Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I believe it was your guy, Dick Nixon, who in 1970 had the foresight to propose the EPA. Many of those nightmare scenarios conjured during the 70s might well have come to pass without that inspired legislation.

What a wonderfully unscientific, and wholly unsupported wet dream from wetsystems! Unfortunately, you have made absolutely zero attempt at even trying to substantiate such a claim, and I understand why because it would be extremely hard to do so, for many reasons. Granted, the EPA did clean up a lot of our messy problems in the US, but it could have only had minor impacts on any of those predictions of doom.

The most ridiculous implication of your suggestion is that the US, all by itself with its new EPA regulations, so reversed a dire situation that it made up for the rise of industry in some of those other countries mentioned in some of those predictions. Countries who have nothing like the EPA, nor do they seem to treat Gaia as well as we do here in the USA (shocking for a liberal to even have to consider that we are not the highest form of evil in this country, but it is true). For instance, let's look at a couple of those predictions:

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

So you are claiming that EPA helped stave-off what this gentleman claimed was a "unanimous agreement of demographers"? Really? Because this statement sounds almost exactly like what we hear today from our AGW Alarmist idiots when they claim "a large consensus of scientists agree that the globe is warming and mankind is the primary factor in its warming." Unfortunately, it never really was a "large consensus" and however large it was at one time, it is getting smaller by the day when they understand the mendacious activities carried out by a few "climate scientists" in trying to further a political agenda while abusing the scientific method.

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Care to explain how EPA regulations, which were really only imposed in the USA, were able to completely avoid these predictions? And isn't it interesting that, back then, the big unfounded scare was about too much nitrogen while today it is all about that "evil" gas CO2? Methinks the pols finally figured out that it was easier to be able to make money off of regulating carbon than it could ever be trying to regulate nitrogen. That is all that happened there.

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

This has nothing to do with pollution. It is just plain wrong, mostly because the idiot who said it had no idea how much total oil is available under the earth. Neither did anyone else back then, and even now. Note the "ecologist" label. Such people were known to be long on histrionics and short on science...which probably convinced them to pursue climate science as they got older.

Most of these quotes are about famine anyway...and are therefore still wrong no matter how you might try to claim that EPA regulations in this country helped to avoid loss of farming acreage elsewhere around the globe.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

Mr. Ehrlich is one of the biggest scaremonger offenders, and he is still around doing his schtick today! What is absolutely hilarious is that I saw a show on KOCE (the PBS affiliate here in SoCal) where Mr. Ehrlich was on and he was actually touting his record!!! He has such a revisionist mind, that he was actually claiming to have been 100% correct in his past predictions as far as where the earth is now! Someone needs to send him the memo, and that URL with his actual quotes. He is a legend in his own mind.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

And that is the very best one, as it is the one that most closely pertains to the scamalogical farce of AGW that is still trying to be force-fed on people who know better. It reflects the very typical Chicken Littleisms of that decade when everyone was predicting ice ages. But now the new fad is global warming...and still aholes like this guy want to look back and pretend they got it right! Moreover, you cannot possibly invoke the EPA regulations as having helped avert this prediction, because actually there is an aspect to cleaning up the air that has more to do with CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING than it does preventing the next ice age.

Clean Air A Problem?

Why cleaner air could speed global warming

Aerosol pollution, which is now on the downswing, has helped keep the planet cool by blocking sunlight. Tackling another pollutant, soot, might buy Earth some time.

By Eli Kintisch

You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.
Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

Sounds ridiculous, I know, but it is true. Now don't get me wrong...having lived here in Los Angeles since the early 80s, I experienced the crappy air quality back then. And we have done a great job in cleaning up the problem. Noticeably so because back then your average summer day looked just like the photo in the article at the link above. But the problem is that particulate matter in the atmosphere increases the earth's albedo, which tends to reflect more radiation instead of letting it hit the ground and be absorbed by the ecosystem.

So isn't it interesting that all the same people who are whining about global warming and CO2 today, were also whining and complaining about global cooling back then. And the efforts to clean up the air have actually played a part in the "runaway global warming" that they are trying to sell us now. You just can never please some people, huh?

