From: Nick Palmer Subject: Re: OT - Some of Fred Singer's greatest climate inconsistencies
<<Nick, if you think modelling a planet is that easy maybe you should turn to economics next. or the human brain. or computational pharmacology. or traffic congestion. Face it, GW is an unknown Hoorah! That is exactly my point. The unknown outcome demands that no risks be taken. Those who claim to know that the risks will be negligible are those aforementioned strong words I am fed up of typing. --------------------------------------- "The unknown outcome demands that no risks be taken." Here, unfortunately is the invitation to the greatest of all risks, the demand for perfect safety, a utopia, the mountain peak whose slippery slopes lead to a variety of dictatorships [take your choice]. Shall there be a Green Emperor who will dictate public and private policy and send us all back to the 1800s, with one billion world population? Are the environmentalist movement leaders free of the lust for power while excoriating the "oil barons"? Nick may have overlooked my posts pointing to a Scientific American cover story to the effect that human agricultrual activity has produced a warming trend which has offset other forces that would now have us in a profound cooling trend -- but of course with the industrial revolution, we have overdone it. If the climate models still cannot accurately model clouds *and their formation*, they are useless as a basis for public policy, for a cloud can increase or decrease the "warming" effect depending on its composition. Warming effects are in motion, but what public policy will alter that without drastic societal effects is very unclear. India and China are on track to follow the developed nations in fuel usage. How will Nick exert control over those countries? Unfortunately, it is Nature who will have the last say, and Man who will adapt. Mike Carrell BTW, I agree with you on that baby cooing story - utter madness!
