Leon wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..


That's one group's assessment of the theoretical change on atmospheric
CO2. But that wasn't my question. Assuming your figure is correct, what
would be the net global effect on humanity if it changed its behavior
enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2%? What would be required to achieve
that result? For example, Would all of mankind have to stop using fossil
fuels as a energy source? Where would we get a substitute energy source,
or would we have to revert to the Seventeenth century technology? Would
climate conditions be more, or less favorable, to mankind? What effect
would it have on agriculture? On transportation? On communications? On
modern-day creature comforts? What effect would the necessary reduction
in technology have on mankind? Would the average standard of living
improve, or degrade? Would more people get proper nourishment, or would
more starve to death? What effect on the spread of disease, etc.?

I think if we reduced the CO2 emissions TODAY, all of the believers of
Global Warming would be whining about other problems tomorrow. Like how do
I get to work, why does my telephone not work, etc.



We'd also hear questions like:


Why can't I fly in my private jet to lecture everyone else on how to live?

Why can't I heat my huge mansion(s) while writing screeds about what others should do?

How come the planet is still experiencing very slight warming?

Why is the economy collapsing?

Why is the average life expectancy declining?

How come I can't get a good steak any more?

Why are the farmers all broke?

How come there are famines in the developed West for the first time ever?



The greatest danger to civilization as we know it is not global warming. It is
collectivist political ideology mated with a specious extrapolation of known
climate science. People like Gore, for instance, (who epitomizes this) are not
just wrong, they are a menace to free people everywhere...