That's obfuscation. What kind of a chemist express weight as lbs and not Kgs (tons)? A grocery clerck? You probably should submit your calculations in a paper for Nature or Science and see how it goes. You might get the Nobel Prize for having liberated humanity from the imaginary threat of global warming.

Dear all,

True, I don't have the figures to hand to back up global warming, but since there is an observable temperature increase since industrialisation and we are facing the unprecedented (apart from early volcanic/hotter times before human life existed) occasion of there being no ice at the north pole. This has never been observed before in human history. Bangladesh is more frequently flooded, round the world crop cycles are changing leaving people in impoverished countries starving. Thats a fact. In the Uk, a small detail, but yearly flowers come out earlier (when I was young dafodills were in april, now they're in february).

There is a problem, and as I stated - oil will run out, that is science: (CH2)n + O2 = n(CO2).

In the meantime if you want to fight terrorism (not sure why this qualifies to be on a scientific website), feed the poor and stop taking advantage of them through unfair trade (both europe and america do this). Take away the cause of resentment against the west and I think you would wipe out terrorism overnight.

Oil take millions of years to form, it is sad that due to our unbridled greed we will use in it up within 200 years of its first discovery.

You can not be a serious scientist if you don't take global warming seriously.

Richard

Dear Albert,

I can see that in the face of conflicting evidence global warming in some perpectives, is not as well proven. All scientific theories require the accumulation of evidence to become fact and even then there is uncertainty (I'm sure you realise this). I would say that the evidence (overall)points towards global warming. It is (as you say) much more debatable whether it is man-made, but until we know for sure is it not better to take the path of precaution rather than just ignoring it? Therefore, reducing our carbon output (even if it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect) could potentially have a beneficial effect and will definitely without doubt, conserve oil - a precious resource. I think the latter argument needs no science to back it up, it is common sense that if you use something irraplaceable, then it is gone!! For that reason alone, I would argue we all need to change our ways. It doesn't mean becoming cavemen! Mostly it should be lifestyle adjustments, drive a smaller car, cycle, take public transport (governments should invest more in this). Also, the use of more green technology means less smog and pollution - surely a good thing? True freedom is not doing what you want, it is doing what is right for society at large. Being able to choose the right thing over and above what you personally want. It is a challenge that we all need to face up to. Driving a smaller car or using it less is not that much to live up to as a start.

As for biofuels, you are right to be concerned about the use of land for these - I very much doubt they are carbon neutral. Fingers crossed, hydrogen fuel cell technology will get better.

As for terrorism, perhaps it was a little bit crass to suggest it would disappear overnight, but I do think that if the worlds poor at least were lifted up out of poverty and have enough to eat, they would at least not respond to 'bad money' from local warlords (Afghanistan) or other destabilizing groups. It is also obviously a security issue and I'm sorry for what your countries been through - you're not alone in this, Britain has had to deal with the IRA for a long time until ~ 8 years ago and more recently extremists. What we shouldn't do is give in to the urge for revenge, that would be wrong. Sorry this last bit isn't really to do with science.

Richard