TED Conversations

Cheyenne Archuleta

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Curbing global warming or adapting to it?

It pains me to hear that some people have given up on their efforts to curb global warming. They are now up to save humans once again by adapting to the changes brought about by our own doing.

Should we curb to save mother earth and moderate our way of living? Or adapt and focus more on the human race than mother earth?

+2
Share:
progress indicator
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Jun 20 2013: Between the two

    Curbing is beneficial , permanent and affects all living and non living.
  • thumb
    Jun 16 2013: I see curbing is the ideal solution and without any doubt, cause have you ever heard of some adapted to live with cancer, I guess not! Global warming is the malignant tumor of mother nature and earth, as a result we should look and search for the cure and to limit the effects.
    We should stand and think seriously cause if we destroyed our home planet mars would not be happy to welcome us.
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: i like your metaphor :)) really. thank you for sharing. and plus, i agree with your statement. i am for curbing.
  • Jun 22 2013: We need to curb and adapt, but we are doing neither. Hurricane Sandy should have been a wake-up call, but nothing has happen. We need to seriously consider geo-engineering, a bad idea whose time has come.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2013: We should curb and moderate our way of living.

    Just making an attempt to adapt leaves us, and other species, vulnerable to change which we cannot adapt to.
  • Jun 21 2013: I suggest we go with local adaptations to weather-pattern changes. I have followed the coming ice age/global warming arguments since the 1960s. The big-picture climate fluctuations and changes have been too complex for people to agree on national or global issues and solutions, for fifty years now. We can, however, quite quickly agree, locally, on whether a certain part of town needs higher dikes along the riverbank; or storm-water runoff should be collected or distributed differently instead of aiming it like a water cannon at the properties in the valley. We can also readily agree on the need to conserve local water and increase community reservoir storage capacity. Let's do what we can at home and in our communities, one step at a time, to deal with potential weather issues. Our local successes, like any pilot project, can then be adapted to regional, national, and global projects; and, our small failures will not break the world economy.
    • thumb
      Jun 21 2013: So Frank, you are saying that we adapt to changes as they occur. I so agree. That is the smart thing to do.
      What has troubled me is all the conversation on if the world just does this then all climate changes will stop and all will be as it was.
      • Jun 22 2013: I agree with your concerns too. It has been said many times, "the only constant is change". Unless we discover time travel, we can never go back to the" Good Old Days." The world is covered in countless micro-climates. The plants and animals living in each one have always had to adapt to changing conditions, or leave, or die off. I believe we should not squander all our natural resources as fast as we can. Hydro-carbons (so-called fossil fuels) will always be valuable as starter chemicals for industry. If our power consumption (wastage) was reduced as efficiently as the electronics industry operates, that might slow down man-made climate changes. Also, if we shipped ideas world-wide and got back to local manufacture and food production, that would at least conserve precious resources, employ more citizens, and may lesson man's impact on climate.
    • thumb
      Jun 24 2013: adapting as we curb... that's a fine idea :)
  • Jun 20 2013: Unless we curb our environmental impact, we will cease to exist as a species. The necessary "adaptations" cannot possibly keep up with our environmental destruction.
    • Jun 20 2013: Since this is posted under Global Warming, I will make an assumption you are talking about climate change. Are you saying humans cannot survive dramatic changes in our environment? There are very few species that live in every possible combination of weather and climate extremes on the Earth. One of those is humans. Humans will survive. The question is how ugly will the death and distruction be? Of course the decisions we make as individuals and societies will determine just how bad things will be.

      Thanks for your thoughts.
      • Jun 20 2013: Yes, I'm saying that I highly doubt we'll survive the climate change. We are so busy polluting the air, the ground and our rivers that by the time we realise it and act, it will be too late. We cannot survive without oxygen (created by the trees we are cutting), and what little we have is being polluted We cannot survive without drinking water and this too,is depleting (desertification).. Why are we so afraid to make changes which might make life possible for future generations? Laziness or stupidity...either way, doing nothing only ensures our eventual extinction.
        • thumb
          Jun 20 2013: I am not sure where you are living, but it's not so bad that you have to go chase the lemmings.
          I lived in Europe of a number of years and my neighbor who was a forestmeister told me how proud he was that the forest was bigger then ever. The USDA tells us forest covers more acreage then ever in the USA. The great lakes are as full as ever and they are looking for people to move to Detroit Mi. Fresh water for the rest of your life.
          Doing something....doing nothing.... each of us will become extinct some day.
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2013: "Doing something....doing nothing.... each of us will become extinct some day."

