Bjorn Again

Bjorn Lomborg is one of those guys who's been on multiple sides of the global warming debate. First he was a skeptic. Then he was a believer. Now he calls himself a realist (that's exactly where I am, too)..........................................................................................Yes, there's been some warming. Yes, there's been a 60% increase in atmospheric CO2 that man has probably contributed to. Yes, CO2 will generally cause SOME warming (approximately 1 degree Celsius for every doubling of it - all things being equal). And, yes, some populations could potentially be hurt by it (this, while others will be aided - CO2 increases have long been associated with superior crop yields and warming is historically far less harmful than cooling).......................................................................................But this is where Bjorn and I say, "enough". a) The warming (3/4 of a degree Celsius) has hardly been extreme or unusual. b) There are other possible explanations for at least some of the rise in CO2 (again, I'm conceding that man has more than likely played a role); underwater volcanoes, bacteria, C14 isotopes from cosmic rays mixing with oxygen, etc.. c) The geological record is replete with periods in which CO2 levels were significantly higher than those of today (15-25 times higher according to Nir Shaviv and Ian Plimer) and, while we obviously can't decipher what a scenario such as that would do to human life, life in general and the planet obviously survived it. d) The largest chunk of 20th Century warming took place PRIOR to 1940 - this, while 80% of the CO2 emissions happened AFTER 1940 (1940 to 1975 being a period of no global warming). e) Most of the so-called solutions are either idiotic or utterly cost-ineffective......................................................................................So, what in fact SHOULD we be doing? The obvious strategy for me would be to let the free market figure it out (as oil becomes more expensive, we will either switch to alternative energy sources such as natural gas, nuclear, and solar or become radically more efficient as we obviously adapt as necessary). And, please, folks, if we have to spend more money, can we at the very least do it intelligently? Like, I don't know, maybe ridding the planet of malaria or something.