Climate Tolerance As the Maryland legislature and other states, cities and towns grapple with reducing CO2 levels I cannot help but feel a bit frustrated. (The State Assembly of Maryland could not agree on a CO2 reduction plan this session.) Let’s for the sake of argument assume that the proposed bill in Annapolis would reduce the global temperature by .5 degrees Fahrenheit in fifty years. (This is a ludicrous assumption since Maryland is just one state and it would have to be a global initiative but let’s go with it for now.) In 2050 when we look back on the amount of money we spent to reduce the temperature a very small amount and in the process put almost impossible demands on our businesses will we be able to defend that decision to our grandchildren? Should we instead put that money into schools, infrastructure and R & D ? I am not trying to diminish global warming but I am, like Bjorn Lomborg, attempting look at it from a different perspective. Some of the affects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated (when the ice cubes in your drink melt does you glass overflow ? )and our money may be better spent exploring other avenues in addition to CO2 reduction. CO2 is just one variable in a most complex global climate. I have stated for years that some of the effects of global warming might even be beneficial. We might see crops grown farther north and in areas of the world that previously could cultivate nothing. Global warming is such a politically charged issue that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum from which to discuss the issue. If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically.  ¶ 10:17 PM