From Roy Spencer,
"...our worries that global warming is manmade are directly related to how much faith we have that natural climate variations (for instance, a small decrease in low-level cloudiness) are not substantially contributing to our current warmth. Some scientists who believe in manmade global warming have asked me, "But what else could be causing the warmth?" Note that this is arguing, not from the evidence, but from a lack of evidence."

Michael, glad you enjoyed the post -- sorry it's taken me a while to acknowledge your comment.
Phil, sorry, but Dr. Spencer is incorrect.  Scientists are not arguing from lack of evidence that human activities are causing global warming, just because he says they are.  They are arguing from an overwhelming amount of evidence -- changes to the climate and to conditions on the surface of the Earth -- for which the single best explanation is human-caused greenhouse gas production.
Global warming is not about "belief" -- it's not a religion.  It's about facts.

i love the people that thiink global warming is occuring. Just becsue it is warm out in january for a few days doesnt mean that our planet is warming. Its called weather patterns in our atmosphere. Also CO2 is rising in the world because our oceans are releasing huge amounts of it since our planet has been warming for the past 14,000 years (C02 lags 500 years behind that of ocean tempetures.  I do belive that we need to get more efficent in our energy use and also prevent Enviromental issues like deforestation, and polution. But people need to stop this bullshit about C02.

Steve, it's great that you are aware of issues like stopping deforestation and pollution and energy efficiency.


How climate and weather interact, and how climactic changes manifest themselves, are a lot more complex than it being "warm out in January for a few days," as you point out.  


Essentially, there is a lot of immediate noise in the bigger signal.  The current weather, warm or cold, is the noise; the overall warming of the climate is the signal.  In coming years, the signal is going to get stronger and overwhelm the noise.


The "CO2 lags, not leads" point is similarly imprecise -- it's correct to a point, but only to a point.  When we look at the climate record on the scale of thousands of years, there is evidence that temperatures rose after the planet's orbital cycles brought on some surface warming, and that CO2 rises followed.
However, that's much too crude a scale to use to get really useful information for how CO2 and global temperature interact.  If you get into finer grained detail -- into decades and centuries rather than millennia and eons -- CO2 and temperature rose in tandem most of the time.  And by most, the evidence points to nearly all.  


I'd love to see you do some research with an open mind, on the difference between weather and climate for instance.  The blog realclimate.org, for instance, is written by climate scientists actively working on figuring out how the climate is changing.  It can be a dense read, but well worth the effort.


Here's how one of the RealClimate contributors explains the lag/lead issue:

"This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
It's complicated.  That complexity creates a lot of uncertainty about how things are going to change in the future, which can be off-putting; we'd all prefer simple solutions.  But changing climate ain't simple, and that's what we have to deal with.

This blog doesn't exist to debate the reality of global warming, though.  That debate is over.  Here we are discussing what to *do* about global warming.

I think a great added dimension to the energy/global warming issue is the growing idea that addressing these problems can also help solve our economic woes.  Wouldn't it be nice to have a "twofer" . . . .    I have been a sleeping environmentalist since the 70s (as it became unfashionable in the 80s & 90s).  I think even Gore was advised against using it as a main issue of his 2000 campaign.   I am sooooo excited to see another generation get interested and passionate about it, and I hope it is not too late.    "Hot, Flat & Crowded" by Tom Friedman was a very good book . . . but I am sure there are many, many others. 

I am so excited to see this posting and the recognition that the “Kyoto agreement mandates are not ambitious enough to make any real difference to global warming.” 

Would you be interested in contributing to an international, intellectual, solution oriented discussion that will result in papers being submitted to the next round of Kyoto Protocol discussions later this year?

I'd like to invite everyone here to check out a live prototype of a course we're beta testing (but it is a "live" course with actual enrollees and faculty) via the "Penn LPS Commons," a platform that we hope will set new benchmarks at the intersection of online learning and social networking. 

