Well, NASA's chief climate scientist pointed out that 95% of the existing climate models aren't just a little off, but a LOT off, so I definitely disagree with the assertion that scientists have developed a good model.

The other thing I would point out is that labeling CO2 a pollutant is just nonsense as well. It's plant food at its most basic and the result of nearly every form of combustion known to take place!

No. The whole argument is about control - it has nothing to do with "science".

Actually the real science is not on the side of AGW but I won't bother trying to convince you because you have decided the science is settled. The people who are open to opposing data are increasingly sceptical. This is shown in surveys where global warming is ranked near the bottom of the top 20 concerns the general public has.

As for cigarettes, I believe they can cause cancer and a great deal more which is why I quit smoking over a decade ago.

... seems to have worked very well for the Warmites, too! :)

no, but I am denying that you're ever going to DEFINE "pollutes" before accusing someone of it... :)

Fight global warming is probably the wrong word. My understanding is climatologist do have good models that are not just based on 80 years of data. That's part of how we know the stuff you mention about last glacial maximum. My understanding is we also know human activities are affecting the earth. I agree completely with you, that in all that there's no clear "enemy". There's no clear "war objective", such as locking in the current climate. So my "fight" metaphor was off.

I maintain geo-engineering will become necessary, mainly b/c we have huge cities in costal regions. This is happening sooner than it would otherwise b/c of human activities. I'm for reducing CO2, but it really seems like pissing in the wind to my scientific but non-expert-in-climatology mind.

Deniers say the science is biased by millions of dollars of research money but not the tens of trillions of dollars of economic activity that involve burning stuff and emitting CO2. But the trillions of dollars of activity is the rub. I want as much economic activity as possible, so even if we produce more output per CO2, it's hard to reduce CO2. I'm confident there's a solution, but it's one tough problem.

Hello g4lt,
Check out this link.
https://www.claremont.org/publications/c...
O.A.

McCarthy was a pawn. The story is that Hoover used him to flush out the communists and look like the buffoon. The Venona papers came out later. They were classified for fifty years. They demonstrated that McCarthy was right though.

I also have that on my PC, along with the Earth Charter. These NGOs took training at the UN, you bet they are linked. Obama promised to implement Agenda 21, and law enforcement in some states are training to enforce it (or force it on us). What is scarey is how easily the local agencies fall for it. Health Dept. permits based on Agenda 21 ideas, want a water heater, comply with population density, want to refinance a mortgage, forget local well inspections, you need the EPA themselves doing it - happened here in Ohio., Worst are the regional planning commissions, which seem to fall for sustainable development hook line and sinker. And, sunk we are all going to be. Since there is no global warming, will they then take credit for it not being there ultimately?

I would think that first you would need to understand what you are fighting (Sun Tzu). If you can't define your "enemy", how are you going to develop tactics? How are you even going to know what your end goal is?

That's the part of that whole debate that is such a farce. We have evidence in the geological record that millions of years ago the entire earth was several degrees warmer than it is now and that as a result plants covered even the continent of Antartica (though it probably wasn't at the south pole). Only 10,000-15,000 years ago there was a severe Ice Age in Northern America that affected the entire world's climate and which we are still climbing out of. To use the 60-80 years of suspect climate data we have to try to model millions of years of complex interactions seems to me to be an exercise in hubris more than in science.

Were the Venona papers the blank sheaf that McCarthy waved at people?

All I am going to say is that I am over 50 years old and I remember as a kid that when we traveled, I could always tell when we were getting close to a big city by the big black cloud over it. Traveling now I cannot see any of that. This country is cleaner now than it has been in the last 50 years.

I have a copy of Agenda 21 on my PC. I also know what ICLEI is and even though they deny being part of the UN they seem to be carrying out the UN agenda on a local level. Soon you won't be able to trim your hedge without municipal permission. Welcome to the world of ICLEI..

We are becoming a nation of sheep, who do not read and can only repeat talking points or slogans handed to them by their leaders. They never do the science, they don't even know who the leaders are, just what they have been told to say. None of them ever know Earth Day is Lenin's birthday. None can tell you where their temperature gauges were placed, such as in the sun in hot brick courtyards, or where heat from jet exhaust hit them. None could tell you about UN Agenda 21, or how the environmental movement was used in Nazi Germany. These are the people the one world socialists, the anti capitalist love. They will not like the world their slogans will create.

Carbon Dioxide is not pollution. Changing the subject is what the environmental extremists do. Are you one of them? If it is pollution you should stop breathing. You're polluting the air.

Chances are, the women there have hairier armpits than his AND they probably smell worse...

As a scientist, you can't be a believer or denier. You just accept the evidence as it is and stay open to new evidence.

As for ways to fight global warming, I haven't seen any that I understand. I'm sure we can do it. No experts have explained to me how though.