Antarctic Ocean is already saturated with CO2

Whats the point of arguing "who's to blame" for something that is quite clearly happening?

It's like being in a plane that is crashing and instead of dishing out the parachutes, your arguing with each other over who's to blame for the impending disaster.

What purpose does that serve?

The purpose is that we need to spend the billions of dollars being spent in trying to "mitigate or stop Global Warming/Climate Change on contingency plans and ways to survive the changes that are coming.

That is the purpose.

One and the same, surely?

Spending on renewable energy sources is strategically sound as any disruption to supply from traditional fossil fuels, be it from "man-made" or "natural" global warming, would seriously bugger up any western nation.

To have alternative supplies, such as bio-fuels, nuclear electricity, wave/wind power is a very good idea.

Diversification away from the the OPEC (and foreign) controlled energy supplies is key to survival. T

hose that still rely on traditional fuels will really feel it should the SHTF.

After all, refinery output's drop significantly when there is a major storm, what would happen if there was a major storm every week?

We'd be buggered, thats what.

It wouldn't do any harm to cut pollution anyway, regardless of what is happening. Unless you really like smog.

Do you like smog? I know I don't.

Any other research into climate change and it's effects is beneficial from any point of view. We need to know how to manage the water supply, food supply, how to change agriculture accordingly. It doesn't matter "who" or "what" is responsible, just that we are prepared, as we have left it too late to change the outcome either way.

[edit on 20/5/07 by stumason]