[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Obviously it is, but what isn't known for sure is the cause or the after effects; in this you and I are in total agreement.

Good. Wasn't so painful was it?

Originally Posted by Mazer

You sound convinced that most if not all of the effects of global warming, whether mild or pronounced, will necessarily be bad.

Hmm, well that's obviously not an explicit aspect of my position of not knowing what the effects will be, however I'll allow the assessment is probably fair. Other than seeing the potential threat as an opportunity to move collectively into a higher awareness, I can only at this point guess what you might consider good effects.

There is a famous Yale study which posits that a moderate warming coupled with a fertilizing effect of CO2 would actually speed the reproduction of forests. This focuses on an economic boon for certain sectors. Heading the list, somewhat ironically, the forestry industry, which is already probably responsible for the greatest ongoing loss of biodiversity in human history.

Some suggest that there would be longer growing seasons for food crops in some areas, but this would probably be at the expense of growing seasons in others. This, IMO, cannot outweigh what might be devastating effects to a wide range of other species and their habitats.

In my opinion these are not only inconclusive postulates in themselves, but seem like scant boobie prizes for a few being offered at the expense of, still, potentially, crashing the whole ecosystem for all. This may be my tendency to see the glass half empty as you suggest, but I can certainly not take such arguments as seriously leading to a conclusion of collectively doing nothing and just carrying on.

Maybe I could own beachfront property without moving? Great way to get rid of all those tacky casinos on the coasts?

Originally Posted by Mazer

If you can't endorse that course of action then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well obviously my Svengali slave-master Al Gore endorses biofuels, why shouldn't I?

Actually my jury is still out on this; again, I'm not aware of any conclusive data, but it's variously debated that huge percentages of cropland would have to be devoted to the production of small percentages of our energy needs in biodiesel and according to many there is still a bit of controversy over whether or not biodiesel production from rapeseed would actually lower greenhouse gas emissions significantly due to the amount of N2O released during the farming process. If either of these assertions are true, this will clearly not be a long term solution.

You maintained that greed was "not the problem" and "gives people options," and I might concede the latter will ultimately prove to be true, but perhaps only at the point of crisis. Right now the chief option for most people seems to be to use up the last remaining decades of fossil fuels at an escalating price in the interest of the richest people on earth milking the last drop of profit, and hope that it's not too late when they finally turn their full interests, resources and attentions to the development and production of radical new technologies.