What you cannot debunk, Kim, is that AGW is nothing but a political power play supported by mendacious application of the scientific method. There is so much evidence out there that people have been gaming the climate science community that it is the overwhelming nature of this evidence that makes the whitewash "investigations" by universities of themselves, and by the UK government of the programs it has been funding so heavily, that makes their findings sound so ridiculous!

Rather than continuing to try to tell me how I am wrong about all the evidence I have provided in this thread for why AGW is junk science, Kim, perhaps you could actually cite some solid science (i.e. has not yet been falsified) that proves mankind is primarily responsible for global warming?

Ray

[Chorlton]

Rather than continuing to try to tell me how I am wrong about all the evidence I have provided in this thread for why AGW is junk science, Kim, perhaps you could actually cite some solid science (i.e. has not yet been falsified) that proves mankind is primarily responsible for global warming?

Ray

But surely even you must admit that mans presence on the earth, has to have had an influence on the climate?.
You cannot continue pumping Co2 and other gases as well as heat into the air for god knows how long, at the same time as those same plants that absorb that Co2 being decimated, without some consequences?.
The earths climate is changing, I think thats generally accepted. What the problem is, is whats causing it.
My opinion is that its a regular change that has been accelerated by our own actions.
If we can at least start to modify and control those actions now then maybe the next time the world goes into a sequence of changes it might not be fatal.

[gunter]

I concur. You are exactly correct.™ It's not necessary to cite all of the vast body of scientific evidence here in order to make that point. That's why jesus gave us Google. It's much easier to destroy a theory with a constant drumbeat of carping and half truths than it is to construct one in the first instance. Just ask News Corp. And as to the EPA's influence on restraining noxious emissions- the effects were not only on the greatest polluter, corporate America, but on all the world's gratuitous despoilers. What starts in America eventually spreads worldwide- for good or for ill. Al Gore, Ray's personal Moriarty, has had a tremendous and beneficial influence on the entire globe. His Nobel prize is testimony to that. The world can no-longer ignore the consequences of pissing in it's own well, of shitting in its own garden. That's all Gore is really saying. All the rest is a footnote.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Chorlton,

But surely even you must admit that mans presence on the earth, has to have had an influence on the climate?.

Have I ever said otherwise? No. In fact, if I did not believe this, then why would I go to the trouble of: (a) buying and installing a BP solar photovoltaic power generation system on the roof of my home, and (b) buy and use as my primary commute car a Honda Civic GX, natural gas vehicle. I would like to politely direct you to the title of this thread, because that is what this is all about and what I have been consistently railing about. There has been a good deal of scientific malfeasance going on for a long time to "prop-up" the specious scientific claim that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

That is an important point, so let me lay it out again in a different format: That the globe has warmed (although it seems to have stopped in the last 8+ years or so) since the last minimum is not in question. It can just as easily be down to natural cycling as it could be human-induced. What is being contested here is the basis for cherry-picking data and ignoring facts that falsify their primary claim that the majority of the warming is due to mankind, in general, and CO2 specifically. If we are going to have a debate, I would suggest we agree upon this first-off, because it is the AGW Alarmists (whose job is not to report science, but to report what their money-masters want to hear) who refuse to separate "evidence of warming" from "evidence of human-forced warming." Surely, an intelligent and skeptical guy like you can understand and abide by this distinction, yes?

You cannot continue pumping Co2 and other gases as well as heat into the air for god knows how long, at the same time as those same plants that absorb that Co2 being decimated, without some consequences?.

Well, the implication here is clear that you seem to think "only bad" can happen from increased CO2. That is confirmation bias (i.e. if you only go looking for "bad" things and never look for "good" you will have a distorted view of what CO2 really is, which is NOT A POLLUTANT!). For example, here is just ONE report of how CO2 does good things for our biosystem:

Forests in the Eastern United States are Growing Faster Than They Have in the Past 225 Years!