          why are you living mike? why do you continue to eat, sleep and feel the simple pleasures of living when you will just die later on in life?

          that's the same thought as what you said. why do we have to curb climate change when all of us will become extinct later on?

          you are living for the sole purpose that you still want to experience more in life. and other people want to experience something great too. but obviously they can't because we're too busy not caring because we're going to become extinct anyway!

          that is certainly not the case mike! we have to curb (as well as adapt; but more emphasis on CURB) climate change. we are given the option to either feel a sense of urgency or feel apathetic. and that's just a slap to our pride as humans -- who have invented some great technologies to ease our lives but not for our survival -- to feel apathetic about climate change.

          we have to curb!
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2013: We definitly have to curb it, because a runaway greenhouse effect makes our much more like planet Venus.
    It seems that despite all the the attention on the issue, it seems still not clear that is a chain-reaction to come, which becomes increasingly harder and way more expensive to stop.

    "If the Arctic were ice free throughout the sunniest months of summer (something that could happen within 20 years at the current pace), then even if we ended all human CO2 emissions, the planet would keep warming at a pace similar to the one that it’s on now. And of course, if we don’t end human CO2 emissions, the increasing energy absorption of a dark Arctic will accelerate the pace of warming.

    As the Arctic sea ice melts, it exposes darker waters below that capture far more of the sun’s energy, speeding warming of both the region and the planet. Image: NASA

    Nor do the feedback loops stop there. As the Arctic melts, the permafrost in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska is melting with it. Below that permafrost is another trillion tons or so of carbon. As the permafrost melts, some of that carbon will emerge into the atmosphere. And a fraction of it will emerge in the form of methane, a gas that is 25-30 times more powerful in its greenhouse effect than CO2. How much warming that’s likely to contribute is still a topic of much debate, but at the upper end, it could also equal human emissions."

    Article as found in Scientific American (to boost the quality of this discussion):
    Search and read from "The Tipping Points": http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-limits-of-the-earth-part-1-problems
    Further reading: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-limits-of-the-earth-part-2-expanding-the-limits

    Endnote quote Milo Kelley:
    "Having said that, here is a recent article that likely neither side will appreciate. [link]"
    This is not a scientifc article! It is biased by accountants! I deeply disagree in quoting these.

    Here you find why
    http://tinyurl.com/bqg8ghp (from 6:47 in english, but you should watch it all)
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2013: .
    .
    The only way is to curb it.
    Our evolution is too slow to adapt to it.
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: Well, there is some dispute about whether global warming really exists. What is your proof?

    I haven't heard that anyone who believes global warming exists has given up. What have you heard?
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: actually, i read it on a news article stating that along with curbing the effects of global warming (climate change, as the more preferred and correct term), it is a good thing that people will now adapt to the changes in nature. even Al Gore stated it that we need to curb AND adapt.

      but my main concern is that, what if people will stop curbing and we will simply have all the technologies to adapt to the new and more unpredictable conditions? will we just leave mother earth behind?
      • thumb
        Jun 19 2013: well, it would be better to curb, because I think it's dangerous to change mother nature too much. Also, if we get used to adapting, we may keep adapting and adapting, and then we'll hit changes we can't adapt to, and then we'll be in trouble.

        But you know, even if we adapt, we won't leave mother earth behind. I think people are talking about small adaptations, if the adaptations are too big we cannot handle them. Even if we adapt, people will still love nature, still want to be close to her. People will still fight to curb as much as possible, because they know that it is dangerous to adapt too much.
  • Jun 17 2013: We'll have to adapt. Apparently most resist this.
    IMO global warming is a form of, or is caused by, pollution. What kind of pollution? The kind that set global warming into action or the kind that aids this kind of change in the earth that the earth has regularly had, over millennium.
    But I'm not sure what you mean by global warming. Do you mean the melting of the ice caps?
    If you do, then rest assured more resources and easier access to those resources will be a result of melting ice caps.
    If we harvest the fresh water from them instead of just letting them melt and drift into the salt water oceans, while simultaneously cleaning up what water we have and not polluting more, then we will begin ending a serious oncoming water problem. We already have one, or at least almost 2 billion humans currently do.
    But I don't think humans can curb global warming. It pisses me off no end the way humans think and then act. Like they can destroy something irreplaceable and next think they can somehow save it or heal it. They only make things worse.

