<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ted,<br>
<br>
I'm not going to debate with you about the science of global warming.
Like I said in my previous post, I'm not qualified to do so. You are
probably right, hell you probably have a 90% confidence level of being
right. So strike one up in the win column for yourself and move on.<br>
<br>
However, you ask why I'm so skeptical about this. I'm 41 years old.
Just a youngster to many on this list, I'm sure. Still, I've spent the
last 20 years of my life relearning what I thought I knew from the
previous 20. Our knowledge about the world has grown that quickly. I
can't keep up any more. The funny thing is, though, that every person
who told me what they thought was true believed it to be true just as
vehemently as those who tell me what they think they know do now.
Hence the skepticism. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out 20 years
from now that what we thought we knew about lots of different things
(including Global Warming) is wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm
not saying it's going to be wrong, I'm just not going to be surprised
if it goes the way of global cooling in the 70's.<br>
<br>
Global warming has all the hallmarks of a subject that could turn out
to be wrong. Big money is behind one side of it, a "save the world"
mentality is behind the other side. Lots of interests to protect, lots
of damage if we guess wrongly. And still, too many variables that
affect each other.<br>
<br>
On a more practical front, we are not at odds. I think we should
reduce our consumption of fossil fuels or even eliminate it entirely as
a fuel source. We should work to make energy production as clean as
possible. And, even if we lived in a world where the Middle East was a
peaceful place and oil was non-polluting with respect to other
dangerous toxins except for CO2, I would be advocating cleaner
technologies because of the looming threat of global warming even if I
don't have a 90% confidence level in it being true. It's just a smart
thing to do.<br>
<br>
So, I have no interest in trying to defend my skepticism on this
point. It's simply an effect of my upbringing. Besides, I have other
projects I wish to focus on right now. I'll leave saving the world to
somebody more qualified than me. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Ted Moffett wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midd03f69e0704011920v132cde14g1da4091f0715ade6@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul wrote on 4/1/07:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm having a hard time sorting out what is general scientific
consensus about the subject and what is politically motivated cruft.</div>
<div>------------</div>
<div>Our original exchange in August, 2006, involved CO2 levels
increasing from human impacts, and the GWP (global warming potential)
of these increases, compared to other global warming variables. I
demonstrated with numerous references why some of the information you
posted to Vision2020 was "junk science." I also read in your posts
from August, 2006, that you addressed "scrubbing as much CO2 out of the
air as possible" indicating you addressed the problem of CO2 increases:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your post on CO2 and other global warming issues from August
2006:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034659.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034659.html
</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>My response:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034778.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034778.html
</a></div>
<div>------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, to address your recent post on climate change and human
impacts:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The climatologists have been "doing their thing." The work of
the IPCC is one significant source for presenting their findings. It
presents a very different picture on the uncertainties about human
impacts on climate change from the one you paint. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The presentation of junk science introducing misleading
uncertainties on global warming is a serious problem insofar as it
impedes the scientific education of the public about a very serious
environmental threat, and gives cover for politicians and business
interests to put off taking action to address human greenhouse gas
emissions. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Gaining credible science based answers to the questions you pose
on global warming does not require that you or I be a multidisciplinary
genius. I fully admit much of the work of climatologists is way "over
my head." But surveying the scientific work that climate scientists
have presented on this issue can inform anyone wishing to discover if
there is or is not a scientific consensus on the probability of the
threats posed by human greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It goes without saying that dependence on Middle East oil,
fossil fuel depletion, and pollution from fossil fuel burning, such as
from coal fired plants, are serious problems that would need to be
addressed even without global warming.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, fossil fuels will likely continue to be a dominant
source of energy, given reserves known and more to be discovered or
developed with improved technology, for many decades before depletion
will become a serious threat. And the Middle East is not the only
major source of fossil fuel. The USA's huge coal reserves are expected
to last 200 years. Canada now has the second largest reserves of oil,
behind Saudi Arabia, in the tar sands, extracted at increasing rates as
I write. These oil reserves were only a decade ago not listed as
practical to recover. The oil shale reserves in Colorado and Wyoming
are gigantic. The advocates of a fossil fuel depletion crisis coming
in a few decades are exaggerating that threat, assuming development of
all global fossil fuel reserves can go forward: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The point is, given the threat posed by climate change, it is
even more imperative that we should radically reduce fossil fuel use
well before reaching the point where we have burned most of the cheap
and accessible fossil fuels, thus facing the fossil fuel depletion
crisis. If we face the serious threat from greenhouse gases inducing
climate change, and reduce our fossil fuel use, a benefit will be to
also reduce the other problems with dependence on fossil fuels. It is
easy to dismiss the warnings about fossil fuel depletion and the
dangers of dependence on Middle East oil, while cheap fossil fuels
continue to power a lifestyle that most will not given up easily,
placing tremendous pressures to keep the fossil fuels flowing.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some of the world's most knowledgeable climate scientists are
warning that if we do not reduce CO2 output within a few decades,