That link cites other articles that tell us that we are actually able to increase crop yields thanks to the warmth and the abundance of CO2. I am sure you, with your garden fetish, as well as lots of hungry people in the world, should at least be happy about this side effect of greater CO2. But instead, the US EPA unilaterally decides that CO2 is a pollutant, which is total and complete bollocks, to borrow a British term!

The earths climate is changing, I think thats generally accepted. What the problem is, is whats causing it.

Exactly. And good science says that we can form hypothesi (such as Michael Mann's Hockey Stick, which was based on the CO2 theory) and test them. But what do we do when we get results that not only do NOT confirm the original hypothesis, but falsify it? We don't squash this Inconvenient Data. Rather, we admit the hypothesis is falsified, and go back and re-work the hypothesis with the newly acquired data. That has not been going on in the tight "climate scientist" circles of the people who write the IPCC reports for policymakers. They are mixing a potent brew of bad science and manipulative politics.

My opinion is that its a regular change that has been accelerated by our own actions.

And what do YOU say and do to people who have an "opinion" that there is a God? Hmmm??? I would like for you to cite the compendium of scientific evidence that supports your opinion, there as a good chap! And then, when I show you the facts that falsify such cherry-picked data, I expect you to at least admit that "we don't really know whether it is natural or human-forced."

If we can at least start to modify and control those actions now then maybe the next time the world goes into a sequence of changes it might not be fatal.

I know a helluva lot about control. In fact, I am a system architect for control systems! And just because it is the flying type does not mean I know nothing about other forms of control. In fact, I know a lot. And I must tell you that there is CLEARLY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that humans have sufficient control power (a technical term) to either modify or control the climate. If you are interested, I could give you a brief lesson on how energy of some climate events are estimated, and from the energy and how long such climate events last, we can estimate the total power of such an event (i.e. a thunderstorm or tornado or hurricane). Humans would have to exert MORE power than such an estimate in order to be able to exert any form of even moderate control over the climate. When one runs through actual numbers, instead of pondering and "hoping and changing" that humans have more power than is factually correct, that is when you will see what a fallacy it is to think that, even if ALL humans banded together, that we could have anything but a gnat's ass effect on climate dynamics.

I'm sorry, Chorlton, but before we can address the sheer fallacy that mankind can modify or control the climate (it really is on par with believing in God!), we first have to settle the question of "what has been causing the warming?" And oh yeah, the recent spate of earthquakes and volcanoes coming alive? There is a lot of historical data that suggests these are the earth's natural response to too much warming. There is a chart I embedded in a post way way back in this thread that shows volcanic activity has an overall cooling factor on the climate. The recent Iceland volcano could very well signal the beginning of a new cooling trend.

But the bottom line is this, Chorlton: Will you change your belief stated above if the data over the next few years DOES show a cooling trend? Because if the data does come in showing such, it would be a clear and unarguable falsification of the AGW theory. "They" (Gore and his well-paid psuedoscientific minions) have been saying we are heading for "runaway global warming." They were saying that in the mid-late 90s. And in fact, it is already falsified. Such runaway warming has not happened. And if the trend turns in the other direction, there will be no way a thoughtful and sane person can deny their claim as falsified.

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

It's much easier to destroy a theory with a constant drumbeat of carping and half truths than it is to construct one in the first instance.

Problem is, the entire "humans are causing global warming via CO2" is constructed on nothing-but half-truths and incessant drumbeat narratives: "The science is settled" and "the science is robust" and "the consensus of the majority of climate scientists prove this is true". All a bunch of political spin that ignores contrary evidence and alternate, more likely, explanations. You just are too much of a scientific neophyte to realize it, Toon.

Al Gore, Ray's personal Moriarty, has had a tremendous and beneficial influence on the entire globe.

What a load of hogwash. Let's just look at Al Gore's own, personal, carbon footprint. It has been well-documented just how much energy his Tennessee mansion uses. And even after installing solar PV panels, he still uses more power per year than over 20 middle-income households! And that is not counting all the carbon he belches flying around in his own personal jet aircraft. Catch a clue, Toon, your hero Gore wants to tell YOU how YOU should cut back your lifestyle (and that includes your bad habit of smoking and releasing things into the atmo much more toxic than CO2). He has absolutely no intention of applying those lifestyle rules to himself...ever. And his financial dealings in companies that would trade in carbon offsets is testiMONEY to that!

