"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or
what?

My choices are fluid and I change my position on a subject when I find
overwhelming evidence to do so.

Well, that's good.



As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the
numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

Ed, I'm a little surprised that you haven't. For nearly 4 decades,
people have been dying around the world from the bad decisions leaders
(starting in this country and going global) have made concerning the
environment. From DDT bans, to choosing coal over nuke, to the use of
ethanol. I stand with the side which would stop that, wasting
trillions on a loose "maybe". I'm for _sane_ actions. Why aren't you?

Yeah, things are rough all over. Now, how are you determining which actions
are sane? We know you have a general distrust of government. But do you have
the same distrust of science? If so, why do you believe some scientists over
others?


What have the Wars on X (drugs, poverty, terror, GWk, etc.) cost the
world? Entire -countries- are now opting out of the pursuit of
controlling their waste because it's too costly to get every last
ten-billionth of it according to the Gospel of the EPA and other such
idiocracies. Something about that seems wrong to me. You?

What is it you think is wrong? The science, or the politics?

I'm curious about something you said above, which I let pass the first time,
but maybe it's become relevant. You seem to feel it's important that CO2
makes up only 385 ppm or so of the atmosphere. Crichton said as much in his
book, which I recognized as evidence that he either didn't understand the
gas greenhouse effect, or he was being intentionally misleading. Do you
understand it? It's nothing like the principle on which a conventional
greenhouse operates; the physics are entirely different. The gas greenhouse
effect was discovered around 170 years ago so it's not new science. They
have it nailed down to the level of quantum mechanics today.

It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm (what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it will
be very shortly.

--
Ed Huntress