Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because we've spent tens of thousands of years adapting our civilization to it mebbe.

[/ QUOTE ]ummm....no. The climate is in constant flux. if it is in constant flux, why is warming worse than cooling?

[/ QUOTE ]

The climate is in constant, very slow flux. A sharp change of several degrees will be disruptive to a couple of billion people, whether it's up or down. Also climate changes have ended civilizations in the past.

Climatologists have been doing a huge amount of work on just what the effects of various levels of CO2 will be, and to be fair it's just not clear. One problem is that there are a variety of positive feedback mechanisms. At a certain temperature large amounts of carbon will be released by methane hydrate deposits and various other sources. If that happens then the changes will be dramatic and unpredictable. For reference, you know the Nevada Desert? That was a forest at one point, and then runaway carbon feedback caused a 15 degree temperature rise.

So ultimately the question is - wanna gamble? It may not be too bad at all. It may be the end of civilization as we know it. We can use renewables, sequestration, nuclear power, biofuels and higher efficiency to dramatically reduce our carbon output. We can supplement that with measures to reduce incident solar radiation. It won't cost that much. It will make us less dependent on unstable regions of the world. It will relieve concern over the inevitable peaking of our oil production. It will mean that the money being spent on hydrocarbons goes to provide real jobs, rather than lining the pockets of petty dictators.

So, do you feel lucky?

[/ QUOTE ]

And cost an unknown amount of money and it's probably alot more than what anything that could be imagined. Don't leave out the cost. No proof that anything proposed by the US and/or UN will do anything thats effective, thus reducing the risk as you propose it.