On 10/25/2011 5:21 AM, wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:36 pm, "Ed wrote:


There's an interesting story about former skeptic Richard Muller in the
Washington Post today. Apparently Muller's report last week in the Wall
Street Journal, in which he reversed himself and said that extensive
checking shows that the IPCC got the warming data exactly right, has some of
the hard core sputtering in their soup:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...inding-that-se...

It's an amazing commentary on how the politicos have abused and distorted
science.

--
Ed Huntress


Ah but Muller's report , at least as descibed in the Washington Post,
is only whether there is global warming. It does not address what the
cause is or whether the warmer climate will have a positive or
negative feedback on global warming. Still a lot of unanswered
questions.



Dan



One thing is for sure. Say we decided that it was us that was causing
global warming and took drastic steps to cut our use of carbon. Say we
were really successful and we reduced how much we used fossil fuels by a
huge amount. If then, we saw the heating start going back down I think
that would be good evidence it was us that was causing the heating.

So what would be the harm if we did that? And what good would come from
it? I'd say the good would so outweigh the harm there's no sense not
doing it anyway.

Hawke