Yes. The only other option is to deny the problem, despite the evidence. If I were going to indulge in wishful thinking, however, I wouldn't use the argument that there's more money in discovering the risks of CO2 than there is in all the CO2-emitting human activities in the world. We obviously all wish it weren't true that our society is powered by something harmful.

MM's comment expresses the situation very neatly.
To make use of data from a nonsense source - the IPCC - in their latest scare documents they give, in separate documents, the economic implications of the climate change disasters they (falsely) predict, and the costs of stopping them. The costs are greater than the do-nothing case. !
The advantages that MM describes are not considered.

France derives about 75% of its’ electricity from nuclear power.
France earns about 3 Billion Euros annually because of its’ energy
exporting. 17% of generated power comes from recycled nuclear waste.
The rest of Europe needs to learn a lesson about staying independent of
energy from questionable sources such as petty dictators. (Putin)
A word about Fukashima. As everybody knows, it was built on an
active earthquake fault. It was being used 15 years after its’ rated life
As a first generation designed, it needed electrical motors to drop dampening
rods into the reactor. Those motors were in the basement that got flooded out.
those fine American companies, Westinghouse and GE are in the 3-4 cycle of
of nuclear reactor design. Dampening rods only need to be dropped into reactor
with a problem
45% of US electricity is generated by coal-fired plants. That helps make us
the world’s largest CO2 emissions generator.
The US Northeastern corridor is probably the planet’s largest electrical power
consumer. The Appalachians are a nice old stable nearby mountain range. A string of
nuclear power plants should have been built up there a long time ago. People would
probably appreciate the jobs.. .Them that consume get to do the producing.
There are all kinds of grassroot efforts at alternative energy. Google reduced its
carbon footprint by building its own solar power plant. Toyota is building hydrogen fuel auto
recharging stations. Chevy is introducing a vehicle that switches between natgas and gas
Pennsylvania state government has mandated that a percentage of power from the utilities
must come from renewable sources in the next few years.

My figures are verifiable from multiple sources across the internet
Everyone of us needs to do our part.
We are at about 8 Billion on the planet and increasing.
Environmental science is now the Central Science

Harry M

Yes. I'm for nuclear, renewable, etc, but they seem like a drop in the bucket. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But I suspect geo-engineering will have to be part of the solution. I agree we should start now. I can't understand why so many people who seem to operate on reason fall back to wishful thinking.

B/c there's no money or power in an entire economic system powered by burning stuff?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scienti...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...

Climate change, as stated previously, is a natural scientific fact. It is more likely that climate change is caused by several years of low sun spot activity on the sun than by anything man can or has done.
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activit...

You can consider me naïve when it comes to scientific research but I certainly see through the BS where human nature is concerned. Its remarkable to me that all these falsified reports (not all I will admit) culminate in social controls for some while others get a pass. No, I won't buy into this cyclical hype. In the 70s it was cooling and overpopulation. Today its warming and then when that don't work it will switch to cooling *already has) and then to overpopulation (emerging). The constant factor in all this is that some get very rich while keeping people scared to dictate their actions.

Mr. Marotta and AJ Ashnioff:
Your opinions about scientific research results are naïve.
Scientists do science, like any other professional activity because they want to.
Remember, the only way they maintain their reputation is with accurate, reported, results.
If their reports are inaccurate, they are finished. The only way a Scientist continues is
with accurate, public results.

Mr Marotta
Additionally, you asked what difference it makes about global warming and industrial activity.
The answer is, most basically, we shouldn't mess with Mother Nature.. There's the law of unintended consequences.
Another aspect is that increased CO2 emissions leads to global warming, melting ice caps, and rising sea levels. A good deal of human populations live on or near seacoasts.
The low level Eastern Seaboard is already feeling the effects. Much more of this will lead to appalling economic costs. Ask the NYC people.
We have at hand technologies to decrease CO2 emissions. Nuclear. Renewables. Hydrogen fueling. Natgas.
Better safe than sorry later. We only have one SpaceShip Earth Think Environment/Conservation
I'm not worried about the Dinos a hundred million years ago. I'm worried about humanity for the next hundred years.

Harry M.