Discuss issues surrounding environmental policy and sustainability with students presenting a report on the subject at the UN's World Civic Forum in Seoul. No enrollment. No fees. The Commons is an open academic environment to exchange ideas with students, faculty and other interested participants. A critical concept to be leveraged via the Commons is to break the paradigm of exclusion and open windows of opportunity in the learning environment to participants beyond students enrolled in a particular course, program, or even university. The word “open” here applies to the concept that there will be open (free) access to the public to view course content such as lectures on YouTube and/or iTunesU, and to participate in faculty and student-led blogs, polls, and community discussion forums. This inaugural offering is a prototype of potential future offerings via the Commons. 

Join the discussion today at: http://pennlpscommons.org/  We look forward to your active participation, feedback, and ideas! 

In Melbourne, we just had three days of 45 degrees Celsius in a row, breaking all records for the past 100 years. The train lines melted (no kidding). Islands in our region are sinking because of rising sea levels, and the local people have become climate refugees. 
Please don't tell me global warming isn't happening. 
The issue seems to be what's causing it, and what humans can do to stabilise the climate. I'm no scientist, but the environmental impact of various human activities throughout the 20th century seems to have something to do with it - these include land intensive activities like mining and deforestation, as well as energy intensive activities like transport, manufacturing and air-conditioning. 
There are lots of complementary strategies that will help us to fix the problem. 

Alternative energy technology is important (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, but NOT nuclear) - fossil fuels (and uranium) won't last forever - we need renewables to ensure long term viability of our way of life (we DON'T need radioactive waste hanging around for countless millenia). This needs long term vision and planning, something our policy makers in government don't seem very good at. 
So-called "clean coal" (where the carbon emissions from burning coal are captured and stored in an underground cave) is a myth. It would be expensive and entirely unproven, and it's many years away from becoming a reality. We already have the technology for carbon capture - it's called a tree. 
Deforestation is responsible for massive carbon emissions - this includes both land-clearing (ie. destruction of the Amazon to graze cows and grow soy for factory farmed livestock), and ALSO conversion of native forest to plantations (replacing biodiverse old-growth forest with a tree farm). The latter problem doesn't get nearly enough attention from the media, but it's an important issue for us here in Australia (especially Tasmania), where wilderness is being annihilated every day, the sad irony being that companies responsible claim "carbon credits" for doing so. Pure greenwash. 
I don't think carbon is the only problem, although it seems to be significant. I've heard it said somewhere that methane has a three times more potent greenhouse effect than carbon - the primary sources of methane seem to be livestock and decomposing vegetation. Reducing our consumption of animal foods would not solve the problem of climate change entirely, but I think it would help. I'm not saying everyone should necessarily become vegan (though it would be a more compassionate world to live in) - just that an occasional day without meat or dairy might make a difference. It might also help to solve world food shortages (it's disgusting much grain is fed to animals, mostly cattle, which could be given to starving human communities). 
Mother nature is pretty tough, and she won't particularly care if humans become extinct because we make the planet uninhabitable. We're already on the way to making it much more uncomfortable for ourselves. 

Methane is a very destructive greenhouse gas.  Still, since human activities produce far more carbon dioxide than they do methane, CO2 is the main human-propelled cause of global warming, and the more obvious target for reduction.

Thank you so much for this great post. It really helped me understand the crucial info behind this important issue.

Those concerned about global warming are still ignoring the elephant in the room, population.  The UN estimates conservatively that the U.S. per capita output of pollutants is 20 metric tons per year.  At the current rate the addition of 300  million more people by the end of this century will add another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually.  Even, if by some technological miracle we were able to cut the rate in half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress on reducing the present unacceptable level.  We, therefore, should begin a concerted campaign to force our representatives in Congress to pass tax and immigration laws designed to stabilize our population.  A first step would be to limit legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year and end chain immigrations that have a multiplier effect on the number admitted.  Adults have their own lives in their own countries and must apply for immigration on their own rather than as a relative of other immigrants or citizens.  Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable and makes the global warming problem exceeding difficult to solve.  The UN should adopt a similar objective for the world and provide the family planning tools necessary to reduce the fertility rate of every country to the replacement level.  No other aid should be provided until that goal is achieved.

