@SeventhSense Correlation, yes, but not necessarily causation. Because millions of years before industrialization—and several times—temperatures rose, followed by rising levels of CO2. The mechanism isn’t understood, but the sequence was clear. Even in those cases it’s not established that higher temperature somehow “caused” higher CO2 levels, only that the higher gas levels followed the higher temperatures.
Maybe this cycle is different. Perhaps this time mankind is causing the higher temperatures. It’s not yet certain. What is absolutely certain is that attempting to reverse this by somehow reversing our economies is going to starve a lot of people. And may not be effective in any case.
On the other hand, are higher average global temperatures (in the fairly narrow range that serious scientists are discussing) really a catastrophe? Let’s stipulate that the polar ice caps and Greenland’s ice cover all melt and sea levels do rise to flood coastal flood plains. It’s not like that’ll happen with tsunami-like speed; people will have a chance to decide to relocate—and they’ll do that.
I read an article a couple of years ago that put some of the “warming” talk into perspective. There was a study of the massive and catastrophic heat wave that hit all of Europe in 2005, killing about 5000 people across the continent. That is a catastrophe, I will admit.
The study went on to demonstrate that in an average winter (and the range of winters studied was a pretty wide one, several decades at least) approximately 50,000 people in Great Britain (only GB) die as a direct result of cold weather and winter storms. Isn’t that also a catastrophe? It’s ‘normal’, so no one makes much of an issue of it, but wouldn’t it be nice to reduce that figure by an order of magnitude… compounded across the whole Northern Hemisphere?
I don’t claim to have any of the answers, but I have a lot more questions than are being adequately, sensibly or quietly explained by everyone on the bandwagon beating the drums.