Steve wrote :

>Why are you even bother replying Chris, I thought I was too dreary (must
>be all that focus on such nasty things as data and statistical analysis
>and stuff) for you, and also your mind was already made up.  Oh well.

Well somebody ought to try and sort you out on this and put you straight,
so, as I'm in a generous mood, I'll have another go, so you can see what
a nice patient fella I am.

>Lets see, below we have an extended analogy.  Your flue virus.  Sorry, but
>if 2% from man is bad then 98% from nature must be horrible and we might
>as well as all roll over and die.  The reason your analogy fails is
>because you can seperate the flu virus from the person, but you cannot
>isolate anthropogenic CO2 from natural CO2.

You just don't get it at all do you. I don't accept the above, but 
even if I did,
if the 98 percent was leading to global climate change, purely as the effect
of natural processes (which we do not yet understand) that have been
operating since long before humans tapped into fossil fuels, then the RATIONAL
response would be, either (1) do nothing, or (2) take action to 
mitigate, slow down
or ameliorate the effects. The RATIONAL response is not to do our utmost
to make the effects WORSE - which is what present policies are doing.

Of course you can separate anthropogenic CO2 from natural C02. The
anthropogenic C02 would be locked away in carbon sinks if it were not
for human activity. Your criticism fails because you assume a priori that
just because it is the same 'stuff', then quantity is irrelevant. That's both
irrational and unscientific and shows ignorance of myriad examples in
nature. Small quantities of a substance can be vital, large quantities of
same, lethal. Your prior judgement that you somehow know that two
percent is unlikely to be important is totally unwarranted and totally
unscientific.

>Your half a percent is baloney also.  First, the amount of carbon in the
>atmosphere is not constant.  Second it can and has flutuated by more the
>.5%.

Yes Steve. I have read up on all this for years. I am aware of the numbers.
Typically you've missed the point. The system is incredibly complex, far
too complex for us to be able to grasp all the intricacies. To pick on one
variable, C02 percentage, as you do, and dismiss its relevance cannot
be justified.

>Nice scare tactic as well.  "What if its too late?"  We don't even know if
>it is even happening.  By your line of reasoning you shouldn't fly, get in
>a car, go to the hospital (you could get a deadly disease and die, or die
>due to the anesthesia, etc.), and so on.

Garbage. I'm perfectly free to take any risks I wish on my OWN behalf.
I can spend the evening playing Russian Roulette if I want. That bears
no comparisom with the Global Warming scenario, where a small portion
of the worlds population - mostly in America - are playing Russian Roulette
with the whole future of the planet, all other peoples and all other living
things. What gives them the right to do that ? other than that they have the
power to ignore everyone else's interests ? Seems totally unethical to me.
YOU may not know that it's happening, but the worlds insurance companies
have accepted that it is and they  are the specialists when it comes to risk
evaluation. It's no scare tactic, on my part. It's pure natural common sense.

>As for my attitude be reckless, so is yours.  Yours it the "lets leap
>before we look" and oh well if its a 5000 foot cliff we just leapt off of.
>  You have pushed the Precautionary Principle so far past its intended use
>its laughable, and I think unethical.  Your version of it can be used to
>justify stopping any type of activity.

More garbage. Where have I suggested that we "leap" to ? I'd be a whole
lot happier if I could see some solid strategy that gets us all out of this
fix. Just wish that I could. But yes, I believe - it seems blindingly obvious -
that knowing what we already know, what is already observed, established and
accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide, we certainly do have to
stop a great many activities as rapidly as we possibly can. Any activity that
causes gross environmental effects MUST be revaluated and moderated as fast
as possible.

>AS for rationality you have yet to exhibit any.

I see your preference for what you call 'rationality' over any other mode
as pure prejudice and intellectual laziness; in fact, one symptom of the
disease that's causing the global crises.

C.L.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%