Rune Allnor <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1 Des, 20:40, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> >> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.
>> >Keep the politics out of this.
>>
>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
>> injecting politics into. *Don't blame me.

>I am generally considered a bit beyond half-mad: It
>doesn't matter where a statement is made, not even
>who makes it. What matters is the statement.

The right wing wants us all to think such pieces about climate
are above politics. Again, don't fall for it.

>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *
>
>To understand the climate. If the models don't describe
>the essentials of the process under study, they are
>useless.

>> What standard of
>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
>> more pollution controls? *

>There are several good reasons why various pollution
>controls should be implemented. The climate is *not*
>one of them.

If the odds of AGW are one in a thousand, is not that reason
enough to control the relevant pollution sources?

>The past few days news reports indicate that "3rd-world
>contries" claim some $100 billions from "industrialized
>countries" for "climate damage compensations."
>
>The world economy is about to be screwed seriously up
>during the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. Why? because
>of these computer models that don't work.

You have no proof that stricter pollution controls will
negatively impact the economy.

The U.S. is experiencing more prosperity than 40 years ago,
despite having less than one-third the oil intensity it did then,
and a large number of new environmental controls.

Only narrow special interests benefit from the near-total
lack of emissions controls that the WSJ is promoting.

Again, I'm not swallowing it, and I will speak out when
I see the polluters trying to steer the debate under
the guise of science.

Steve