    The real problem, the really real problem is the mismanagement of the earth's resources by those who have no right to own them, control them and use them for profit by mismanaging them with the use of scarcity and fear-mongering to make more money from them.
    We cannot cure or heal but we can, as a global community, stop polluting, in every way that we do pollute, even amenities in life we think we can't live without. That is adapting, not what most might think of when they hear or read that word. I'm guessing many think about where they might be and will their government be strong enough, nasty enough and murderous enough to get what they need before their own financial and power elite cut their own citizens off.
    And it isn't money.
    Things don't....."get done".... because of money.
    Things....,,,,,"don't get done"......because of money.
    Nothing costs money.
    Everything costs people.
    What will you do when money collapses? Not work?
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: Curb it!

    There's no way that we can adapt to those conditions and not loose billions of lives. People from EVERY coastal city (and most cities are coastal) will have to flee eventually. And there's no infrastructure to support billions of humans moving around the world in some decades, it will be total anarchy.

    *Edit: I was thinking of the rising sea levels mostly.
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: Humans are not suited to the projected conditions. Adaptation is not looking feasible.

    Given that no one has ever made an accurate prediction, but that probabilities are generally useful within a margin of error:

    All that remains is a vanishing hope that we can find a way forward through the error margin in the form of adaptation.

    The thing called human that can get through that window could not possibly be called human under our current definitions.

    I think that humanity is finished. We can only hope that if any life follows us on this planet - it has any regard for what we are now and what we have been.

    We may rate no more than an archaeological item on the shelves in a museum run by some other species - assuming such a species gives a damn about museums.

    Just enjoy the time you have - there is no hope - there never was.

    There were only ever you and the moments you had - don't waste them.
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: you mean to say that you are neither for curbing nor adapting?
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2013: I think Didier Sornette's talk today has the heart of this topic.
        We are engaged in the systematic destruction of the planet - and I mean systematic in the pure sense of the word. We have created an earth-destroying machine that is doing what it was designed to do.
        Now - can you ask the cogs of that machine to stop being the cogs that they are?
        They cannot do that - their very existence depends on all the cogs around them - if they try to change, the other cogs will prevent them.
        There is only one thing that can stop it - that is to throw a big spanner amongst the cogs.
        There is only one such spanner that can be 100% guaranteed - and that is the destruction of the earth - the conclusion of the systemic project.
        All the talk of prevention and adaptation is focussed on adjusting the wheels and knobs of the machine - which has no affect on the purpose of the machine.

