As an engineer and conservationist I am in total agreement with increasing efficiency, reducing pollution and minimizing the use of our natural resources.

However, it seems that it is automatically assumed that “Reducing the Carbon Footprint” is the major factor regarding our major environmental problem, namely “Global Warming”.

Where are the empirical hard science studies showing that to be true? All I have seen is theoretical modeling studies which are totally hypothetical.

According to NASA all the planets in our solar system are currently undergoing similar climate and temperature changes like the earth and certainly there is no evidence of SUVs or power plants on the other planets.

Where’s the BEEF?

Anyone with a good answer can reach me at hugh@remba.net. I don’t FB, Twit or blog.

Like Hugh Tiernan mentioned, there is evidence that nature is playing a role in planetary warming. My take on it is to not be adding to the problem. On the other hand, I figure nature is pretty resilient as evidenced by the recovery after each ice age but it is still a harsh time for biodiversity when the weather changes. On the short term, the biggest danger I see to humans is financial collapse and that will happen when we rely on a limited resource. All petrochemicals are limited resources but natural gas is one of the few that can be produced by chemical means. As a "transition" fuel and even as a permanent fixture of a petrochemical-depleted world, natural gas is one of the best candidates for storing energy chemically. Don't rely on it being cheap for long though... we are riding on the frac technology getting a bit more natural gas out of places that quit producing the old way.