I read your article, it’s well thought out and clearly states your position. However, I still respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Some comments follow.

> Because, you cannot have absolute confirmation that a catastrophic change is occurring – until it has begun and cannot be stopped.

My position is that this sort of thinking is designed to produce and emotional response, and not a logical conclusion. I still must insist that the burden of proof is on the catastrophist to design a scientific model of future events and demonstrate that you are accurately predicting weather and climate patterns.

It’s been more than 10 years since the Kyoto Accord and no one has yet produced an accurate model of the notorious effects of global warning.

> reduce and eventually eliminate the release of CO2 from fossil fuels

So assuming I agree with you, what is it exactly you’d like me to do to help, and what will you be doing yourself?

It sounds like what you’re suggesting requires us to shut down all cars, transport trucks, ships, and trains. To turn off our gas heating and electricity.

My concern would be — if everyone in North America turns off all these sources of energy — how do we get India, China and Russia to do the same.

Also, how do we address natural sources of CO2 like the new outbreak of mountain pine beetles in British Columbia that will be producing more CO2 than all of Canada’s industries combines?

link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/23/scibeetle123.xml

> By strongly curtailing the release of ozone depleting emissions, the ozone layer has actually healed up in places much faster than was anticipated.

Oh dear, you’re going to hate me again.

The ozone story reminds me of that scene in The Shipping News where the old newspaper man observes dark clouds on the horizon and concocts the headline, “Deadly Storm Threatens Town”. When asked, what if there’s no storm, he replies then tomorrow’s headline will read, “Town Spared By Deadly Storm”.

I’m very skeptical that changing hairspray from spray cans to spritz, and changing Big Mac boxes from styrofoam to cardboard had anything to do with addressing any ozone problems.

I put that right up there with how billions of dollars of investments saved us from the Y2K bug. I lived through that frenzy that we were all going to get skin cancer if corporations like McDonald’s didn’t smarten up. And after a few years it all just kind of … went away. I fully expect in a half dozen years or so global warming will be old news and we’ll be onto the next looming crisis; it’ll be something like running out of clean water, or the rubber we use in car tires is evil or something.

Sorry to be so cynical.

Here’s my offer … model from me what the average temperatures and ocean levels will be over the next ten years. After five years, we’ll see how accurate your model is, and we’ll act accordingly.

In the meantime, let’s please spend all that carbon trading money on curing cancer and cleaning polution that I can see and taste.

Nice chatting with you and stay cool. (Ha, no pun intended.

PS. I’ll try posting this as a comment on your web site too.

In the 10th paragraph or no he states:
“The number of molecules of CO2 gas in just one liter is multiple of Avogadro’s number (which has 23 digits in it).”

The number is actually approximately 6.022*10^23… that is 24 digits in front of the decimal point. I really am not one to nit-pick, but if one of the main arguments is that you are good with numbers, please show that you understand scientific notation if you want me to believe you when talking about extremely complex math.

Respectfully,

Brad

>

I cannot see how reducing the rate of emission of CO2 can reverse the effect we have on the climate. The CO2 level is currently about 380 ppm and rising at an emission rate of about 3ppm per year. A reduction in the rate of emissions from fossil fuels will only slow down the speed at which the level continues to rise.

denisaf

Great job Lucian and keep up with the quality podcasting too!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

And one of my co-workers suggested I check you out.

This editorial episode was tremendous (but not very funny!). I almost wish I could read the feedback that prompted the remarks, tho that might not be kind to the authors. The other complex system being affected by the consumption of fossil fuels is the economy — and in a deeply bittersweet sense there is a limit to what we can burn. It’s possible we will run out of oil within our lifetimes. Highly recommend this article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency/

There’s a lot of head-in the sand behavior going on about so many things. The legacy we’re leave to the next generation is shameful — and I mean our environmental, ecomonic, and political legacy. And more so because we have been *consciously wreckless*. Keep soundling the alarm. Hopefully enough will hear to make a difference. Thanks.