        Here's an insight - Look at Elon Musk - the patron saint of the machine. Have a look at his youtube video at the annual general shareholder meeting of Tesla motors.
        He is a wonderfully honest man - all the machine definitions of him are satisfied - his shareholders love him so much it's like watching a religious festival.
        And what does he say?
        He says that he intends to retire on Mars - and it is looking like he will actually achieve that - all his efforts are bent to getting off planet Earth before it turns into Venus - and he says that in bald honesty .. I doubt that anyone realises that .. they think he's joking, but Elon does not joke.
        The only other spanner I can see halting this machine is massive, global violence - carnage and chaos.
        By the time we hit Sornette's Dragon King, all that remains to us is the margin of error - and that becomes smaller as the phase change approaches.
        It becomes the mandate of all humans to do as Bin Laden did - he is to me at the stature of Christ - as his action unfolds, we may see the dissolution of the machine.
        (edit: Savour your moments - they are yours).
  • Jun 16 2013: I am for saving Mother Earth but ya just can't do it with only a handful of people! It's always been about money and it takes tons of money to do what needs to be done & most folks just can't afford it. And even if they could, what bang will they get for their bucks? That is how most folks feel. It will take "everyone" working together, and I do mean everyone, to even slow down global warming (if even that is possible at this point). I personality don't believe we can "curb" global warming at this point- we should have started in the 60's when we first learned about it!
    As far as focusing on the human race to adapt: Mother Nature is just getting started and I expect, once she really gets rolling, there will be few humans to adjust & adapt. Which just might be a good thing!!!
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2013: That's a false choice my friend. We actually don't have a choice. Now that the "ninny headed" US congress has decided oil industry propaganda , political bribes, and superstitious fantasies are more important than science, we will all have no choice but to stop or reverse CO2, and warming, and at the same time adapt to it's NOW inevitable affects. The criminal barbaric denial and foot dragging of world leaders and corporate juggernauts has left us no choice. If we don't act hundreds of millions of people face greater starvation, disease, poverty,and regional wars than ever before. There is no choice. LIfe as we know it will no longer be possible in as little as 50 years. Get busy!
    • thumb
      Jun 30 2013: Absolutely, we should shut off all this CO2 generation as soon as possible. The president has the USA. But, there are nearly 200 other countries, what about them? The USA has a large percentage of CO2 generation but not all. If only the USA stops, the forth coming disaster would only be delayed a few years. It has to be a global
      commitment. So, are all nations in agreement?
  • Jun 27 2013: IF we hope to survive our damage, we had better do both, starting yesterday!
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: Our President has just announced that he is concerned about Global Warming and he is going to take effective action to curb the use of fossil fuel use by creating standards that would effectively end the use of coal as a fuel for electrical generation in the next decade. That is about 50% of the total power generation in the US. This is a fulfillment of a campaign promise made in 2008.

    There is no combination of new power generation medium that could be brought on line in the next decade to replace the loss of coal generation.

    The president quoted data as justification that two weeks ago was published in major news papers as being tainted.

    So, in reference to item 6 in my 10 problems with Global Climate Change addressing political involvement, I am suggesting that all the coal fired plants in the US be shut down for some period of time, maybe one month, and new readings of CO2 be taken to insure that the data is correct and not tainted as previously suggest two week ago. I wouldn't want our President to make lasting political policy based on faulty evidence.
    • thumb
      Jun 29 2013: Sorry but Obama is pretty lame on energy. He hasn't done ANYTHING for 6 years and now announces he's gonna do something in 2?
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: Hi LaMar,
    You have addressed all the issues I find with this premise. There has always been cycles in the "Global" climate.
    GC as I have said is very dynamic. It can be effected by a thousand things, including stuff in the air. So here are my ten problems with climate science and the projection of gloom and doom.

    1. Fifty years ago CS (Climate Scientists) were just as adamant that we were headed for an ice age.
    2. Air pollution in theory could effect, but a gas (CO2) is not near the top of the list.
    3,. Ocean water temperature most effects CO2.
    4. CS point to bad (warm) weather recently in the US seemingly overlooking the severe cold weather in other parts of the world.
    5. Regional Climate aka local weather is fairly accurate only a few days out... predictions of Global weather to 50 or one hundreds years out stretches my limits of credibility
    6. Solutions to the "problems" presented by the CS seem to address political objectives without any reasonable alternatives.
    7. CS make projections based on computer models from collected data. Data has been challenged as incorrect or altered.
    8. Computer projections are linear and cannot anticipate the multitude of future situations that could effect future climate.
    9. Lack of positive peer review from other sciences.
    10. Unacceptable response to challenges or questioning on findings

    Could they (CS) be absolutely, 100%, positively, correct? I just don't think so.

    I am more worried about being trampled by a herd of wild elephants at high noon in front of the Alamo as I was struck by lightning on July 4th.
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: In every corner of world some peoples tries to curb this warming but the major population dont so that minor population also gets lossen for that
  • Jun 24 2013: we can't adapt to it. we'd need to be able to move whole cities and create new food plants able to survive higher temperatures. it's not even humanly possible let alone feasible. we don't need to moderate our way of living, the framework is already there it's just a matter of getting the vested interests who make a lot of money from causing the problem out of the way and building the alternatives.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2013: How do you tweak an engine when you have no relative experience in building one? I'm not against the curb idea or the warming - climate change argument but we played a hand in the mammoth extinctions ( though only mildly if not negligible) What most people are freaking on is uncontrollable unpredictable freak weather events that might affect their lives at any moment.

