Roger wrote:<br><br>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> You have presented a lot of information as to the potential problem. What are your solutions.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>To be blunt, I don't realistically think humanity will adopt solutions quickly enough to stop catastrophic global warming. As Eugene Linden wrote on global warming, it is a "libertarian nightmare" given the solutions that appear necessary to substantively address the problem: taxes, government regulation of industry, strict international treaties, major alterations in energy intensive lifestyles, etc. Your view on this issue is a very common one, and good evidence to support the claim that human induced global warming will not be aggressively addressed till it is too late. Then the measures that will be necessary to mitigate even more severe global warming will make the controls now suggested to solve the problem seem mild. In short, we either make substantive changes now to address global warming, changes that are not going to make everyone happy or be possible with a totally "free market" approach, or draconian measures will eventually be enforced.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have posted over and over no doubt to the annoyance of some what solutions are required to address global warming, and the compelling scientific evidence human contributions are the primary cause. You can read these posts if you wish, given at this time I don't feel like repeating myself.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There were public talks and speeches given in Moscow in recent months on the topic of global warming, so perhaps someone who attended these events can post about the solutions that were discussed. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>From Eugene Linden's web site:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.eugenelinden.com/news1085.html">http://www.eugenelinden.com/news1085.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the scientists have sorted it out, and they've done so despite being natural contrarians. That's why the consensus that humans are affecting climate is so extraordinary. If the public realized the breadth and depth of this consensus, climate change would get the consideration it deserves.
</div>
<div>
<p>
<p>The naysayers know this, and they jump on any report that underscores the rare scientific unanimity on the issue. Naomi Oreskes of the University of San Diego felt this heat when she published a study in Science. Her simple thought was that if rank and file scientists did not share the consensus of the leaders of major scientific organizations, dissents would have shown up in the peer-reviewed literature. Critics castigated her on the internet, on television and on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, but there has been no credible challenge to what she actually said in her article. Just recently, the sports psychologist who's unpublished study was the basis for the naysayer attack on Oreskes, backed off from his assertions.
</p></p></div>
<div>--------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div><br> </div>