To me, it makes far more sense to spend our money on adaptive measures... on measures that address specifically observed problems... not on any and everything that MIGHT happen. If there's a prolonged drought, it makes no sense to spend $billions to change to some alternative form of energy. Instead, why not spend $millions to lay water lines into the affected areas, and to build desalinization plants to help serve the affected areas? Adaptation doesn't require scientists, just engineers and people who know how to make things. Even then, we must be careful not to foolishly create an "adaptation industry".

The history of living things on planet Earth teaches that the need for adaptation is a central theme for survival. Species who could not adapt are now extinct. If we spend our money in a crash program to stop CO2 emissions to save the environment from manmade warming, what happens if it doesn't work? Which AGW scientist will be the first to say "OOPS"? Should that happen, where will the money come from to adapt?

A study has been recently published, claiming that the warming caused by CO2 will be irreversible for about 1,000 years, even if CO2 emissions have been totally stopped. Although this is really far-fetched, it nevertheless points out that adaptive measures will serve mankind whether the warming is caused by man or by Nature.

On the bright side, maybe the climate is beginning to cool as some say. Maybe another ice age is about to start. If so, mankind will have to adapt to that as well. How far will an electric car go when you turn on the heater?

Support adaptation!

You lost me with the second sentence.

"The world is becoming almost irretrievably damaged in almost every direction."

This is simply not true, although like pretty well everyone else who cares about the environment, I have been convinced that it was true for most of my life. I was as astonished as anyone, when I read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (which I approached very skeptically, I might add: I actually read a raft of articles arguing the pros and cons of the book before I even read the book itself), and realised that I'd been fed a line nearly all my life.

The world isn't perfect, but it's pretty good, and it's getting better. Certainly we don't want to drop the ball, but we need to know the truth.

Crying "fire!", when there is just a smouldering match is irresponsible and foolish. Cry "fire!" untruthfully often enough and eventually no-one will take any notice of you, no matter how well-meaning you are.

I agree - the article starts on a premise that is simply not true.. the bulk of the awful things that climate-doomsters are warning us about remain projections, not reality. There has been a lot of talk about rising temperatues, for example, but a closer look at temperature graphs on the likes of Hadley shows a decline not an increase. Same can be said for sea level increases - the real scare scenarios remain projections. Everyone talks about the extinction of species, but I would be interested to see to see a list of species that have actually become extinct in recent decades (as opposed to being on some kind of endangered list), and just how many of those extinctions are in developing countries as opposed to advanced.
As for the cities, perhaps the author is not aware that particulate pollution (a big part of smog) has declined in most cities in advanced countries over decades.. this has to do with a lot of trends such as industries being moved out of suburban areas, and even the CBD, also that people don't use fireplaces as they use to.. cities in which the use of fireplaces was widespread (when in Sydney? 40s? 50s?) use to be very smoky. Car exhausts use to be very dirty things.. there are now more cars but the exhausts have been cleaned up a lot more.. Perhaps we need more reality and less nostaglia..

Sorry Valerie, I’m with Clownfish on this article, not only from the generalized “wallowing in gloom”, but also the meander down “nostalgia lane”. Nothing seems to be the same as in my childhood, that’s good and bad. But today is today, call it progress, evolving or just change. We must change, continue to adapt and, at the same time, mitigate the damage we might do. I think this applies to the planet and to humans.

We don’t seem to pay as much attention to human damage as we do to the planet, I think that’s sad.

We express concerns for our “toxic environment”, rarely do we hear of our “toxic society”. In 2003 Australian of the Year winner, Professor Fiona Stanley wrote;

“Nearly 20% of Australian teenagers now have mental health problems. Nearly a quarter of all families now rely on welfare. Suicides among 15-19 Y.O. males have quadrupled since the 1970’s. Obesity has increased in teenagers from around 10% in 1985 to nearly 25% today. A quarter of all children aged four and five are now overweight for their height. The number of people aged 12-18 who are homeless on any given night has increased to 26,000 last year. Documented increases are evidenced in substance abuse, child abuse, binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, eating disorders, juvenile crime, juvenile diabetes, low birth weight babies, Neuro developmental complications, asthma, serious behavioral problems and autism. 12 Y.O. children are having more and more health problems, depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, schizophrenia, right through to violent behavior towards teachers and parents.

11 Y.O’s are presenting to the NSW Government with problems not encountered before. Some so violent that they are unable to be fostered, educated or controlled.

Data from the W.A. Government “…..they have seen a trebling almost every five years of children with quite significant behavioral problems; they have to be taken out of classrooms. These children are severely disruptive, very angry”. This report is referring to five year olds!

I can relate to save the planet, hug a tree, eat veggies and emit less carbon however, in the end I’m a humanitarian.

I agree with Daisym, we need to worry about adapting more than what might or might not happen (and that may be a big OOPS for those scientists and science generally may not recover well from this whole AGW business. Won't it be a terrible pity if it all turns out we should have spent all that money and research effort adapting to what we cannot change, instead of trying to prop up egos and reputations, tilting at windmills)

We could pollute less, agreed, we'd like others to pollute less but they don't want to be told this by foreigners who have drinkable water and abundant electricity on tap, everyone deserves the chance to better themselves.

There is always nostalgia for what places used to be like, my father visited me in Bali in the late 70s while I was there surfing, he was horrified at what an awful place it now was, he visited Bali on a ship in the mid 40s. People now remember most fondly the Bali of the 70s, while the Balinese are happier now that ever before, they have adapted.

When it starts to cool again, as it always has, we may be nostalgic for the days when it was warmer.

It seems to me that Valerie is essentially correct.

This organization has been keeping track of the health of the planet for over 35 years. It seems to me that they know what they are talking about.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/23

Plus http://www.earthwatch.org