Why should science not sell out for money? Do you hold to the belief that "pure" science is "above" crass money-grubbing? I mean, how could it have worked out if, say the Candlemakers Union had paid Edison to "prove" that candles are more efficient than lightbulbs? It would _not_ have resulted in a pointless political argument. Someone would just have produced an incandescent lamp. With global warming or sauro-genic global cooling (ice ages caused by dinosaurs who did not take care of their environment), really, there is nothing to produce, i.e., no empirical test of truth. It is all just angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin.

In fact, while it is true that some researchers have falsified results to gain and keep grants that employ them, it is also true that others committed the same frauds for "non-material" motives of status and standing. You can call that "power." If you called it "wanting to be liked" it would sound less grandiose.

So what if it is true? First, why should we do without industrialization? Second, why should the farmers in Michigan not grow oranges? If the icecaps melt and the seas rise, some places will be better off, even if others are inundated. Would it not be an opportunity to plan new, rational cities? You cannot have it both ways. Assuming anthropocentric global warming as a valid theory, the consequences of letting it run pay off better than the result of clamping down our world to some sort of "Permanent 1999" (as in the Matrix, I suppose). If the Antarctic icecap melted, a new continent of resources would be uncovered. Maybe sea bass would be unhappy with the all the freshwater, but maybe coho salmon or trout would be overjoyed and we could have ocean fishing for catches formerly restricted to lakes and rivers? Just saying, you know, life is change. Suppose the animals of 100 million years ago had stopped sauro-morphic global cooling...

In my first post on this I noted one research report that noted historical date going back to 1500 about increasing levels of CO2. We have the correlation of global warming.
My point is about that type of Scientific research report. Not about all these other phenomena.

Harry M

Unless the "science" has sold out for money or power, yes?

Honestly, there has been so many proven falsified documents to substantiate the whole man-made global warming fraud its hard to take any of them seriously. If true, there would be no need to doctor reports and findings. So my second and third points are relevant...the are historical and scientific fact (not consensus science) please prove the absolute validity of your research paper.

The BBC articles are based on scientific research reports. The report published in Lancet, the basic medical reporting journal in UK.. I read Lancet in all the Med libraries in Phila.
Your first point is about one report.
Alternatively, in my first post, I noted position papers by the UN-IPCC, World Meterological Organization, and the AAAS. Great numbers of scientists all over the planet who are ringing the alarm bells about global warming.
Reason is the hallmark of Rand's philosophy.
Scientist research results are the preeminent example of reason/rationality

Harry M

Read the first research paper as to how the pollution is changing North American climate.
THE POINT OF MY POSTED RESEARCH RESULTS IS how CO2 emissions, due to mankind's industrial activity, is causing global warming/climate change. Your second and third points are irrelevant to my basic point.

Harry M

This is the claim of a paper
'Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming' - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...

It is referred to in:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/abusing...
where it is described as "a candidate for the Top-Ten most vacuous papers." and "
takes the farce to high art"

The claim is demolished by William Briggs who is a proper statistician.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8061

Briggs says, "His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change"

As for using the state owned BBC as an authority, the origin of their incredible bias to global warming alarmism is a horror story for another time. It is now public knowledge if you want to look it up.

It's obvious that the climate is always changing and it's almost certain that human activities are influencing it now.

The articles, however, appear to be about regional pollution, not climate change.

Also, please explain multiple ice ages. The Earth is still emerging from the most recent one (12 thousand years ago)...and the glaciers are still receding..because that's what naturally happens when ice ages end.

Do any of the computer models that predict global warming take into account the minute changes in the axis of the earth that can actually cause an ice age to begin...or end?

How could humans have ever caused what is now New York City to be buried under a mile of ice...multiple times?

(The evidence is in the rocks in Central Park.)

The computer models that predict global warming contain only the data required to achieve the desired result.

It doesn't prove that humans are responsible for climate change at any significant level.

Those instances are called POLUTION. It happens then countries like China carelessly dump pollutants into the waterways and sky. It lingers over areas and caused people to get sick.

Climate change occurs on every celestial body, Please explain how a planet, Mars, has climate change without man being there? Jupiter? Titan? Europa?

Please explain how Boston Harbor froze solid in 1775 trapping, and eventually condemning the British when industry did not yet exist in any substantial way?

Please explain.