    We will adapt and move even if it kills 90% of us off, we cannot stop whatever may come, i suppose someone could design an app for it.
    • Jun 22 2013: Exactly! When the time comes when we realize that have no choice but to tweak the climate with geo-engineering, we will need to have created the knowledge base so we know what will work. We need to do it now while there is still time for careful experiment.
      • thumb
        Jun 23 2013: I'm actually all for a run away flash warming event yet not months ago i was pro mini ice age. This attitude is not because i believe it is a natural process of the planet and sun but rather from "Let's get it over the first wave because the second is going to be worse.

        I'm a native indigenous first people of my homeland and for all indigenines the planet over the earth reaches up into you building up around your knees, that's the closest i can come to a description of how it feels or UB40's "The earth dies screaming" but in reality she just changes. Life pays a price to hold on here and every now and then she collects.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2013: In my view, your question is no one of choice anymore but a description of chronological order ...
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 22 2013: You don't have children, do you?
      • thumb
        Jun 22 2013: Hi Juan,

        I was provocative on purpose in my last question to get to see your 'true colors' and I am not surprised to see them matching mine.

        My original reply to Cheyenne was not meant provocative at all and just reflecting my pessimistic view on this topic and my own species, which usurp to name themselves 'homo sapiens'.

        If you read it again, you may notice by the word 'anymore' that I am referring to our generation to have had a choice in this, yet we failed. And this is what we do consciously till today since we know about the scientific data presented to us. Further I assume, that we are going to take actions in curbing global warming, yet I am not convinced, that we will do it consequent enough to avoid the 'tipping point', by which, once passed, we have no other choice but to adapt to whatever climate there comes.

        Regarding this topic, there are not many views of mine of which I wish to be as wrong as one could possibly be in it, as anything else would help this our planet and therefore any single being on it, nevertheless, I almost lost all my optimism to be proven wrong at all.

        Therefore, Cheyenne's question does not appear as a question to me and I commented on it,as what it appears to me instead. If this causes confusion 300 years from now, my apologies shall be given here alongside as well and ... just in case.

        Will they hate us? Maybe, probably but what difference would it make? In my view, the best they can do is to 'learn' from us and to ensure, that something alike will never happen again as long as, at least, they live. This is how I deal with the history of my very nation, as there is nothing else I can do with it but to be ignorant about it, which I refuse to be.

        The same goes for my current responsibility, in which I am trying to do my best in my own contradictoriness, fastidiousness and convenience in which I grew up and settled as if it was for granted, yet since I know better, there isn't much to hide myself behind while judging myself.
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2013: so you guys are giving up? there's just nothing we can do to AT LEAST curb climate change? that's it?
    • thumb
      Jun 22 2013: G'Day Lejan,

      I am not sure of curbing Global Warming... Can it be curbed?
      Some groups of "scientist" say to stop using fossil fuels and the CO2 will go down and all will be cool... which I think is a metaphor.
      Another bunch of "Scientist" say to kill all the cows, their flatulence is polluting the skies and causing global warming.
      Another group of "scientist" say... Oh forget it.
      The only way to survive is to become a world of horse riding vegans...
      Wait a minute, where are we getting all that hay and who is going to clean up all that horse sh.....

      Life is never that simple.
      • thumb
        Jun 22 2013: I think there were many horse riding vegans, including us, if this was the only way to escape a personal terminal illness.

        The problem with consequences is, that they only come alive the very moment we directly face them, despite the capacity of our imagination and this probably as a mechanism of 'self-defense' not to paralyze in a multitude of 'what if's' ...

        Unfortunately this 'mechanism' short-circuits our actions against better knowledge by simple ignorance, which has the same source which keeps smokers smoking, overweight people eating and drug addicts having their dose ...

        Also by the pace of our 'biorhythm' we can not observe the 'slow motion' of drifting changes within the climate, especially by the fact, that the weather changes every day anyway. And how many people actually 'absorb' the meaning and findings in weather statistics?

        And to make things even more confusing for 'the masses', you just negate scientific data if it servers your own agenda, of which, so it seems, is no lack of.

