If you can't accept science, you are beyond logic. If you accept that we
have any impact at all, which everyone does, it's only a matter of time. We
are quickly moving to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that haven't been
observed for 100 million years. Further, everyone accepts that the reason
behind the huge jump in levels of C02 is anthropogenic. There is excellent
science that proves this is real. There is also excellent science, accepted
by everyone, about what things were like in the past. If you can't accept
the basic laws of physics, and see that the same things will happen in the
future, you are beyond logic. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been
spent studying this. This is not one little study by a graduate student.
This is thousands of studies, peer reviewed, repeated. It is as science as
science gets. Even companies who have a vested interest in denying climate
change, now accept it as reality. If you can't accept this level of science
as fact, you could never convict someone of a crime.

Here is a bit of an interview with Stephen Schneider, Biological Sciences
dude at Stanford --

"Well, most scientists would argue that these very mild and very
catastrophic outcomes are plausible, maybe even a 10 percent chance of each
of them. But the bulk of the likelihood is somewhere between the end of the
world and the "good for you" scenarios that you see all the time in the
newspapers and in the Congressional debates.
The bulk of scientists are pretty straight about saying this is a
probability distribution. And right now our best guess is that we're
expecting warming on the order of a few degrees in the next century. It's
our best guess. We do not rule out the catastrophic 5 degrees or the mild
half or one degree. And the special interests, ..... from deep ecology
groups grabbing the 5 degrees as if it's the truth, or the coal industry
grabbing the half degree and saying, 'Oh, we're going to end up with
negligible change and CO2's a fertilizer,' and then spinning that as if
that's the whole story--that's the difference between what goes on in the
scientific community and what goes on in the public debate."





Spike" > wrote in message
... > Which is precisely my
point... As you just pointed out... there is no
> con census. I never said humans have no impact. Only that the impact
> humans have is far from determined. And as you also pointed out, those
> various organizations each have their own agendas which motivate their
> findings. Just as a large number of "studies" have been found to be
> tainted by a policy requiring so called experts to "publish or
> perish". Human are supposed to have such an impact, yet those self
> same "experts" make a prediction, such as the size of the hole in the
> ozone layer, and then the hole either gets way larger than projected,
> or unexpectedly shrinks.
>
> I take it you have decided what the sole source for factual
> information is and you expect one and all to accept only your
> source(s) because they agree with what you believe. In which case you
> should probably do your part, and return to the Amish lifestyle. Use
> nothing modern, including the internet and computers. Much like if we
> disarm, they will disarm.





> On 21 Nov 2004 12:18:39 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>
>>I'd be more discriminating if I were you. There is no debate about climate
>>change -- CO2 and other green house gases have increased greatly since the
>>industrial revolution. The increase is without doubt anthropogenic.
>>Climate
>>change will occur. It's unfortunate that the media often frames "The
>>Global
>>Warming Debate" as a debate about if global warming is real. The only
>>debate
>>is about how much climate change will occur. The fossil industry guys have
>>their good-for-you proposal about sunnier weather and less harsh winter.
>>Some rather green folks see it as dooms-day. The going line is, 10% chance
>>of each of the extremes. Climate change is real. There is no debate about
>>the fact that humans are altering the atmosphere and the climate. It's
>>only
>>a debate about the degree (nice pun eh?) to which it will change.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16