Probably most appropriate action would be to prepare our economy to withstand global cooling and warming and overpopulation as well as exhaustion of resources.

I would rather like to see human race be prepared to what future can offer us rather than adapt to what happened after the event.

In the end changes have to be made either way, and it can be argued that preparation for all possible scenarios can tie up enormous resources with knowledge that only some will be utilised.

But overpopulation is one of bigger items in my opinion irrespectively of anything else.

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 10:06pm:



Not yet, too cold

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 3:24pm:



- and you can actually write nonsense like that with the graph showing the data 2 posts above? You could have at least waited a few weeks until people had forgotten about what the global temperatures have done since 1998.

Of course you could select a dataset such as hadcm3, and that's the one of the few datasets that shows a drop in temperature over that period,  because it omits a large portion of the near polar latitudes. The Brits obviously don't have the same resources as the Yanks.

That Seattle Times article has one memorable paragraph in it:

The skeptics' view, and it's so true.

When you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth.

It is a planet where global warming isn't happening — or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.

The only thing they got wrong is that you need not one, but several parallel earths to accomodate the different views.

oh dear...  the one you just posted...

You do have problems...  don't "transfer" ok

ROTFLMAO

Is there something you are missing? 

Only the nose on the front of your face.



Puhlease don't kid me that you are that dumb, just be honest.

Freeman Dyson Takes On the Climate Establishment (naughty, naughty man. Ed.)

Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has been roundly criticized for insisting global warming is not an urgent problem, with many climate scientists dismissing him as woefully ill-informed. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Dyson explains his iconoclastic views and why he believes they have stirred such controversy.
by michael d. lemonick

On March 3, The New York Times Magazine created a major flap in the climate-change community by running a cover story on the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson that focused largely on his views of human-induced global warming.

Basically, he doesn’t buy it.

....


Many climate scientists were especially distressed that the Times gave his views such prominence. Even worse, when the profile’s author, Nicholas Dawidoff, was asked on NPR’s “On The Media” whether it mattered if Dyson was right or wrong in his views, Dawidoff answered, “Oh, absolutely not. I don’t care what he thinks. I have no investment in what he thinks. I’m just interested in how he thinks and the depth and the singularity of his point of view.”

This is, to put it bluntly, bizarre.



Continue reading a Yale Environment 360 where you can also hear the interview  http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151