Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?

Note that I am expressing mainly opinion. Some of the facts are uncertain at this time. The evidence for this seems pretty strong. I think the evidence is strong here to, although I am a little less certain of that. This also seems to be true. I don't think there is any doubt about this, although I expect that non-industrial human actions (clearing forests) have also played a small role. This is where it gets a lot less certain.We often hear that Venus is hot due to a runaway greenhouse effect, and that Mars is cold because of the lack of greenhouse gasses. No doubt I am quite naive about this, and ignorant of much of atmospheric science, but it has always seemed to me that Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun, and Mars is cold because it is farther from the sun.I remain uncertain of arguments about greenhouse gasses. But this really doesn't matter. The impact of human activity on the ecosystem is enormous, and it would be remarkable if it did not have seriously deleterious effects. We see many impacts that we know are human caused. We need to change our behavior, and perhaps find ways to cut the growth in human population size. And we need to start now. Apparently some of the climate models do predict that global warming will quickly lead to a new ice age.

Thanks, Chiroptera, for your clarifications. It is much appreciated.My main point remains, and I presume you agree. Namely, even without settling all of the disputed issues, it is clear that the human population is placing a lot of stress on the ecosystem. We should be acting on that now.

If you think that is what I am saying, then you have misunderstood me. Sure. I laugh at the antics PETA too. And if crab grass should go extinct, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over that. But I do think we should be concerned at the possibility that the next round of mass extinctions will include home sapiens among its victims. I don't think I have used the terms "wrong" or "incorrect" here. The fact is, that nature is a complex system of delicate balances. If we push too hard, we risk some major systems going out of balance. And the results could turn out to be disadvantageous to our own species. That's like saying that we shouldn't have done anything about hurricane Katrina because we didn't know exactly how it would work out.The fact is, that we do see troubling changes. Global warming is one of them. The decline of fisheries is another. We are talking about stable systems going out of balance. It is very difficult to predict the consequences. We might have to wait until it happens before we can have a clear idea as to what those consequences will be. By the time we can document specific problems, it may be far too late to do anything, except perhaps distribute cyanide pills.

One part that is not balanced is the human population. It is still growing without control. I don't think I called our climate balanced. Sure, I agree with that. I wasn't intending that as a comment on the bungling by FEMA. Rather, it was a comment that, in order to protect New Orleans, the construction of better levees and flood walls should have begun 30 years ago. You are misreading me. I am not saying that we should panic. I am saying that we see changes that should give us concern. I did not say that these were signs of apocalyptic changes. I regret that you don't find them troubling. The fisheries have been part of our food supply, and for some nations they are an important part of the food supply. What is happening in the fisheries should be of considerable concern. You are being irrational on this. There was no hysteria on my part. My comment on cyanide pills was obviously being used as a rhetorical device. That you took it otherwise is a reflection on your own state of mind. And one presumes that the more realistic approach, 30 years ago, was to not start building better levees and flood walls, but to investigate the likelihood of cat 4 and cat 5 hurricanes threatening New Orleans.I'm not one of the crazy people who says we should rush out and change everything overnight. What I am saying, is that we must make a start. We should be doing far more than we are in the way of research into renewable energy sources.If I had been emperor (or whatever), then several years ago I would have imposed a 25c per gallon tax on oil products. And the tax would go up by 25c per year. The income from the tax would be used to reduce the payroll tax (social security tax), to minimize the effects of the gasoline price impact on the poorer workers. The purpose of this would have been to create a clear system of incentives that would encourage private industries to do research into renewable energy.I am not emperor (and wouldn't want to be). But I really do think we would have been better off if some such plan had been followed.