Of course climate change exists.
After all, there were once palm trees in the Arctic. In the Middle Ages they grew grapes and exported wine from northern England. During the same "warm period," the Vikings discovered Greenland and called it "Green" because they could actually grew crops there, unlike today.
Climate has changed over and over again though the millennia even before man was producing significant levels of CO2.
However, even for those who believe in "manmade global warming," the question is, what would it cost to reverse the increase of CO2?
Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish scientist and former member of Greenpeace wrote "the Skeptical Environmentalist." In his book, he shows that the cost of reversing the production of CO2 would be catastrophic to the world economy. The result would be global starvation on a gigantic scale.
It is actually the use of fossil fuels that has allowed the huge increase in global population over the last 100 years. Everything we use, from the food we eat to the dwellings we live in, to the transportation we rely on, requires energy.
It would be far better to spend money on mitigating the problems caused by global warming as they arise than to try to eliminate CO2 production. It is only in economically strong countries where environmental problems are truly addressed. Third World countries simply cannot afford the cost of cleaning up the environment.
To eliminate CO2 production would return the world to the Middle Ages.
Gary Conolly,
Mission