His Nobel prize is testimony to that.

Sure...just like Obama's Nobel Prize is his testimony to having done exactly ZERO to warrant it! In case you forgot, Gore shared his NP with the UN IPCC. That same IPCC that made continuous claims that "all of its science" used in its Assessment Reports is peer-reviewed. As I recently posted an article that investigated that claim, it is total and utter hogwash. It is simply untrue. And now that IPCC is having to open its kimono, we are seeing the kinds of scientific malfeasance that has been going on. Read the article above about not only how IPCC inserted an estimate of the acceleration of "global warming" that is clearly wrong calculus, but they did so in such a way that reviewers could not pass judgment on it, because they inserted the bogus claim AFTER all review comments were complete!

The world can no-longer ignore the consequences of pissing in it's own well, of shitting in its own garden. That's all Gore is really saying. All the rest is a footnote.

Yeah... all of the "do what I say, not what I do" is just a footnote. Way to go to bat and become a cheerleader for tyranny, Toon. You are playing right into Gore's hands. You are such a freaking lost cause, you don't even know when you are being swindled by the slick liar telling you everything you want to hear.

Ray

[gunter]

Jesus man. That was a nasty response. I happen to admire that slick tyrant, Al Gore. So shoot me. Have you become so invested in the teabag side of this issue that you've now convinced yourself that Al is some sort of NWO shill? He may not be entirely correct in his climate change hypotheses but that fact does not make him somehow evil, does it?

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Right on cue this morning:

More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

Subtitle: Ex-Gore associate and current Obama energy official Cathy Zoi is exploiting global warming for her own mega-gain.

Ahhhh yes, they all just care about us and the environment so much! For all the talk of "Big Oil" funding the "deniers", I find it interesting that no one talks about people on the other side of the argument who are also blatantly profiting from their political taskmasters. From the article:

Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.

Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.

As always.... follow the money, right back to Fat Albert!
Ray

[Chorlton]

But the bottom line is this, Chorlton: Will you change your belief stated above if the data over the next few years DOES show a cooling trend? Because if the data does come in showing such, it would be a clear and unarguable falsification of the AGW theory. "They" (Gore and his well-paid psuedoscientific minions) have been saying we are heading for "runaway global warming." They were saying that in the mid-late 90s. And in fact, it is already falsified. Such runaway warming has not happened. And if the trend turns in the other direction, there will be no way a thoughtful and sane person can deny their claim as falsified.
Ray

I *might* change my beliefs if that cooling data showed a continual and constant downturn. Would you change your beliefs if it didnt ? haha.

You have more science than me. In terms of weather etc I judge by what I see and what seems logical. Unscientific I know, but I know what I see.
I'm near 60 now and been around a bit. What I see now in respect of weather is not what I remember. Winter's in the UK are now not so harsh as they used to be.
Last year I was eating strawberries from my garden 4 weeks earlier than usual. I can now grow things outside in my garden that previously had to be grown in my polytunnels. I can grow Thai herbs and Veg and 5 years ago wouldnt even germinate let alone grow.
I see plants growing in the South of the UK that previously wouldnt even grow. I see someone growing Banana's, outdoors in the UK. Thats never been done before. I see people planting Olive trees, something not done before in the UK. I see malarial mosquito's from Africa slowly moving North into Italy, previously unknown. I see my favourite Glacier in Swizerland dissapearing up the valley. Is it Co2 or humans work of simply natural. I dont know but whatever it is has at the very least caused people to take a look at the problem. For it is a problem, if it is indeed Human made.
Change is happening. Is it Co2, I dont know. Sure Co2 can be helpfull to some trees in th the US, but overall it is rising. Excess of anything cannot be a good thing. If we can cut down excesses of anything then we can adjudge if warming is man made or natural. Doing nothing achieves nothing
Humans burning fuels for whatever reasons has caused an increase in Co2 levels. As Co2 itself is poisonous to Humans it is only logical we should be alarmed. Its also the other gases that we produce CHG4 N2o and other gasses that previously werent produced CFC's etc.
I think if we at least begin to understand the problem then the least we can do is to start cutting down on those emissions, then if it all eventually goes tits up, at least we can say we tried.

