RM>> Yes, we may have a slight influence on things but in the scale of
  >> the world I don't think we have much of an effect.
  >> In any case, if we started it we won't be able to stop it for
  >> probably hundreds of years because we aren't going to stop making
  >> carbon any time soon..

MP>Oh, of course we can!  All we have to do is give in and stop using cars and
  >start eating the bugs and the lab-grown goo they caringly supply us with...
  >while they sit back and eat steaks and fly in private jets.

The infamous 'They'..    B)

Even if it were everyone trying to stop carbon output, with the number
of people in the world spread far and wide, those needing to generate
heating or cooling would still be adding to it.

Plus there's another issue at work. Now that it's mostly warmer and
dryer in a lot of areas you hear about how many more forest fires
there are now compared to even the recent past . Trees are known to
soak up carbon but that means they release it all at once when they
burn. And the melting permafrost is releasing carbon that has been
trapped under the ice for hundreds or thousands of years so, once it
starts, there's almost no way to stop it..

Although.. I hear we are overdue for an Ice Age..  Those often are
pretty good at cutting down the population, which is really the
main problem. I heard once that some scientific group worked out
that the world could safely support about 50 million humans in total
without doing any damage to the planet..

There are lots of numbers if you try to look that up but most are
based on being able to feed the population, not on the population
not doing any harm to the world. Most estimates come out a lot
lower than the current population though.

---
 * SLMR Rob  * It's not hard to meet expenses; they're EVERYWHERE!
 * Origin: Capitol City Online (618:250/1)