On Copenhagen and the climate change

It is almost the end of 2009. This year ends on a murky note with the disaster of Copenhagen Climate Conference.

I am upset, but honestly not very surprised. Every country has been fighting for its own little interest, nobody has wanted to make a significant move forward, egos have been bumping into each other for two weeks and some scientists (or so-called scientists) are interfering in the debate arguing (lobbying?) the IPCC conclusions are wrong...

On this specific point I would like to say I don't quite understand those scientists :
- Some are claiming there is no global warming => of course we can observe small periods of global "coldening", it is basic statistics, no trend is perfectly linear! Those people are saying "we cannot foresee tomorrow's weather how could we predict it at long period?". Well stupid, it is exactly as if I told you that the stock markets remain the best investment over a long period of time (with a 20-30 years investment you are sure to get the best return possible) but I cannot tell you where the DOW JONES will be tomorrow or in a year! Doh!
- Some agree that there is a global warming... which is not due to human activity => Ok maybe the climate change is not entirely due to human activity, of course we should study the impact of the solar activity, the clouds and everything, but based on what I have seen, read and thought this is definitely not what I believe, of course the activity of more than 6 billions people has an impact.

Anyway, why not, let's assume they are right. Hummm ok but can you tell me what does it change??? Indeed, in the end those scientists (at least the serious ones, not those who are nothing but lobbyists) agree that we must reduce CO2 emissions for multiple reasons : CO2 increase oceans' acidity, pollution (CO2 and other gases) in urban areas is a really serious health concern (and anyway, for god sake who wants to live in a polluted foggy area??!!), fossil resources are on rapid depletion...

So what? Is it just a ridiculous scientific rumble to know who is closer to truth?
I mean give us a break we are discussing about serious things here, the way we, our kids and grand kids will live in the near future!!
So the real questions are : Do we want to live in a polluted world? No. Do we want to waste in less than a century most of the fossil resources nature took millions of year to create? Of course not! Do we want to eradicate dozen of species just for money (and I am not only referring to polar bear but to red tuna for instance)? NO! Are we ok with the fact that they are seas of plastic gyrating in every ocean of the globe? NO NO AND NO!
And I could keep going like this.

For me everything is linked and living in a less polluting, less polluted environment, while economizing fossil resources (which is actually the way to reduce CO2 emissions) is not only good but necessary.

Of course we must also put a strong focus on other issues such as water (access and cleanness) which will be a major issue in the decades to come, we must do everything we can to control natality by educating people (especially women. It is proven if you send little girls to school you dramatically lower natality in medium term), we must study every scientific possibility such as carbon capture and storage but we must also act now and change now. Event if change is not always comfortable.

The problem is man is incapable of assessing his actions, putting them in perspective and acknowledging his own mortality. Human being is a short-sighted creature with a very weak memory.