[Marliza]

This thread has made very interesting reading, so thank you to all who have contributed to it so far.

Having seen the TV programmes previously discussed and read a great deal in recent years about climate change and its causes, I find it amazing that those whose opinions ought to have all the answers, i e eminent scientists, are STILL arguing over this issue.

'Science' is supposed to be knowledge based on FACT, but all we seem to hear about are OPINIONS! (My apologies for the capitals - not shouting, just emphasising.)

We're told that our world is at '55 minutes to midnight' and if 'we' don't change our behaviour drastically, there'll be an end to mankind before this century is out. If the earth is warming too rapidly and there's so much cause for concern, why are scientists and governments not getting their heads together to find ways of coping with that, instead of wringing their hands and making promises of reductions in carbon emissions which they know they can't achieve? These climate change debates are like a pantomime: 'Oh yes it is!', 'Oh no it's not!' and the result is hopelessly inadequate to meet the challenges involved.

The debate over fossil fuels centres mainly on use of petroleum and its products, and obviously the lives of most people on earth today would be severely curtailed without it. I went to work for an international oil company in the 1960s and was told then that there were proven reserves of crude oil to last until 1980. Exploration since then has obviously discovered far more than that, but as petroleum is a finite, ever-scarcer resource, alternative sources of power must be found unless we're all prepared to revert to living in an agrarian society or becoming hunter-gatherers.

The choice is stark. Oil has had its heyday, which is why oil companies have long been researching sources of renewable energy. Either massive, world-wide efforts need to be made to replace dwindling oil stocks as a major source of power, with no get-out clauses for certain countries, or the doom-laden forecasts from some of today's scientists are likely to be proven correct in a few decades.

Burning coal is not a practical solution, as it also produces large amounts of unwelcome waste gases. Planting trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions causes other problems if they're not in the right place or they're the wrong kind of trees. Wave and wind power are, so far, incapable of producing massive amounts of power, and solar power is still in its infancy but likely to be the best bet in regions where there is sufficient sunlight to make it viable.

On the small scale, it's up to all of us to waste less, recycle and think of the consequences of our actions, but we're a drop in the ocean. It's world leaders who need to take swift, decisive action, and they're never going to be able to make the right choices about what action to take unless the scientists first get together and reach agreement about what action is necessary to enable adaptation to changing climate conditions.

However, something I've missed if it's been mention earlier, but surely continuing huge population growth is a significant factor in this debate. Can mankind continue to increase in numbers at the present rate and still survive?

What about massive volcanic eruptions spewing gases into the air? What about the damage caused by warfare and nuclear weapons testing? I'll never forget the TV pictures of Kuwait's oilfields blazing and emitting huge clouds of gases. All of these things must contribute to climate change.

There are so many factors involved, and the only solutions to the problems we face lie in the hands of people over whom we have precious little influence. The words 'handcart' and 'hell' spring to mind! Very depressing, to say the least.

Marliza