Methane Leak from melting ice

http://news.discovery.com/earth/methane-leak-permafrost-arctic.html
Even if we agree 1) that global warming exists and 2) that humans "caused" it, we still have the problem of how do we humans fix it fast enough that will counteract the release of so much methane at once? Is anyone going to be able with authority to tell us that the earth needs to cool by 4 degrees and the only way to do that is to basically kill all humans?

Is someone going to be able to say that the amount of methane emissions here is equivalent to the amount of methane released (and therefore we should cap it) by production of x human widgets? What if this amount of methane is significantly more than what humans produce?

I'm not taking this lightly. I'm not being a denier. I am simply asking: "How do we humans who aren't scientists deal with the information presented here in a proactive manner?"

This article doesn't tell us that this amount of methane is x ppm vs y ppm that humans (or cows?) produce. It does, however, say a specific *type* of carbon production leads to global warming. Good thing. We're hearing that Carbon is bad. We need to stop buying diamonds, procreating, breathing, producing flatulence, driving, and burning anything. We need to start planting more trees and stop building and making stuff. And until everyone basically stops breathing, they can buy carbon offset credits to make them feel better about their polution.

A global warming rant

Read: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece
And yet, nobody actually tells us what it will take to increase the arctic ice. Given that CO₂ is a lagging indicator (some say it's a feedback to global warming. Nobody explains why it's not simply a by-product.)

I think they're saying if the entire world shuts down for a few years we could get the ice back. But I thought the CO₂ was there for 3000 years? I submit that anything that will happen in 5-10 years is going to happen regardless of whatever is accomplished at Copenhagen. It will take that long before most things get implemented and/or effective. And then what? What if the earth is simply doing what it is doing to get rid of humanity? Won't that simply fix its own problem?

Oh, noes! The climate isn't just changing ... it's in crisis!

So the ad says at We Can Solve It. It's not just changing. It's in crisis.

Stop trying to scare me. Wanna buy some carbon offsets? I have them next to some swamp land and a bridge.

Is it climate change? or Global Warming?

One of the things I keep tucked away in the back of my brain from a time management conference is that "Change" is a bad word. Change is a bad word *on its own* because it indicates movement but not direction. Change is, in mathematical terms, half of the designation of a vector. In order for change itself to be of value, it must be accompanied by direction.

The conversion of wording from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" is indicative of the "bad word" that "change" is. The Global Warming pundits have tried to convince people that it exists, and have convinced people who might otherwise deny the existence of God, with criteria that they would decry if applied to the existence of God, they would accept whole-heartedly in the case of "Global Warming." Even the points made by Al Gore have been denied by his own graphs. Some esteemed scientists have indicated that, if anything, earth is in a Global Cooling.

So, now, we are inundated by the rather bland scare-term "Climate Change." First, it uses the ambiguous term "Change" (cooler, perhaps? warmer?) and then ignores completely the fact that climates change regardless of human intervention. They just tend to do that. If indeed we're in a climate cooling period for the last ten years (or 12 months?), what are we trying to prevent? And by what means are we humans expected to prevent it?

Preventing Global Warming is like ...

Clipping coupons to become a millionaire.

Yes, everyone can do his part. But we still need to survive in the way that we live, now. I realize that there are children, and children's children that will need to deal with whatever it is that they'll deal with.

The way I look at it, in a hundred years, there will be very little that can be done to save the populace from itself. The good part is that we've recognized where we are. The so-so part is that we've likely hit the highest part of our pollution percentages ... because we know them. Until the other countries start themselves to become industrialized.

Do we stop the other countries from so becoming?

I thought my teachers told me that plants like CO2

GE has an ad (Go here and click the "Tree" link.) which, inexplicably to me, has a tree hugging a house because it releases less greenhouse gases.

Trees like CO₂, don't they?

Some other reading