In reply to Mr. Johnson, I must say that it is an unfortunate reality that this country is undergoing a continuous process of eroding the rights of its citizens.  The suggestions that we should stabilize population by promoting a program to control the birth rate, and stopping immigration, are policies that are not compatible with living in a free society.  Of what importance is it that the climate get warmer if we lose our freedom!       

yes i read her stuff and it's no more than a speech out of al goofy gores book . her stuff is written just the same as the other gore followers.

This is nothing but propaganda.  I have been reading and commenting on the other globalwarming.change.org blogs, and am very concerned by what I find.  If some crazy wants to form a web site to push their wacko ideas, more power to them.  But when its a government website, I have a right to expect balance.  They use terms like "Global Warming Denier" to belittle the people that disagree with them.   They openly discuss whether to even debate with us, since, as far as they are concerned, the discussion is done.  When cornered by their half-facts they attack you personally.  Then, when you defend yourself, they whine about ill-spiritedness.  I have a right to expect better than this from an official website. 

To those in charge here:
Please provide a more balanced and congenial tone in your blog entries.  This will help promote civility, and might even convert a few who would otherwise be put off by the elitist tones.  Despite your protestations, there are published papers, by plenty of scientist that do not agree with you, that deserve better than your automatic dismissal of their findings.

Who is supporting earth hour 2009 tomorrow night
Toboa Energy Resources LLC
is a proud supporter
www.toboaenergy.com

Gordon, you misunderstand the concepts of freedom, rights, and the history of this country.  The confusion in your use of concepts causes many self-contradictions in your post.  I will try to answer you briefly, but what you really need to do is learn about the concepts that you use so freely, but don’t understand.  If you seriously want to understand the issues you write about it is very important for you to read the writings of the novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand; in particular, I recommend reading her two major novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. 

For a discussion on the level of politics and economics, the place to start is her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.  Two of the most important essays from the book, “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government,” are available on the website: www.aynrand.org/rights

I will make my comments in line with your post below:

-----------------------------------------------------------Henry, your rebuttal is a very eloquent but not entirely convincing.  Does this make you a Libertarian?  [No, I’m an Objectivist].  What is the function of government if not to both protect and infringe on our liberties one way or another as necessary? [It certainly isn’t to infringe on our rights!] How does one assure freedom without government to protect his freedom from those who would infringe upon it? [Correct].  You may indeed have the high ground when it comes to some idealistic definition of freedom which you characterize as objective.  [Don’t you believe that holding to ideals is realistic?]   You say that we have a system of checks and balances to protect our freedom but you complain that the objective and absolute rights protected in the Constitution are being eroded.  How is that possible? [It’s possible because we have free will and the principles stated in the constitution are being willfully disregarded.] Were we sold a bill of goods in the Constitution such that our freedoms are not protected after all?  [No.] Do presidents feel they can ignore the Constitution with impunity just as they choose what laws enforce? [They do, as does congress as we can see happening all through history and continuing today.]    

Perhaps what this means is that there is no absolute, objective measure of freedom.  [No. It does not.  See my references above.]  Perhaps all is relative.  [If you believe that then you believe than all argument comes down to each person’s subjective opinion.  Why discuss anything?]  While I am no fan of big government, I believe it has some limited role in protecting whatever freedoms we think we have. [If it only has some role in protecting our freedom, then freedom cannot last—the role of government is to protect our freedom, not just have some role.] Does that role include the ability of government to enable one man to receive without working for what another man must work for without receiving?  [No.  I agree.  It is not proper for government to do that.] Is that an infringement of the latter’s freedom?  [Yes.] Does that role include the ability of government to allow more immigrants to enter this country thus infringing the freedom of those already here to enjoy the quality of life and standard of living they have become accustomed to? [That is a contradiction.  Immigrants do not take away anyone’s freedom by coming here.  We take away theirs by preventing it.  A human being has a right to be free—his nature requires it.]  

