Herbert Stencil, I did not ask for a list of environmental issues other than global warming. I can use Wikipedia just as well as you, of that I am certain. I am quite well aware that there are environmental issues.

Also, that list is not really informative, it's just a list.

What I was asking for was that Curmudgeon do a piece on outlining what he thinks are the great environmental dangers he sees us facing and why AGW is making us 'blind' to them, or how AGW is preventing us from addressing them.

Curmudgeon rarely discusses environmental threats other than to dismiss them or diminish them in facile comparisons with no actual analysis like the ones he has just made.

Please Mark, do a piece outlining your real concerns for the environment and how we can address them.

Bugsy, thanks for your appreciation for the hours of effort I put into those posts :-)

But you know what really puzzles me about this cAGW scare where we are told that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause terrible global warming over the next 100 years? Well actually several things. Maybe, given your better knowledge, you can explain the following:

1. There seems little argument anywhere (from sceptics or anyone else) that a doubling of CO2 will result in around 1 deg C of warming. Which nobody is really worried about. The real concern is what are the feedbacks. IPCC presents assumptions (without any evidence or proof) that the feedbacks are positive and will result in midpoint 3.5 deg C warming for a doubling of CO2. Can you provide the evidence - like, you know, proof for this? That contradicts the studies that argue that the feedbacks are neutral or negative?

2. It is evident that natural cycles play a significant role in climate change. It would seem that you have proof that these effects are minor.

3. It is also evident that anthropogenic land-use factors (many mentioned in the wikipedia list) are affecting local and regional climate in many places, such that some people confuse those climate change effects with CO2 caused warming. But you apparently consider these impacts minor too.

Given that the climate is complex, poorly understood, and clearly affected by natural and land-use factors, can you tell me again just why it is that you are so certain that anthropogenic CO2 is such a terribly bad thing to justify all the pain?

An essay would be good!

Actually, no Herbert, I do not claim any superior knowledge about climate change. I would not be able to contribute anything to the debate than you have already read on Wikipedia. An essay on that topic for OLO would be treated with a big yawn I suspect.

However, I reckon an essay about about how the AGW debate is detracting from serious and urgent environmental issues would be excellent. Mark has made claims that this is so, and that our money would be better spent on fisheries, as an example.

I reckon an essay on that would be much better.

The article is either frightfully ignorant or cynical. Yet another "scientist" trying to degrade an entire discipline that they are not a part of. Nice FUD, but not a single evidence based argument to be found.
I'd agree with previous posts that there are more important issues than GW at the moment...the leading one being overpopulation and the promotion of greed and aggression in our society.
The anti-GW compaign is part of anti-science which appears these days where profits or power are threatened. Big tobacco, big oil and big religion are all "fighting" campaigns to get their own way. The fact that science comes to a conclusion they don't like is easily combated using fake argument (but the data shows *this*), political slurs (all climate scientists are scam artists looking for grant money) and downright runner style evil slurs (the evil evolutionists driven by devils!).
I am working very closely with climate scientists: they are *not* paid excessively! They are fully aware of the complexities that are frequently raised on the blogs by laymen...yes they have considered sun variability, orbit changes, cosmic rays, clouds and all the natural cycles and variability...yes the amount of natural variability is large when compare to GW signal.(but this does not make the GW signal irrelevant!). GW is about energy balances...of which the most intuitive is temperature...energy also goes into phase change, physical motion, chemical changes, etc...Please forget the "room heater" analogy and all arguments based on it! Over simplification is a great way to win an argument with an ignorant audience...but ultimately undermines credibility.
I reckon the author is right about one thing...in 15 years the argument will be settled. Anyone not listening to science and being driven by greedy corporate interests will be pretty stuffed by then!
Thanks runner for linking evolution to climate science...you inadvertently say some good stuff sometimes! Can you comment on flat-earth theory and bible studies please?

"What if they were right and we did nothing? What would be worse?"

How about giving control of legislation and the environment over to financially self-interested lobby groups with deep pockets to skew fact and public opinion to maintain their profits?

Forget the alleged UN world government conspiracy, it's Corporations who really run the world and tell us what to think, buy and do and governments seem powerless against them.

why not give some air time to , why is the co2 in the atmosphere at a all time high. The one degree increase in ocean temp; is already causing the ocean to give up its stored co2.
Co2 is a global warmer; not in dispute.