[gunter]

I think if we at least begin to understand the problem then the least we can do is to start cutting down on those emissions, then if it all eventually goes tits up, at least we can say we tried.

Yes. You nailed it. Such a prudent approach is far better than angry, knee-jerk denial for the sake of useless consumption and corporate greed.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I *might* change my beliefs if that cooling data showed a continual and constant downturn.

So now you are levying requirements on how Nature has to behave before you are convinced? That is not too scientific. The problem is that when Nature's dynamical systems (i.e. one with feedback loops, which we can discuss later) are involved, there is very little that is "continual" nor "constant". In fact, in Nature "the only constant is change." Here is exactly why this is so:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-con ... vostok.png

That is a record of the "temperature anomaly" of the earth based on paleoclimatological Vostok ice core data. There is very little "continual" or "constant" in that chart! So what we really would need is some sort of quantification on your part of what would convince you. How long does it have to go down? And by how much? Because isn't it enough to convince you that the Climate Priests are wrong simply by the temperature NOT continuging to go up? I mean, that is what they are predicting! Why is it not sufficient to merely falsify what they are predicting to change your beliefs? That is what science is based upon.

Would you change your beliefs if it didnt ? haha.

But what "beliefs" are you insinuating? I am not the one who is making a claim (i.e. "global warming is accelerating and mankind is the primary cause."), only pointing out that the people who ARE making claims are having their claims falsified by data. My mind is open on this. If temperatures continue to climb from 2010 through 2020, and climate model predictions of CO2 and temperature relationships are shown to be correct, then I would be willing to admit they are right. However, as it stands right now, they are wrong because (and once again, I remind that THIS IS SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL DATA) the temperature records from 2000-2010 do not match, in any way shape, or form, the "accelerated global warming" that they were predicting.

You have more science than me. In terms of weather etc I judge by what I see and what seems logical. Unscientific I know, but I know what I see.

Understand. But you might be interesed to know that one of the favorite aguments posed by the "AGW Alarmist" coalition is "weather is not climate." As great and wonderful as you are, Chorlton, you have only lived 60 years. The earth has been around a LOT longer, and we know of a time (called the Medieval Warm Period) in the BC years (Before Chorlton!) where the temperatures in the UK and all of Europe were as warm, if not warmer, than they are right now. So climate is cyclical. There is no doubt or argument about this. So just because the weather you see now is not the same as when you were a young pup does not, in any way, support the idea that the earth is experiencing "out of control warming."

I'm near 60 now and been around a bit. What I see now in respect of weather is not what I remember. Winter's in the UK are now not so harsh as they used to be.

Well, except this past winter, right? While chaps from your UK MET office predicted, just about 8 years ago, that snow in the winters will be increasingly unusual, that certainly was not realized this past year. They were wrong.

Last year I was eating strawberries from my garden 4 weeks earlier than usual. I can now grow things outside in my garden that previously had to be grown in my polytunnels. I can grow Thai herbs and Veg and 5 years ago wouldnt even germinate let alone grow.
I see plants growing in the South of the UK that previously wouldnt even grow. I see someone growing Banana's, outdoors in the UK. Thats never been done before. I see people planting Olive trees, something not done before in the UK.

The fact it has never been done before is not the same as claiming that it could never have been done before. Again, I refer you to the MWP. Temperatures back in those times were at least as warm as what you are experiencing.

I dont know but whatever it is has at the very least caused people to take a look at the problem. For it is a problem, if it is indeed Human made.

I agree that it is good for science to study things we believe are anomalies. More data is always better. But there are a lot of "ifs" in that last sentence. I do not advocate acting on "ifs" because to once again use one of the arguments you love to debunk, "IF there is a God, Chorlton sure will be in a lot of hot water come Judgement Day!" It plays both ways, my friend.

Change is happening. Is it Co2, I dont know. Sure Co2 can be helpfull to some trees in th the US, but overall it is rising.

