until climate change dries a rain forests into a tinderbox, and burns, and all that fabulous timber goes up inflames. Wood is God’s own plastic, so harvest it.

Then we use nuclear energy for industrial power and close down all fossil fuel power stations. People ask: “What about the bogie man of nuclear weapons proliferation?” Well from recent experience, if a rogue nation wants nuclear weapons, it’s very hard to stop them, and still stay “sweet and nice”. So as a policy and to allay proliferation worries we limit nuclear power to the countries that use it right now. That’s Russia, China, Japan, and the European Union, USA, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina and probably a few others. That’s over 60% of the world’s population.
Worried about the tiny quantities of nuclear waste generated? Bury it under a 200 million year old coal seam, or dump it in the world’s deep ocean trenches. And safely forget it forever. The so-called “waste problem” is an anti-nuclear fiction.

Lastly, we can easily sequester the existing atmospheric carbon dioxide overload, into soil. by increasing the humus and organic matter in the world’s agricultural soils To do this we go for organic type food and farming. It’s all detailed in PRIORITY ONE. Do the arithmetic on tree planting, then the insanity of the concept becomes obvious, even just to slow global warming. To prevent additional carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere, each one of us would require a newly planted hectare (two and a half acres) of trees every thirty years - all with a promise never to be harvested for a hundred years. Just maintained!.

Do the above and the global warming problem is solved. And it’s fool proof.

Let’s not pussy foot around any longer. Fiddling with your air conditioner, turning off an extra light bulb and believing Kyoto will achieve anything at all meaningful, simply guarantees that violent hurricanes, terrible droughts and tornados etc, along with all the resulting misery and loss of life will continue. It will inevitably get progressively worse, and for centuries to come.

Think about all this first. Then please, start fighting ingrained ignorance now.

Allan Yeomans

And I’d also like to think the scientists who devote their careers to foster a better understanding of the Earth’s climate. Despite much of the noise, your contributions are appreciated.

[Response: RealClimate is a fabulous resource. They focus on science, however, we’ll cover a broader range of issues that relate to climate policy. -phiggins]

There are too few blogs where we can examine the science as scientists without the deafening thunder of polemics and politics. I make a personal commitment to a science-only discussion on this new blog and ask Mssr’s Wadford, Meisner, Clear and all others to join in this commitment.

[Response: Again, if you’d like to focus on climate science then I’d recommend the IPCC reports or RealClimate.org. We’re going to focus on policy. That still leaves a lot of room to be informative and objective, which I think fits nicely with what you’re saying. -phiggins]

David W. Schnare, Ph.D.

Hmm…discussion based on substance… ok, how about this:

“The time for fossil-fuel-industry-supported misinformation and misdirection is over. Now we need to move toward implementing intelligent policies, advancing approprite technologies, and expanding public understanding of the causes and consequences of global warming.”

[Response: Yes, several are in the works. We’ll be trying to put out a couple a week usually but this week there is likely only going to be one. It will come soon … -phiggins]

Given our long history of “unintended side effects” I’m astonished
that thoughtful adults can recommend drastic interventions with
straight faces absent better understanding of the causative mechanisms
involved.

Regardless of what factors are leading to the observed temperature
trends (warming and cooling) it would seem that substantially reducing
CO2 emissions (for example by replacing coal-fired- with well
engineered nuclear-power plants) would seem wise. On the other hand,
schemes like injecting billions of tonnes of sulfur into the
atmosphere (or the plan to paint Greenland black twenty years ago when
Global Cooling was the panic du jure) seem as imprudent as
precipitously revising our political, economic or diplomatic systems.