There is strong scientific evidence that continued CO2-emissions at current levels -or even increased emissions- might harm global climate.

In my opinion the discussion has been far too narrow-minded.

We are talking about depletion of resources with applications that might be crucial for future technology.

We are talking about introducing large amounts of a biologically active substance into an evolutionary balanced system of co-existing species that took thousands to millions of years to develop.

Apart from climatological concerns, I see many compelling reasons to reduce the use of fossil fuels ASAP!

Already now we can see that carbon-technology has an enormous potential as future building material. Houses, offices, roads, bridges, cars, trains, planes etc etc. can be manufactured from carbon-based technology. Such building materials could easily become several orders of magnitude stronger and lighter than currently used materials. Just think what this could mean for areas with high probability of severe earthquakes!

But if we are to base our future infrastructure on carbon-technology, we better make sure we have sufficiently large reserves of cheap coal.

Our current use of coal is irresponsible and short-sighted.

Another argument is food-production. If we are to limit the detrimental effects of life-stock on our global climate, we better find new ways to produce proteins. Oil and maybe also gas could be used by bacteria or algea to do exactly this job!

Burning such resources is madness!

We often hear the argument that increased CO2-levels are good for argiculture.

Yes, but those increased levels are equally good for virusses, bacteria, algea, insects etc.

We risk giving evolution a vitamine shot that will harm us in the worst possible way. Just think of all the new pandemics that can break out. By raising CO2-levels, you raise biological activity, so you raise the rate of mutations. This is seriously bad news!

Another point is, that climate science is still in its infancy. We just don’t know enough to be 100% sure what the result will be of any given change.

We might need to emit huge amounts of CO2 or soot in the atmosfere one day in the future to stabilize global climate. If we burn up most of it now, we deprive future generations of access to a resource that might be very hard to replace.

I really do hope that Copenhagen will be a break-through, but I doubt it. Humanity has never shown signs of foresight, unless confronted with an immediate crisis.

I am very happy not to have produced children. I foresee that current stupidity will have serious negative effects for future generations.

In spite of this however I remain skeptical on the climate change issue. Changes in the weather don’t necessarily mean changes in the climate . . . . . . . . .

My skepticism can be divided into two separate “skepticisms” as follows:

1.Skepticism that the current warming trend is outside of the normal range of climate variation.

2.Skepticism that anything we will do can effect a change in the current warming trend.

Let me take a minute or two with each of these:

1.Skepticism that the current warming trend is outside of the normal range of climate variation.

Statistics gathered in the last few decades are questionable as to their validity in assessing or predicting a system as complex and large as the earth’s climate. I studied meteorology at university in the 70’s. Back then the climate was irreversibly cooling and life as we knew it was threatened. The evidence was presented in peer-reviewed journals so we believed it. It was caused by particulate pollution by the way. Today the evidence is pointing the other way, and the culprits are greenhouse gases. I personally think the earth may simply be “breathing in and breathing out” and we are trying to “forecast its career” from the study of a single breath. Certainly if you delve a little more deeply into the scientific literature you will find the scientific consensus claimed by people like Al Gore simply does not exist. And the skeptics are not on the lunatic fringe of the issue either. In fact it is fair and true to say that many if not most in the top echelons of environmental scientists have severe reservations about the report if the IPCC.

2.Skepticism that anything we will do can effect a change in the current warming trend.

This is where the politics and economics come in.  One problem with a democracy – any democracy – is that the government sits for a specified maximum period of time.  In the USA, for example, it is 4 years; in Canada and the UK the maximum term is 5 years.  As a result it is a courageous government indeed that embarks on a course that might have detrimental effect on its citizenry if the course in question is likely to see negative impacts within its term of office.  The problem with climate change – even if is a fact, and even if it can be influenced by either our technology, or by changes in our behavior as a species – is that it is the ultimate long-term challenge.  Even if it is a fact, and even if we did do it, it took centuries. With all the will in the world (and we do not have all the will in the world) even the experts agree that significant climate change improvements will only come by making huge changes to our behavior, economy, standards of living and lifestyles for a very long time – fifty years at least. Any government that really takes on the challenge will not only jeopardize it’s own longevity, but will condemn whole generations of its citizens to a substantial decline in the quality of their lives compared to that of their parents and grandparents.

Added to that we have what I call the “you go first” problem. The climate problem is international in scope and can only be tackled on an international basis. No single economy – not even the “mega-economies” of the USA, the EU, and China, can either afford, or hope to achieve any change, by going it alone. Certainly the governments of the west will not voluntarily agree to tackle the issue if it puts them in a disadvantageous position economically. Meanwhile the economies that are in the ascendancy – south-east Asia, China, and India for example, can legitimately blame the “west” for the current state of affairs, and will not voluntarily slow down their own growth to rectify a problem they did not create – especially if they have suspicions that the “cure” will serve to prolong the dominance of the western economies on world affairs, and continue to subjugate their own citizens to a subservient lifestyle compared to that of the west.

So – where does all this leave us? On the one hand there is skepticism of the fact of climate change, and on the other, skepticism that even if there is climate change we can do anything to reverse it. Though not a solution, a partial answer to the dilemma may be in the decisions we make about resource allocation. If you buy the argument that there is little we can do on a global scale to combat climate change itself, then we must reduce our commitments, monetary, human resource and research, to “flogging this horse.” Where we should be making resource commitments is to the development of technology, defenses and strategies that will allow us to survive any changes that may be coming. If global warming is a reality, for example, then sea levels are inevitably going to rise. Maybe the Thames Barrier and London’s embankments need to be raised, and we should certainly do something for the Netherlands and New York City (which has an average elevation above sea level of only 33 feet.)  Pardon the pun, but New Orleans is in deep trouble.

Maybe we should be relocating development and settlements, or reinforcing the flood defenses in the low-lying areas. Maybe we should be researching the support that will be required in our hospitals to handle conditions associated with a warmer climate than that to which we are accustomed. Maybe we should be examining our agriculture – crops and practices – to see where we can take advantage of the changes.

If I’m right that the climate changes are not anthropogenic then the course of action above is obviously the way to go. If I’m wrong – and we did cause this debacle – what are the chances that we can get a real global consensus on a solution? I mean – really? We need to adapt to the coming changes in either case.

The bottom line is that the sky is not falling. I have ultimate faith in the ingenuity of the human race to tackle any problems thrown at it. Mammals survived the extinctions that destroyed the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. We are their descendants and have the same genetic resilience. We survived the ice ages of the Pleistocene (where the climate changes were far greater than even the most pessimistic climatologists postulate for our future). We can and will survive the changes that are coming – whatever they may be.