On 12/1/2009 7:11 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> 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

In the earth's past history, long before industrialization, atmospheric
CO2 levels were far higher than they are now. From that standpoint
we've a long, long way to go until there is an "excess" of CO2.

When human-caused CO2 emission rates get comparable to historical
emission rates of natural sources like volcanoes, fires, animals, etc.,
I might start to get worried. Until then I'll worry about NOx
emissions, which appear to be far more harmful and can more readily be
blamed on human activity. Why CO2 is being used as a distraction is a
question that has been on my mind for a long time.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com