On Dec 1, 9:11*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> brent *<buleg...@columbus.rr.com> 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

I strongly disagree with you. My liberty to emit CO2 is something I
exercise every single day of my life.

I still have the liberty to drive my automobile and log onto my
computer and heat my home. And I will support a policy to destroy any
policy that tries to take away my right to emit CO2.

You still have the liberty to emit CO2 and I suspect do so every
day.

The argument over whether you have a right to live in a world without
excess CO2 is no different than the argument about whether one has a
right to live in a society free of homo***uals. You have created a
bogyman that is not considered a boogyman by very many people.