FACTS???? ACTUAL DATA???? REAL HARD NUMBER STUFF???? You must be dreaming!!!!!
Actually there are some facts related to Global Warming; it is a fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased, it is a fact that spring time plant growth is earlier in the year in some locations, it is a fact that glaciers in many locations have receded. It would be possible to go on for a long list.
Is it a fact that worldwide deforestation exceeds re-forestation? That is a good question but I think it would be impossible to verify it. Anyway it is irrelevant to the aspect of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels which are the important ones; putting all the forests back would not compensate for very much of the accummulated fossil fuel CO2 and it would be a one shot deal. Forests do not continuously accummulate Carbon: A growing tree is accummulating Carbon and removing CO2 from the atmosphere; a decaying tree is returning the Carbon back to the atmosphere as CO2. A mature forest is comprised of trees at all stages of the growth and decay cycle so it is nuetral overall. There is a lot of puffery and nonsense spouted about sequestering Carbon and suggesting it can be done in green plants is simply idiotic; as I point out you have to stop then rotting away forever.
My approach is to use a bit of common sense and knowledge to evaluate whether something could or should be done and whether it will have any useful effect.
What ways are proposed to combat global warming? Carbon Credits or a Carbon tax are two.
Carbon Credits are a farce. These are like the Indulgences sold by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages; wealthy folk who had sinned all their life could make a payment to the Church to guarantee entry to Heaven. They bought absolution for their sins; now you can buy absolution for contributing to CO2 emissions. Does it reduce the emissions? No, your money goes to making somebody or some company wealthy.
Carbon taxes as they are proposed in some cases are also a farce. A significant tax is to be put on fossil fuels but at the same time other taxes will be reduced; the intent being to make the Carbon tax revenue neutral. So now a gallon of gas will cost me five dollars but my monthly tax bill has declined by a few hundred dollars so I can afford to keep driving my gas guzzler.
And measures that are not a farce, if they are put in place, i.e. if they do indeed significantly reduce fossil fuel use will knock individual country economies or the world economy into a tailspin. Earlier I put in a link to an analysis I had posted in a different thread. I run a business, I do know what I am talking about, the only way my business can use significantly less energy is to make less product. In other words, lay off employees, buy less material, pay less in taxes while making less income. Who wants to volunteer to join me in committing business suicide? And before anyone tries to argue I could improve efficiencies I will point out that over the past five years I have improved efficiency enough that I absorbed a 60% decline in the value of the currency of my major export customer; I have SFA efficiency improvment left.
Do I have a solution for Global Warming? No, I don't think there is a solution I also don't think that most of the horrendous scenarios that are postulated will occur. Predicting more violent storms or wildly varying weather patterns arising from a 1 or 2 degree increase is silly. Extrapolate backwards through a similar decrease in temperatures; was weather and were storms much more predictable and milder? Of course not.
And this is why I think Lomborg is about the only one talking sense; the only practical approach is to adapt to Climate Change because any effort to significantly combat it will cause enormous economic and social upheaval in the short, medium and long term and will probably do nothing useful. Even the IPCC gurus admit that no matter what measures are put in place the changes predicted for the next fifty years will take place. So the World would be face with relocating millions of people while in the middle of economic and social upheaval. I think it is a much better approach to face up to the fact that relocation is going to occur, but it will not be overnight it will be spread over decades. And it will be done in a stable society.