It would be nice if the jury could be out on AGW. If we knew even approximately how much the activities of man contribute to climate change we could begin the policy process rather than a continual quibbling about the extent of man's impact and how much is naturally occurring influences.

That is clearly not going to happen soon, however there is much humans can do to reduce their impact on the environment quite apart from focussing environmental problems around climate change. Looking at sustainable populations, pollution and other resource management issues.

It is growing populations and pressures on resources that will contribute to climate change (should AGW be greatly attributed) but no-body wants to go there. It is as if the business councils and lobbyists interests override any long term factors in relation to the health of human societies.

Those who believe blindly that unfettered growth is the answer to all woes do much damage to their cause by failing to recognise the impact of human interaction with the environment. Technological advancement can only go so far and in fact some technological advancements have created more problems than they solve.

To believe humans have no impact on their environment and that we will always find solutions to environmental problems is an 'after the event' mindset. I believe human beings are capable of being better than they have thus far demonstrated. We have in our own abilities the power to identify problems before they occur other than approaching them from the 'bandaid' approach.

The assertions & conclusions in Sophie's article are absurd, because they come from RAW IDEOLOGY.

They are also offensive in the face of the real suffering of the victims of these natural disasters.

Philosophy & politics are dangerous subjects in the hands of those who haven't yet mastered Geology, Chemistry, Biology, Botany, Physics etc. Once these subjects have been learned & understood then comes Economics, Business, Social Studies. If you do all these and do them well then get some experience in the real world economy you can start to form some resonable opions on the worlds climate & appriopriate energy policies.

There are no short cuts to understanding.

Starry eyed she may be, but good on her.
Cheryl,
careful, she might go into politics !

I think there should be a type of Godwin's Law for how long it takes someone to shoehorn the subject of population control into any and every discussion on OLO.

Sophie is appealing to our GUILT subconscious.. our desire to be approved and included.

Inherent in her question is "You are WRONGGGG, non included and evil if you don't believe in it"

Excellent Bernays propoganda strategy !

But for thinking and independant minded people who know the game.. *water off a ducks back*

I think Sophie has achieved her desired result.Lots of noteriety with little substance in her article to back up her assertions.She wanted to offend the "deniars" or in reality skeptics.

OLO needs to show more due diligence when allowing articles like this to be published.There needs to be a least a modicum of science and facts to back up claims.