A few additional comments on "global warming".
Why is it always assumed that GW will necessarily cause more severe weather? Richard Lindzen, noted M.I.T. atmospheric professor and climate change skeptic, points out in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that the CO2 theory of GW predicts a shrinking temperature difference between the poles and the equator. All meteorologists are taught, according to Prof. Lindzen, that such a scenario should lead to less severe weather.
It was difficult to do, but when Newsweek ran a story a few months ago on GW "deniers", I forced myself to skim through it. I noticed an assertion that these "deniers" were claiming that the troposphere is not heating up. They are not making this claim! What they do say is that the troposphere is not warming faster than the earth's surface and this contradicts the CO2 theory of GW. This sort of misleading propaganda is typical of climate change activism.
Around the time of the mid 1970s, the scientific "consensus" was that we were in the midst of a global cooling period with soon to be realized disastrous consequences. A story appearing in Newsweek (4/28/1975, page 64) warned of catastrophic famines if immediate action wasn't taken to compensate for GC's impact. Less than twenty years later, the "consensus" had completely reversed itself and we were told that drastic steps needed to be taken, soon!, to combat global warming. What this means (besides showing that these guys have no clue) is that sometime between those two extreme periods, maybe it was 1982 or 1983, we were experiencing optimal climate. Who knew?
Carbon is the major product of modern civilization. A nation’s level of carbon production is a primary indicator of the health, prosperity and happiness of its citizenry. Attempts to limit carbon emissions will necessarily lower our standard of living. Someday, this may not be true. Technological advancements in the use of nuclear, solar, wind and biofuels may make those sources equal or superior to coal, oil and natural gas in terms of efficiency. We should invest in research that would make this possible, but until that research yields viable technology, we have no choice but to stick with what works. To do otherwise is foolishly self-defeating.
Again, I highly recommend watching the BBC documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (if you can find it, of course). It provides evidence that CO2 is not a major cause of GW; It discusses the overlooked beneficial aspects of GW; It explains how politicians, scientists and journalists profit by promoting climate change hysteria; And it shows that efforts at reducing carbon emissions are causing great harm, especially to the world's poor.