If a meteor is headed for your planet, I think it's okay to raise some alarm bells. Don't you?
No - this is where I completely disagree. History is rife with well-intentioned, but mis-informed and mis-guided actions based on FALSE ALARMS which resulted in the introduction of disastrous policies. A good example of this is the 'push' for increased use of BioFuels. It is becoming very clear (and you can get a nice journalistic overview from a recent April edition of Time magazine) of the unintended consequences of this total environmental disaster. Nothing has done more for the acceleration of the destruction of the rainforests than this initiative. Additionally it is a contributing factor to the increasing levels of hunger - not surpising when we start burning our food for energy. My own company is specifically mentioned in the Time piece as having pushed biofuels to be fashionably envronmentally friendly. I took my CEO to task on this very issue last December asking him to think very carefully about our direction - the unintended consequences of which might increase world hunger levels. He told me "the debate was over and it was time for action". Action which is now seen to be casuing an environmental catastrophe and, as Time quotes, is helping to cause an estimated doubling of world hunger by 2020 - an aditional 800 million people !!! Well done him ! All helped along by well intentioned people like yourself ringing nonsensical alarm bells.
Another example is the treatment of the chemical DDT which well meaning environmentalists had banned with the resultant effect that Malaria continues to thrive in Africa. Up to 3 million people a year die from this - WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THOSE WHO HAVE CAUSED THIS TRAGEDY ? People who thought they were doing the right thing but who have caused untold himan suffering.
If I sound angry it is because I am - I live in the third world and see the unintended consequences of people like yourself pushing the AGW alarm bell based on bad science and appalling politics. I am ashamed that my own company that pushes policies that may be partially responsbile for increase world hunger - all to suit currently fashionable but totally misguided environmental views.
Nigel Lawson is right - the real danger is not CO2, but the would-be saviours of the planet whio are, in practice, the enemies of poverty reduction in the developing world.
