Paul wrote:<br><br>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Were it not for the pressures from the left to frame the argument in such a way that it supports environmental restraint *and* the pressures from Big Oil and other nominally conservative groups to deny Man's overall importance as a cause the scientific community would eventually hash all this out using the scientific method.
</div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>What is laughable about the reference to "pressures from the left" regarding greenhouse gas emissions (restraint? ha, ha, ha!) is how little has been done in the USA to reduce these emissions. If the so called environmental "left' had any substantial power, we'd have CAFE standards at 40 mpg, coal fired plants would be forced to use CO2 sequestration technology developed with millions if not billions of dollars of government investment to solve this problem, and wind and solar power would already be adopted widely across the USA, solar panels on roof tops everywhere.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The fact that the USA continues to increase its CO2 output in absolute levels, while we generate the highest per capita CO2 output of any nation on Earth by a large margin, as we speak, is testament to the failure of the environmental movement, or the "left," whatever that is, to influence the overpowering forces at play in our society that thumb their collective noses at the idea that human induced global warming is a serious problem that must be addressed. Paul's attempt at a balanced view of the political pressures slanting the debate and action on greenhouse gas emissions in the USA might be well intended, but fails to consider, it appears, that the debate and action on this issue has so far been won by those who act to continue huge CO2 atmospheric outputs.
<br> </div>
<div>The issue of human induced global warming has been investigated by scientists world wide, using the scientific method, and a consensus has been reached, not "eventually," but now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The scientific consensus is clear that environmental restraint is now required regarding human sourced greenhouse gas emissions to offset the impacts of these emissions on global warming, and not just because of fossil fuel depletion or dependence on unstable and unfriendly regimes in the Middle East. This is not a matter of "pressures from the left," as you phrased it. The continuing depiction of the human induced global warming issue as a matter of substantive scientific debate with the issue still so uncertain (scientists will "eventually hash all this out?????") that action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions to offset human induced global warming is not now necessary, is flat out irresponsible and unscientific.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul and Roger have both not responded to credible scientific sources I have presented to this list that questioned some of their claims on scientific issues regarding global warming. Paul once indicated he would respond to my exposure of the junk science on global warming he presented to this list, yet he never responded. Roger conveniently ignored the Science magazine article I posted to this list which offered evidence for the scientific consensus on global warming, referencing 928 published papers on climate science,
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>and did not respond to my questions about the bottom line on increasing CO2 levels in our atmosphere related to human impacts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If human CO2 outputs result in a carbon loading of the atmosphere of double or triple pre-industrial levels, the scientific consensus is clear that radical climate change will occur.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Oh well, it's only Vision2020. How can logical factual debate with sincere intentions to find the truth on an issue be mandated? It can't.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope what the scientific consensus on global warming and human impacts indicates is wrong. Because it appears nearly certain that humanity will not address this problem soon enough, and thus the future we will offer to the generations following will not reflect kindly on our negligence.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div></div>