brent <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 2:40*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>> The climate models aren't good enough.

>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *What standard of
>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
>> more pollution controls?

>The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
>pollution. Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. I, for
>one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
>The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
>controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
>controls and individual liberty controls.

This is simply the pro-pollution way of wording things.

Your "liberty" to emit CO2 does not have priority over my "liberty"
to live in a world without excess CO2. The "individual liberty"
argument is bogus. It's a question of what policy will be pursued.
We as a society decide what amount of CO2 to emit. Liberty has
nothing to do with it. It's a policy decision, that's all.


Steve