        As the consequence of curbing global warming would reduce the quality of life 'we', the 'first world' is used to directly, which by itself would be difficult enough to deal with, having 'the people' willingly and additionally 'dis-informed' is what keeps the status quo as it is and alternative solutions off the given and lucrative markets.

        And as you said, 'Life is never that simple', we can be certain by the way we cope with this problem at the moment, that this is not going to become better any soon, if ever ...
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 22 2013: Great experiment, except for one little flaw. it has nothing to do with people or earth. Won't even address scale. Man is not the most prevalent life form on earth... I think it was cockroaches that held that honor.
      But you make some good points... Our current fuel reserves will be economically unapproachable in several hundred years, so we better get working on new technology to meet future demands.

      But, what idiots recently thought it was a great idea to use foodstuffs for the conversion to fuel.
      Poor of the world starving and we are using corn to create alcohol to add to automotive fuel. Never mind that it takes more fuel to make alcohol then the fuel energy we get from alcohol.

      Thinking about your experiment.... I think it would be more accurate to use an egg. The egg shell is much greater then ratio of the earth's crust and any bacteria on the egg shell is all living life on the planet, not just mankind. We'll have to create the thin shell of the atmosphere and consider a food source to sustain the bacteria... geez, this is harder then i thought.
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2013: I do think that humanity as a whole is vastly superior than the one little rock we live on. If worst comes, we can hopefully just move (given that we are developed far enough in space exploration). Although if we actually do get a second chance, hopefully we won't be so stupid as to make the same mistakes and kill yet another beautiful home.
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2013: M-L and all,
    I know I sound like a broken record, for those old eough to know what records are...
    Global climate is a dynamic thing it is constantly changing with the the temperature raising and falling due to a number of factors sometime within years, sometimes within millennium... While people point to warmer temps in the US, they seem to ignore that Russia froze so that the global temp was actually a little lower. But if we just stop using fossil fuels everything will go back to normal. ... in the US or Russia? What seems to be ignored is that Global level of CO2 is most effected by ocean temperatures. But, all this talk of global climate change is based more on political correctness rather the real science.. It's not without precedence...
    The Greek story teller Aesop tells of " Chicken Little"....
  • Jun 21 2013: Certainly not dear Pinter. If someone is seeking solution then and only then my comments apply. Otherwise they can be ignored. Choice is yours. One cannot live by values of others unless chosen.
    Love
    Bhupendra
  • Jun 21 2013: Not the FACTS I have...i.e. Amazon forests going fast, drought in midwest, CA. and CO.,deserts appearing everywhere etc., fresh water being siphoned off for agriculture etc.
  • Jun 20 2013: Jeff, To answer your question about what part of climate change don't I get. The part where you reference a survey and call it scientific research and then blogs and "news" stories to support your opinion. But actual data even though referenced in a readable article, you say is not valid. If we can't agree on the facts we certianly can not agree on the impact or solution. Now note that I do (I DO, I DO, I DO) acknowledge that the earth is getting warmer - your words climate change. So you tell me what part of climate change do you not get? Look at factual data instead of surveys.

    I also have to wonder if your comprehension of what you read is sound. If you actually could comprehend (more likey just failed to read) you would have noticed that I full well understand that the average earth temperature is getting warmer, what you refer to as climate change. You have adopted the politically correct term because you and your scientists are not sure your data actually supports global warming. Which is what is occuring. So call it what it is.

    Now to ask you a similar question what part of my statements do you not get? Remember comprehension! I quote "I believe for now our earth will be getting warmer for a while. Ocean levels will rise and those humans that fail to adapt will eventually no longer exist. " First read to understand then respond.

    You don't have that many friends that you can alienate those that have some support for you position. For me global warming. Not all the other issues tied up in climate change. But there is data where consensous is possible and solutions may be developed.

    It doesn't matter the number times you make the same statement it doesn't make it's impact any stronger. And I'm sure you know until you can put it in economical terms and show it's benefit, most others that can actually help fix whatever is determined to be the concern, you will just be yelling in the wind.

    Let's see are there any other things we can agree on?
    • Jun 21 2013: To clarify, Milo, there is a difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming refers to changes in average global temperatures with time. Climate change, which is not a politically correct term, is a scientific term referring to changes in climate: temperature, precipitation, wind, humidity, sky condition, averaged over 30 years.