On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:07:13 -0800, brent wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2:40Â*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Rune Allnor Â*<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> >> Don't buy it! Â*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. Â*Don't blame me.
>>
>> >In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>>
>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? Â*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.

False logic. Why not use the word "urine" instead of pollution? What if
I didn't view urine as pollution? Urine controls (which you probably
want to call pollution controls) are really economic controls and
individual liberty controls.

So either you don't mind if I come over to your house and pee on your
carpet, or your whole argument is specious.

--
www.wescottdesign.com