Final-Fan said:
From the presentation you cite: "Atmospheric CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor the primary forcing agent for temperature change rates; CO2 is a benefit for humankind." |
I think you are pointing to that as some sort of argument...but really it makes perfect sense. You could probably e-mail the guy for his specific arguments but considering the sheer number of environmental processes that require C02 I think its absurd not to see that its beneficial. Granted I think everyone can agree moderation (as with all things) is required, the issue is what constitutes moderation.
In any case, I don't want to assume anything so I will ask if you are planning to refute the point that current rates of change are in no way abnormal? I realize you may have problems with the rest of his argument but short of an attack on his data source which is sort of hard to do in this venue I think we can take his information at face value even if you don't accept his conclusions.
In any case I think if you approach this whole thing from the default scientific position of skepticism and apply the standard levels of scientific rigor required for theories to be considered seriously it quickly becomes clear that a number of inconsistencies that would prevent a theory in physics or chemistry from being given credence does very little to stop this theory from being given serious consideration and has now reached the level of sensationalism by the normal standards of scientific debate.
As far as the Bush administration and bullying scientists goes, I think thats another great example of something being repeated until its fact. I've said before I'm not fond of the Bush administration but I cannot even begin to understand the hatred he garners from some people. Just about every week I hear the newest horrible thing Bush has done and quite frankly I am pretty sure that if even half of them are true the man couldn't possibly sleep..so maybe we should add zombie to the list eh?
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