The Declaration of Independence says “…governments are instituted among men to secure the unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  The Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States” …for the purpose of securing “…the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity….”  This seems to give sanction to governments and their functions and to limit the scope of the blessings of liberty to citizens.  [No.  I don’t see how you arrive at that conclusion. What is limited by the constitution is government power.]  This is not only a logical interpretation of the phrase “we the people of the United States” but the implicit recognition that we cannot guarantee the blessings of liberty to anyone else – say for example, the people of Viet Nam or any others who may be unhappy in their homelands. [I agree that we cannot guarantee or be responsible for the lives of people in other countries, but if they want to live in freedom and they arrive on our shores, we cannot deny to them the right to live in freedom.]    

The checks and balances were designed not only protect our freedom but to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  I read that to mean that due regard must be given to the rights and the input of the minority but I don’t believe a tyranny of the minority should be permitted to supplant majority rule.  [No. Of course not.]  The tyranny of the minority be described as fascism or communism.  [Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.]  A minority’s effective use of special interest groups that know how to press the buttons of politicians enables the tyranny of the minority.  [Yes. That is true, and that is what you are doing in the promotion of government action against man-made global warming.]  

What if the majority were to do that?  [That is also tyranny.] To restore freedom, I think that may be necessary.  [How does the majority do that when they do not even understand that freedom isn’t relative--it's about inalienable idividual rights.]   I feel my freedoms have been infringed more by the special interest groups than by the government. [The special interest groups use government to accomplish that.  This is what you are supporting in this cause.]  To the extent government allows itself to be unduly influenced by these groups, majority rule and democracy is thwarted and freedom is infringed.  [Yes. That is all you will accomplish by trying to influence the government actions you espouse. You need to understand the difference between a democracy and a republic, which is what we are.  There is no right for the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority.]  

The immigration lawyers descended on Washington recently to press the case for immigration reform.  Knowing the reputation of lawyers as bottom-feeders, I find it hard to believe that this was an altogether altruistic lobbying effort on their part.  They are already imagining all the income reform can produce for them if they are successful.  [These comments have nothing to do with our discussion.  Please read the above mentioned article: Man’s Rights.]

Gordon, This is my inline response to another of your posts:

[Gordon said,] The rights or freedoms you mention are extremely broad.  The basic concept of each of these rights need not be seriously impaired or denied in order to pursue an acceptable tradeoff.  [There is no tradeoff on individual rights—see references in my prior post.] Where does one person’s freedom impinge or infringe on another’s?  It is rather clear that a criminal’s behavior in the exercise of his fundamental right to his own life always impinges on and infringes the freedom of others in the exercise of theirs.  [There is no right to preserve one’s life at the expense of someone else—this is a contradiction.] So then, we have to back off from some sort of absolute definition of freedom. [Principles are absolute.  That’s why they are principles.  That is why we need them. When they are compromised, they are no longer principles.  See references for full explanation.] The exercise of the fundamental right to one’s own life is okay as long as that exercise does not infringe on the rights of others.  [Correct.]  Now we are getting into deep water.  When infringement does occur, as it inevitably will, it may not be so obvious who is the aggrieved party.  [This is the reason that courts are needed; in order to resolve disputes among people, whether they are rational or otherwise.] Who will then decide that issue and who will decide the punishment?  [The objective laws of a proper republican form of government and courts.  Not a lynch mob and not special interest pressure groups, e.g. global warming supporters of governments infringement of rights.] A Libertarian lynch mob?  [No lynch mobs of any kind.] A judge based on the law?  [Yes.] A jury based on its interpretation of the evidence. [Yes.]  A human rights advocate? [Legal resolutions must be done by the courts.  Everyone else has free speech.] 

[If it only has some role in protecting our freedom, then freedom cannot last—the role of government is to protect our freedom, not just have some role.] “Yes, but that is the current and historical state of affairs, just as you pointed out “…as we can see happening all through history and continuing today.” 

[I agree that we cannot guarantee or be responsible for the lives of people in other countries, but if they want to live in freedom and they arrive on our shores, we cannot deny to them the right to live in freedom.] “They have the right to live in freedom to the extent they can create that kind of environment for themselves.  If they cannot, that does not diminish their right to do so but it may mean that they have not yet earned it or paid the price.”   