It is good to more than just trees in the US. More CO2 has been a good thing on a global scale. If you would be interested, I can refer you to a new book out by Dr. Roy Spencer who even looks at the possibility that "life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide." Don't laugh just because you THINK it sounds ridiculous.

Excess of anything cannot be a good thing.

That is a general statement, and as we know, general statements are not always true. Moreover, you need to have some pretty good science at the ready if you are going to go from this general statement to something as specific as "too much CO2 cannot be a good thing." For one, you will need to have a clear threshold that correponds to "too much CO2" and you must have hard science to back it up. Feelings are not good enough here, Chorlton. And I hate to harp on this, but every semi-argument you make for believing in AGW can also be used in debunking God. If science is good enough for debunking the idea of a God, then it MUST be good enough (and therefore applied) to confirm or debunk ideas of human-induced warming.

If we can cut down excesses of anything then we can adjudge if warming is man made or natural. Doing nothing achieves nothing

And who is the arbiter that DECIDES that something needs to be done in the first place? Again, don't get the wrong idea. I walk the talk, as evidenced by my own, visible concern for the environment in how I generate solar power and how I choose to commute to work. The point I am making is SCIENCE should be used to determine IF something needs to be done, and then HOW to do it. As we see it right now, politicians are the ones wishing to "do something" before they even have properly established that mankind is at fault.

As Co2 itself is poisonous to Humans it is only logical we should be alarmed.

Incomplete, and therefore specious, argument. Humans are part of a closed ecosystem. What is "poisonous" to a human may NOT be toxic to the whole ecosystyem. And indeed, as we see with CO2, it may be that what is "poisonous" to a human may also be REQUIRED to sustain the ecosystem!

Its also the other gases that we produce CHG4 N2o and other gasses that previously werent produced CFC's etc. I think if we at least begin to understand the problem then the least we can do is to start cutting down on those emissions, then if it all eventually goes tits up, at least we can say we tried.

And what a great way to close, because THESE thoughts I am in total agreement with. We should always strive to cut down on emissions that we KNOW are toxic to both humans AND our ecosystem. And certainly, science can and should continue to study the issue and surface new data. But the other part of science must also be held fast, namely: We must attempt to falsify predictions, for only in falsifying something do we learn more about it!

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I think if we at least begin to understand the problem then the least we can do is to start cutting down on those emissions, then if it all eventually goes tits up, at least we can say we tried.

Yes. You nailed it. Such a prudent approach is far better than angry, knee-jerk denial for the sake of useless consumption and corporate greed.

Then let me ask you why YOU do not set a proper example by CEASING YOUR SMOKING? Clearly until you do so, you are a hypocrite, just like your hero, Al "I invented the internets" Gore.

Ray

[gunter]

Smoking calms my nerves. You wouldn't like me if I stopped.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Smoking calms my nerves. You wouldn't like me if I stopped.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If that's the case, then you need more than that photo with your mouth full of butts. You need a constant nicotine IV. And besides, the IV would allow you to talk like you walk about air pollution.

Butt (not a typo), I guess you are just like your hero when it comes to telling others how to live. Those rules are good for the proletariat, but not for you, the enlightened!
Ray

[gunter]

Butt (not a typo), I guess you are just like your hero when it comes to telling others how to live.

I never told anyone not to smoke. That was you, as I recall. Personally I don't care what people put in their bodies.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Butt (not a typo), I guess you are just like your hero when it comes to telling others how to live.

I never told anyone not to smoke. That was you, as I recall. Personally I don't care what people put in their bodies.

It is always easy to tell when Toon is backed into a corner. He ignores the point and pursues anything that can help him look like he is the surperior one in the argument.

Ahem.... it is not "what people put in their bodies" that is at issue here. It is what comes out. If you are so concerned about carbon (and all those other nasties that are exhaled from a puff of a cigarette), then you need to stop smoking. If you insist on polluting the atmosphere with your cancer sticks, then shut the eff up about how other people pollute. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Otherwise, we will send you to live 24/7 with Al Gore!
Ray