Robin - Well and concisely put.
I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? - Rick -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: Hi, [snip] >The argument is whether >there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are >incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