Gordon, I cannot further respond to all of the statements in your post since a proper discussion depends on a philosophical understanding of the issues involved. 
Please pursue the references to the works of Ayn Rand for a full philosphical explanation of the underlying principles involved for a discussion of any scientific hypothesis.  

As my last comment on this subject, in your reference to Greenland you said: "Those samples contained bubbles which enabled the scientists to determine how much carbon dioxide there was in the air during past ages.  That evidence tends to indicate that today there is indeed an increase in carbon dioxide at a level that has never been seen in the past."  
If that is true than by your argument the lack of carbon dioxide does not explain the warm temperatures that permitted the Vikings to settle there at the end of the tenth century and call it "Greenland." 

If you would like to contact me for further discussion of the philosophical issues unrelated to global warming you can email to me at solhls@gmail.com.  I think the discussion on this site has gone very far offtrack.       

Henry said,
[There is no right to preserve one’s life at the expense of someone else—this is a contradiction.]
Gordon said,
“I doubt there is one soldier in the world who would agree with you.  This is easy to say if you have never been there and done that.” 

Gordon, you have taken my words out of context.  I was not talking about war, but life in a free society that respects individual rights.  In a free country if you violate a persons rights you forfeit your own claim to those rights.  In a proper war you are fighting to preserve your rights from tyranny. 

This will have to be my last post since we are way off the subject for this site.  You are making many false assumptions about Ayn Rand's philosophy, but if you do not want to read it and understand it by your own independent thinking then there is little point in further discussion. 

The ethanol experiment, whether well intentioned or not, is causing people to die. Using land to grow fuel, that would have been used to grow food, has caused food prices to rise. People that would have only been hungry in the world are now starving to death.
I do not see meddling in the energy economy, versus free market decisions, as a viable solution to a possible fictitious problem.
Or perhaps people dying is the idea. They will not exhale CO2, drive automobiles, use electricity, or eat meat.

emily , can you tell me the temp of the earth 10 million years ago ? how much f the earth was ice ? now another question, since obama took office he has spent 3.4 trillion dollars and he's not done. now with al gore screaming man bear pig and the ridiculas cap and trade tax how much revenue will it bring in annually ?  you want a logical debate , here ya go. also , scientists predicted years ago that the temp of the earth will rise because of the sun and i 50 million years the earth will burn to a crisp. can you accept that ? this global warming is a united nations deal and everyone is benefitting moneywise. green house (so called) gas will continue to rise no matter what you do, there are people on this earth that have to breath and go to the bathroom. oh wait , the demolition man had the 3 shells, i forgot. do you understand that you activists want me to live the way you want and do what you do  and think the way you think. there are plenty of scientists that save that global warming isnt what many of the union of concerned scientists are saying. so who's telling the truth ? 

Steve, I do my best to highlight science news in a way that's both fair and accurate. 
But I cannot force a reader to educate himself or herself on how to distinguish between the credibility and validity of different scientific opinions.  Or how to judge the relevance of different scientific facts and theories to our present day situation.  
That's up to you.
Since you ask directly: The ones who are telling the truth are the ones who acknowledge that global warming is a present danger and a future threat, on a massive scale, to humanity's health, prosperity, and well-being, such that we need to take immediate and effective action to slow it down.
(That doesn't mean that *everyone* who says otherwise is lying.  Some are misinterpreting the data.  Some aren't qualified to interpret the data.  And probably a very, very few have valid observations about the data that differ from other valid observations; their ideas warrant further study.)
That leaves the rest of the people who say global warming isn't a problem.  They are, in fact, lying.)
Things might not play out as badly as some of the science suggests, over the next 25-90 years.  That would be great.  But they might be that bad, by the same token.  They might be worse. 
We just don't know how bad it's going to be.  And that argues for being truly conservative now -- for eliminating our risk-taking behaviors.  
At best we avert the worst-case scenarios about wild weather fluctuations (hot and cold), loss of arable land, coastal flooding that displaces millions and costs billions in damage to infrastructure, wildlife extinctions, etc.
At worst -- well, at worst we've stopped polluting the air.  Dumping toxins into our bodies and into the land and water.  And we're no longer yoking ourselves to energy sources that are limited in quantity; inherently polluting; and profiting a relative few at the expense of many.

