I'm a researcher, working on renewable energy for a prominent technology development organization. I have to say we missed the boat as far as climate change goes; our present energy infrastructure (and the developing energy infrastructure of China and India) make vast and continuing emissions of CO2 inevitable in the next 50 to 100 years. It is not realistic to assume that any practical approach will allow us to continue the extremely rapid growth of economies in Asia and South Asia while simultaneously reducing emissions. Really, in order for that to occur, China would have to be commissioning one nuclear plant per week, instead of the coal-fired power plants they are currently commissioning on a weekly basis.

It is possible, however, that we can control further heating of the planet by driving dust into the stratosphere. Stratospheric winds travel around the planet at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, and naval artillery shells or rockets could be used to propel payloads of combustible material up into this atmospheric layer. The amount of mass needed is small, relative to the effect produced, since small solid particulates, only a few nanometers or microns across, tend to nucleate the formation of water droplets, which can be much larger than the particles themselves. This cloud of dust and droplets would reflect a measurable and predictable amount of the sun's light. A similar effect was documented after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, though the effect only lasted for about one year. This is a technically-feasible approach, and should be seriously investigated by the US and other industrial nations.

I think MP said that after a bad day at the university. Well, there is some truth to it, but most scientists are capable of changing their views if beaten sufficiently hard with the new evidence; no, I mean after a careful rational look at the new evidence. Those not trained in science should be given some leeway to resist. Maybe two decades. And those decades are up.

Skimming through some of the responses:

Religion is the acceptance of authority beyond any testing.

Or, in other words, religion is based on the assumption that your hypothesis is correct, while science is based on the assumption that it is wrong.

Given that we, the human race, hold the future of the world in our hands (or is it footprint?), which methodology would you rely on?

As far as the economics of climate change and energy scarcity go, it's not the fact that it goes up or down that mattters, but how fast and how much warning there is.

That is why transparency is such an important measure of the health of any economic system. This article implies that the climate change deniers are reducing transparency by hiding the true costs of current energy consumption.

So, the question you need to ask yourselves is this: "What happens to us ten, twenty years down the road if we're wrong?"

Take off! For the Great White North!

See here's a big problem in the entire concept of global warming or global climate change.

for the United, State, Canada, much of Europe, much of China and Russia, there really are very few downsides to global warming.

Things get hotter, that means that vast tracks of the northern landmasses become more pleasant and better suited to agriculture and other forms of development.

Global warming is predominatly a southern hemesphere problem, where there is very little land to move to that isn't already pretty damn hot.

The United States might have some issues with it's south west, but the US has been having problems with the South West for decades, much like New Orleans and coastal florida it is better repuposed than preserved once more dramatic climate realities come upon us.

What people are asking is altruism from the Northern Hemesphere for the Southern Hemesphere, at the cost of further development of the Northern Hemesphere.

If you want people to vote against their own interests you had better find something a lot more persuasive than some soft notion of "global warming" that they can see has very little effect on themselves.

Now peak carbon, you could sell that overnight, people are buying it all ready so why do people insist on focusing on a lousy weak idea to push an agenda instead of a solid and approachable one that will likely acomplish the same thing?

Perhaps because as some conservatives have countered, it has nothing to do with concern over the Southern Hemesphere's survival but instead a moral judgement on the behavior of the Northern Hemeshpere.

I'm not saying that's the case, but one does have to wonder why global warming is the focus of the push and not peak carbon fuels.

Peak Carbon Fuels concerns have been shown to lower Carbon waste output, and spur development of new technologies, without significantly altering people's life styles. So maybe what's really going on is this social engineering idea, the idea that we Northern Hemesphereians are simply evil for our behavior and should put on our ashes and sack cloth.

Could America use it's energy resources better? Of Course it could, and it is, thanks to the power of economics and the limited supply of carbon fuels. What will be funny is when we do run out of oil, when Solar is the driving force for Northern energy consuption, when our lifestyles are not significantly differnt, I wonder what manufactured danger will be railed against to cause further shaming of the North. Perhaps global cooling from converting too much of the Sun's energy into electricity.

I don't recall saying the views of the "extreme' are "based on ignorance". Nor would I make that assumption unless shown otherwise. Valid points don't become invalid just because they're served on a bed of ignorance, and shouldn't be discarded simply because we dislike the messenger. There are certain 'truths' to be found in both 'extreme positions', if we don't allow ourselves to become intellectually lazy. Honest, critical thinking requires we collect as much information as possible before reaching any conclusions. Not simply look for 'facts' that fit easily into the preconcieved assumptions we've already made. The global warming "theory' has conveniently morphed into "fact' , just from the sheer regurgitation of the story by the media. I'm sure someone will pull that last sentence out of this post and make an issue out of it. So be it. I'm not looking for a cutsie red star from the editor, or validation from the online 'community'. Presenting 'science theory' as 'science fact' is just plain junk science and dishonest. I would suggest both sides of this debate have engaged in this practice. The complexities of 'global warming' would leave me to conclude at this time, that there are still 'grey areas' still to be resolved. And until they are, all the 'truths' of the issue still elude us..