Well, that is not quite it, but it is a good part of what needs to be done, as Angry Harry - in his usual and admirable lucid style - explains in his piece, [1] Feminists Destroy the Planet (April 4, 2008)

Read it. You, and especially policy makers, will most certainly obtain a few good ideas on what it takes to save the planet and, in the process, human civilization.

I farmed for decades, trying to keep wilderness at bay and motivating even some ideological sales-representatives who came to our door to exclaim: “You live in a beautiful place, you have a lot to be thankful for.” To which I usually explained, “Well, the piece of Paradise on Earth you see here and admire was created by man, mostly by me, working with the material that God gave me - not exactly gave, but I had to buy it with my earnings and with my labour. If you wish to see the original state of the God-given assets I had to work with, let’s go a half a mile east from our yard and let’s take a look at what things used to be like in their natural state.”

I also usually explained that, without the improvements brought about by man, Nature tends to be a bitch given to be very harsh and unforgiving.

Funny that none of the sales reps ever took me up on my invitation and never went to take a look at what Nature in its natural state really is like (they also always expected that we would be ready to listen to them but never paid any attention to me when I asked them to give a hand first with pressing things before we would sit down, such as assisting with lambing). Still, Angry Harry is right. Man cannot live in harmony with Nature when [2] feminists are bent on doubling the unavoidable losses that occur when man tries to make a living.

In an end note to his article, Angry Harry states:

 Let me stress that I have no idea whether or not we are causing global warming. The point is that the politicians keep telling us that this is so. But if they truly believe that we are causing global warming then the question arises as to why they do not promote certain policies that would address this allegedly serious problem.

I firmly believe that I can be a little more sure about man’s influence on global warming.  This blog and its affiliated websites are not the voice of authority on global warming issues, but they point to the very large number of objective and reputable climate researchers who quite clearly state that the cries raised by opportunistic climate alarmists about man-made global warming are nothing but alarmist propagandistic hype.

Certainly, global temperature trends vary up and down over years, decades and centuries, but to insist that those temperature variations over time are man-made is ludicrous, given that they took place long before man even came into the picture, and most definitely long before the industrialization of the world economy began.

Reputable, credible and respectable climate researchers all agree that we know that climate changes happen, but they also agree that we don’t know yet quite enough to determine what causes them.  What we do know is that they are not caused or even controlled by man.

In the following graph of global temperature trends, the man-made contribution over time amounts to nothing more than the thickness of the line showing the past trend.

The Past and Future of Climate

By David Archibald, May, 2007 ([3] Full Article — 377 kB PDF file, off-site)

From the article:

The anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to the average global annual temperature values is the difference between the green line (temperatures resulting only from all natural causes) and the black line (temperatures that result from all natural and anthropogenic causes).

Shown at Global warming explained, under the heading: A few news items relating to the global-warming hype and hysteria
[4] http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming.htm#past_and_future_climate