So changing how we generate energy and make things now will be a win-win.

thank you emily for an honest reply. yes , we  just dont know !! but you have al gore standing in front of people saying the world is coming to an end. that has got to stop. the man is a hippocrite by all means and purposes. he is a politican !!and a mad one for lossing the presidental election( my opinion) he make your movement look far worse than it it. i do believe because of population growth that some things need to change but not the way al gore and so other poiliticans want to because it now beomes a money maker called taxes. if alternative energy is to become economical and useful it has to be more well thought out than it is. my gosh emily.. 10 to 20 acres of land for solar development !! taking away land for solar energy when in fact the lack of trees to clean the air ! please emily tell me i'm dreaming. obama wants all this alyern energy forced down our throats without thinking the repercussions and al gore is sitting right there filling his head full of the man bear pig syndrome. al gore wants everyone to think he is the world savior !! if things are to work we work together. the united nations themselves are getting involved in making world wide order !! thats total looneissy !! it's like socialism or communism. you do what i want or what i want to do or else.. TAX TAX TAX !! i'm not stupid , crazy or unfair. i live on this earth and i need my room like you. my life is short and i want to be happy too. but the way it's theres a big line between those that do and those that dont.  and by george you step on my toes and i'm gonna give you a kick. it's all out of control and truth in a lot of cases and al gore is the biggest problem !!

Emily,

Does it really serve your purposes to call those that do not believe in AGW, but do believe in GW liers?  It is an automatically inflamitory term.  And, it is not very scientific.  Some scientists were preaching global cooling when I was in high school, and now some are just as convinced that we are responsable for global warming.  This debate is healthy.  To stifle the debate by calling the theories that do do agree with yours lies indicates that you are not interested in the facts.  And instead, you are just caught up in the heat of the moment, and not willing to change your opinion based on silly things like facts.

Emily,

Also, you said: "And probably a very, very few have valid observations about the data that differ from other valid observations; their ideas warrant further study."

The following petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.  I guess by very, very few you meant more than 30 thousand?

-----------------------------
Global warming petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[This petition is a thoroughly discredited piece of hokum.  - Emily]

EMILY , THE EARTH IS GONNA WARM NO MATTER WHAT. IT'S  been happening for millions of years and it's cooled.. thats fact , yea , gore is one goof ball i agree. but he reflects craziness. forcing things down peoples throat over speculation and you even said it.. no one knows for sure . i'm not saying dont stop finding alternative energy. my god , back it the early 70's the earth was running out of oil. you want to be an activist fine, rally the gov to spend money on research rather than throwing money every where else they shouldnt. and no , that petition is not hokum.. it's just as much as real as your petition to shut the plant down so you can stop global warming as the activists claim. see , you believe your scientists but not the ones that go along with your beliefs. right there shows why wars start. you either do it my way or you'll pay for it !! when gov gets in it for taxes and money it's time to speak up. this obama administrations says we'll put people to work.. then they need to shut the heck up and instead of paying back people in pork spending and lobby money. put it where it belongs. this government is so corrupt today it aint funny. you respect me and i respect you.. just dont make me pay for something i dont believe in.

emily , this website says "stop global warming". why dont it say understand global warming ? if you reread your posts and others, it's all about controlling global warming. just a thought .

I often use the phrase "curbing global warming" because yes, unfortunately (and frightingly), there's a certain momentum of warming that can't be stopped, now, due to the amount of carbon dioxide that's built up in the atmosphere and the oceans.
But "stopping global warming" is still the ultimate goal -- stop adding to the problem.  And probably more and more, people are going to looking for biotechnology and geo-engineering solutions to that latent CO2.

This post is several months old, and it's difficult to split my time between this conversation and the more current posts and conversations.  So I'm closing this discussion to further comments.  
Thank you all for participating here.