Marcfrans

Thanks for your serious and considered replies to my submissions.

Regarding my 'Regan' slip, I can only say 'touche'! - it was of course Ronald Reagan, not 'Regan' who famously is associated with the phrase 'There you go again'. I am indeed old enough to remember the infamous friction between DR and NR!

I agree with you that underlying motivations (I understand this - if I've got you right - as referring to 'needs' covertly manufactured in the interest of creating new market segments) should be heavily weighed into account regarding 'cui bono' questions surrounding the controversy about global warming response strategies.

However, we must consider that the only criteria we have available - in this case - upon which to base our judgements and policies are the data collected, presented and interpreted by scientists and their instruments, together with the empirical evidence of our own senses, regarding the question of whether there is a planet-threatening crisis involving greenhouse gas emissions.

There are without any doubt long and complex chains of reasoning involved that require close examination before acceptance. Any resultant radical turns of policy with concomitant drastic measures likely to affect everyone's standard of living and style of life should not be undertaken lightly. Political action should turn only on the most informed opinion, unpalatable as that may be to any faction. But once a practical consensus is attained, necessary action should be taken.

By the way, are you familiar with the Ruddiman research that was presented in "Climate Change" in 2003? If not, a look at the article might be worth your time, linking as it does fluctuations in human population with climate change. Among other hypotheses, he finds a link between the Little Ice Age and the decrease of populations resulting from the Black Death. Correct or not, it's quite thought-provoking.

Its location:

stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

As Marcfrans notes, you are weakening your case badly by lamenting how we are poisoning the air we breathe, in a posting about global warming and CO2 emissions.  CO2 is not a pollutant in the conventional sense:  we can stand to inhale a good deal more of it with no immediate ill effect to our bodies.

You accuse me of resisting reason.  There is nothing unreasonable about disagreeing on what priorities we should take.  There is nothing unreasonable in believing that we should place our highest priority on existing catastrophes such as AIDS and malaria.  The decision -- between combatting a certain present catastrophe and a merely possible future catastrophe -- is a tough one, but there is nothing unreasonable about coming down on the side of addressing the present catastrophe.

By the way, it concerns me not at all what true conservatism entails.  I am not a conservative.  Nor am I viscerally opposed to Al Gore, as you imply.  Back in 1988, I believe, Gore identified himself as a "raging moderate."  That label stuck with me because it seemed so accurately to describe my own politics, to the extent that I label my politics at all.

@ Roughdoggo

Let's not mix up Donald Regan with Ronald Reagan.  Are you old enough to remember that they had a big falling out (in matters concerning Nancy)?

And let's not mix up actual problems of "pollution" with potential problems of "global warming" (or cooling, for that matter).  

-- On the "pollution" front, I am all with you in urging public authorities to give this matter proper attention and to make the necessary 'market corrections'.    There is little doubt that today many more people have access to 'safer' water and to 'cleaner' air than, say, fifty years ago (when such things weren't even measured to any significant extent) thanks to economic (higher income) and technological 'progress'.   I am less sure about 'soil' conditions. 

-- On the "global warming" front, a healthy dose of caution and scepticism is in order, as is a healthy dose of independence from 'passing fads'.   Moreover, it is always advisable to consider possible underlying motivations of any new 'profets' (no matter how big their following may be).     

The ongoing death toll from AIDS, malaria, and dehydration is irrefutable, and the rhetoric used by people addressing these problems is usually measured and reasonable.  The warnings about a possible death toll from climate change are based on predictions with huge margins of error, and the rhetoric used to address the issue is often hysterical and bullying.  For these reasons, I say we should place the immediate, irrefutable problems at the front of the queue.  That the European (and lefty American) elites nearly all consider global warming to be problem number one is disheartening, and probably has something to do with the fact that they can't blame malaria on George Bush (though they've probably tried).

"Millions die every year from AIDS, malaria, dehydration, and war, but the real problem, according to even the most pro-American European elites, is global warming."

That’s because the European elites figured out that global warming will probably add some more millions that will die from dehydration and malnutrition.
So did the American elites of course, but they have to cope with the political “elite” of the Bible Belt, that would believe almost anything, except the obvious.

It does not bode well that Sarkozy, in his victory speech, promised friendly relations with the United States, but only if America assumed a position of leadership on the most important issue facing the world today -- global warming!  How much nuttier can this get?  Millions die every year from AIDS, malaria, dehydration, and war, but the real problem, according to even the most pro-American European elites, is global warming.

China already produces 1/3rd of the worlds rice which is a massive methane producer as added fertilizer degrades anaerobically.  What do you think the luddites will do when the US is no longer the primary culprit?  Change the numbers so the US is of course.

I only believe now in man made Glühbirne Warming...

and with new LeuchtDioden-Glühbirne... that will be just a matter of time, when it will be rare to find Man Made Glühbirne warming... 

You don't believe in Glowball Warming™?

Ahh, the global warming myth. Tell the lie enough times and it will become the truth (or at least Gore and others are betting it will). Gore, who lives in a mansion that burns tons of energy and flies around in a private jet. Duh!!! At the very least, he is back in the spotlight, which is where he wanted to be, not to mention the money from his book sales, movie, etc.

Since when are former has-been politicians an expert on anything scientific? I cannot believe that there are so many gullible and stupid people out there who are willing to take as fact this hysteria of gloom and doom. They are most certainly the part of the worldwide population who are easily swayed by each new cause, and are too lazy to do their own research.

For every expert who predicts global warming, there are just as many experts who say it is a myth and have the facts to back it up. Problem is that the left media does not give them the equal press. 

And, since all the greenies and other left-wing nuts are blaming Bush for everything, I am beginning to think that he is truly a super-being since his powers also included hurricane Katrina and every other natural disaster such as the Kyoto treaty, which Clinton and Gore also voted against.   

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

Bet they don't mention that if you include rice farming China is already by far the largest producer of green house gases. Well I am sure it will make good comedy like when Good Ol' Al says that if global warming continues most of Holland will be underwater.