The question of what to do is not science. And it seems silly to assume that we're starting at an optimal temperature considering the wild swings the planet has had in the past.

CO2 levels are increasing ... that's science. The question of whether we can actually stop the trend, much less reverse it is both science and debate. The question of what each person, company and country should do is purely debate. Those of us in rich industrialize countries will not want to give up our way of life. Those burning the rain-forests are (from what I remember) doing it to subsist.

I'm also a steam-locomotive buff (install sl on all your Linux machines), and it's interesting to follow their decline in the US and other first world countries. China used steam power longer than most (http://www.david-longman.com/China.html), since they had vast reserves of coal and other more important infrastructure to build. But it appears China is just now recognizing the types of pollution that led to the 1970s/1980s "super-fund" sites in the US. I suspect that countries that want to join the ranks of the financial superpower will progress through similar stages where they won't be inclined to agree to pollution limits.

This article does make a point about what to do. It gives a set of solutions for global warming that are more in line with what keeps humans alive. After all, if we do what the laws suggest : go below the carrying capacity of the earth for human population, the human population should drop to ~ 10 million to stop global warming, and the remainder should live without so much as heat from a campfire. Needless to say, striving for that is cruel, useless and completely insane. Just like the previous followers of Malthus were.

Instead the article argues we should use the tactics that humans have always used for survival to compensate global warming: * introduce a species that solves the problem for us. Right now the most efficient co2->o2 species are ~3% efficient. The difference need not be big, by the way. If we introduce a form of algae that's 3.2% efficient into the oceans, global warming will reverse in about a year. Note that some theories say that earlier in the planet's history, there were such more efficient species, which should mean they can easily come back without intervention and may suddenly solve out problem for us. The same goes for trees. It would not be a huge adaptation for trees to become more green, although it would take more time. * find another fuel to burn (e.g. a more complete switch to uranium, or solar panels. Although solar panels still necessitate competing with nature, which is bound to have ecological consequences if the usage goes up. Both pose the problem of moving the fuel around)

I would like to add that somehow the UN's policies and all the "green" policy efforts have moved the world away from nuclear power, and into coal power. Whatever the green movement is doing, it needs to learn that there are consequences to decisions. Moving away from nuclear means coal power plants. Why ? Look at the energy prices. Moving away from coal means nuclear power plants. Until this is understood widely, the green movement will continue to make things much worse by insane unconditional opposition to anything that doesn't completely satisfy their demands, including the demand that there can't be any impact on their lifestyle. I find it very weird that given such horrible results, the movement has any standing in society at all.

Btw: I hate sl. Too many type errors and I didn't know how it can be interrupted until a few months ago. It takes quite a while to pass on the screen on a 30" monitor.