If local forecasts about tomorrow’s weather are often wrong, then how likely are predictions about the planet’s future climate to be correct?

So begins an audio broadcast from CBC regarding climate change. My own personal position on climate change and the impact that man is making on global warming is uncertain. My scientific background does not qualify me to decide.

There is a body of evidence on both sides and sadly those that dare to say that maybe climate change and global warming might NOT be caused by man’s impact are outcast and derided by the popular movement. That’s not constructive debate.

Opinion always requires debate.

I was recently sent this link to a CBC podcast on climate change, outlining how it is possible that man may not be the reason for the increase in global temperatures. We really ought to consider both sides of the equation rather than heading down a path of strongest media opinion.

Have a listen, see what you think. Just because one opinion is different to the accepted wisdom, doesn’t make that position insane or wrong.

Let’s face it, the steps proposed to solve the assumed problem of CO2, are pretty damaging to the environment, whether it is replacing rainforest by palm oil for bio fuel, eucalyptus for carbon sequestration,  or dammed valleys for power generation, not to mention despoiled landscapes and migrant bird and bat kill by windmills, as well as habitat loss from blocked off estuaries.

What if the theory of global warming caused by CO2 is not true, as so many reputable scientists are saying now?

Let’s face it, CO2 is necessary for life on earth, it is plant food. It makes forests grow faster.

It is in our interests to do all that we can to protect the environment, particularly the rain forests.

Policies designed to reduce CO2 may well be counter productive, apart from , of course, those that preserve and increase the world’s rain forests.

It’s important to look at both sides of the coin. No?

The Guardian have produced a really useful Q&A article on Climate change, explaining all the terms and science involved.

Check it out here

There are lots of useful points raised, but he missed out the rainforest! How does deforestation impact climate change and carbon reduction? On a more positive nte, how could re-forestation impact the fight against climate change.

Nature.org say this

Every year, more than 15 million hectares of tropical forest — an area larger than the state of New York — are cut down, releasing millions of tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Without action now, many of the world’s tropical forests will be lost by this century’s end. With these forests we will lose important species, natural resources and local livelihoods, as well as the opportunity to slow climate change.

In fact, recent studies show that activities to reduce deforestation are a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I know that climate change and the Green House effect can be a debated issue. Some believe the data of global warming shows the natural cycle of the Earths warming, others see our impact as the major cause of the temperature increase.

What ever the answer, preventing deforestation keeps the environments where forest exist stable and continues to absorb Co2 emissions.

Have a read of the two articles, and let us know your views.

There is an interesting article in the environmental section of the FT regarding paying countries to keep the rainforest they have, rather than selling out to logging firms. It does seem like a very viable option. The president of Guyana has been asking the UK government to pay for his rainforests as a way to off set the carbon that our country pollutes the rest of the world with.

Preserving the rainforests is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to cut emissions.. Stanley Fink, former CEO of the hedge fund Man Group

I think we would all tend to agree. It largely doesn’t matter where the money comes from, so long as it isn’t procured or generated through the direct degradation of the rainforest itself. I think varying people have varying views on this. Some would view this as ‘tainted money’ others would say ‘the only problem with tainted money is their taint enough of it!’

‘Send lawyers, guns and money’ or so the 1978 Warren Zevon lyrics go. I don’t think we need lawyers or guns, it’s just the money we need. Dan Janzen talked on this blog about exactly this point. There is no silver bullet to rainforest conservation. The fact is, if conservationists don’t purchase the land then the land owners will sell to the loggers to make their investment pay.

Prince Charles seems to agree as well.

Can big business buy the rainforests? And indeed, why should they?