irreversible and destructive climate change will be induced. Of course
there are uncertainties. But these uncertainties have been addressed
by numerous climate scientists who have concluded the probabilities are
very high (the recent IPCC report gave a 90% certainty) that human
factors, primarily CO2 emissions, are the cause of the current global
warming, which if atmospheric CO2 levels double or more above
pre-industrial levels, is likely to induce a climate not seen for
millions of years: </div>
<div> </div>
<div>News articles below about "Climate Change: Our Global
Experiment," involving the work of Professor of Earth and Planetary
Sciences Daniel Schrag, discussing CO2 levels back 60 million years
into the Eocene: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/10.06/09-climate.html"
target="_blank">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/10.06/09-climate.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.09/07-climate.html"
target="_blank">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.09/07-climate.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>While Vision2020 has a minimal impact, we participate on this
list in the hope, I trust, that accurate information on important
topics is of value to at least a few readers. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given this assumption, perhaps you can explain why the overall
conclusion presented in the article below from Science magazine
is incorrect, as it appears you believe, given your statements on the
large uncertainties as to whether human factors are inducing
significant climate change. Please explain why, with its references to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical
Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
organizations that all have stated that human induced global warming is
occurring, I should not trust that these organizations represent the
best scientific knowledge currently available about human impacts on
global warming? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am puzzled as to why you are so sure that you are unsure about
a consensus on the dangers of global warming related to human impacts,
given you admit you do not possess the expertise to fully understand
the science of climate change? I place what I regard as a reasonable
level of trust in the scientific consensus, that I think it is fair to
state now exists, on the issue of human impacts on climate change,
impacts serious enough to require immediate action to mitigate the
dangers. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Note article in pdf format from Scientific American, by William
F. Ruddiman, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, that is
attached to another Vision2020 post today. It offers answers to some
of your climate change questions. I hope the attachment will work.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I could present more references to the work of climate
scientists to answer your questions, but the numerous references to
scientific work on climate change in the Science magazine article below
are more than enough to provide a good starting point for becoming
informed on these questions: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686"
target="_blank"><font size="2">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</font>
</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><font size="2">BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:</font></strong><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="3"><br>
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change<br>
<br>
</font><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
color="#000000" face="Arial" lang="0" size="2">Naomi Oreskes<a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#affiliation"
target="_blank">*</a><br>
</font><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
color="#000000" face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"><b><br>
P</b>olicy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States,
frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change,
then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went
through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions
on climate change" ( <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref1"
target="_blank">1</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> . Some corporations whose revenues
might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions
have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (<a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref2"
target="_blank"> 2</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2">. Such statements suggest that there
might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. <br>
<br>
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by
the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of
climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the
basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature ( <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref3"
target="_blank">3</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> . In its most recent assessment, IPCC
states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human
activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric
constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of
the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due
to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in ( <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref4"
target="_blank">4</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> ].<br>
<br>
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
rise" [p. 1 in ( <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5"
target="_blank">5</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> ]. The report explicitly asks whether
the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific
thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the
observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the
current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in ( <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5"
target="_blank">5</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> ].<br>
<br>
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (<a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref6"
target="_blank">6</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> , the American Geophysical Union (<a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref7"
target="_blank">7</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> , and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent
years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is
compelling (<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref8"
target="_blank"> 8</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2">.<br>
<br>
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they
would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.
Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That
hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed
scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI
database with the keywords "climate change" ( <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref9"
target="_blank">9</a>)</font><font
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" color="#000000"
face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"> .<br>
<br>
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus
position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories,
either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt
with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current
anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed
with the consensus position. <br>
<br>
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.<br>
<br>
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of
confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that
impression is incorrect. <br>
<br>
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it. <br>
<br>
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and
there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better
basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do
about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific
consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate
scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the
rest of us to listen. <br>
<br>
<b>References and Notes</b><br>
<br>
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1. <br>
<br>
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate
Policy <b>2</b> (1), 3 (2003). <br>
<br>
3. See <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm" target="_blank">www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm</a>.
<br>
<br>
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
<br>
<br>
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate
Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). <br>
<br>
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. <b>84</b>,
508 (2003). <br>
<br>
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos <b>84 </b>(51), 574 (2003). <br>
<br>
8. See <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html" target="_blank">
www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html</a>. <br>
<br>
9. The first year for which the database consistently published
abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis
because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key
words, the paper was not about climate change. <br>
<br>
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial
Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,"
presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to
AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this
lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C.
Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J.
Somerville for helpful discussions. <br>
<br>
10.1126/science.1103618 <br>
</font></div>
<div>-------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul
Rumelhart</b> <<a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com
</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Ted
Moffett wrote:<br>
<br>
> Paul and Roger have both not responded to credible scientific
sources<br>
> I have presented to this list that questioned some of their claims
on <br>
> scientific issues regarding global warming. Paul once indicated he<br>
> would respond to my exposure of the junk science on global warming
he<br>
> presented to this list, yet he never responded.<br>
><br>
<br>
Ok, here is my take on global warming. I'm not sure why you care about<br>
it so much, since I'm not a trained climatologist, my two degrees in<br>
math and computer science have done little if anything to help me in <br>
this, and the few web pages I've read on the net without the help of a<br>
strong factual basis in this subject to help me critically evaluate them<br>
have probably not covered the subject completely nor evenly. But here
goes. <br>
<br>
Is global warming happening right now? My answer is yes. The melting<br>
of the glaciers and a few other disparate facts that I've heard about<br>
here and there do seem to indicate to me that it is in fact happening. <br>
I could be wrong, I wouldn't be surprised, but that's the way it goes I<br>
guess.<br>
<br>
Is this trend localized with respect to time or is it the start of a<br>
more permanent change (whatever the cause)? I have no idea. The
amount <br>
of change of the climate over small timescales (< ~50000 years) seem
to<br>
me to be chaotic at best. If it were well understood, I wouldn't be<br>
running work units for <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://climateprediction.net/" target="_blank">
climateprediction.net </a>and we wouldn't have<br>
varying models that conflict. Too many variables, in my uneducated<br>
opinion, to be very certain about this at all. It could be that "small"<br>
perturbations in climate have happened many many times over the past <br>
half a million years or so since single celled life has learned how to<br>
make use of oxygen and multicellular life became prevalent. Aren't we<br>
coming out of the last Ice Age and in a general warming trend, anyway? <br>
<br>
Is the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the air now massively more<br>
than has been there in the relatively recent past (~50000 years)? I<br>
don't know the science behind the Antarctic ice cores. I don't know
how <br>
much weight to give them, because I don't know if there could be other<br>
causes for the amounts of carbon dioxide at the various depths. What<br>
happens if the climate changes enough to melt the Antarctic ice a bit? <br>
Obviously, those years won't be laid down in the ice core record. I<br>
don't know if it's possible for the amounts to change over time, and I<br>
don't know the methodology behind the extraction and measuring of that <br>
gas and wouldn't have the necessary background to be able to evaluate it<br>
if I did know it. Have these levels been checked against cores spread<br>
over a large area? Have they been compared with other ice cores from <br>
other continents? I don't know. However, I'm tending to trust the<br>
scientists on this one and to believe, for what it's worth, that carbon<br>
dioxide levels are unusually high right now.<br>
<br>
How does the relative spike of carbon dioxide that is occuring right
now <br>
affect the greenhouse effect exactly? I know it affects it, but by how<br>
much? Isn't the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere really small? Is<br>
the current amount past the point of no return now, or does it have to <br>
double or triple before it's really a problem? How much does it<br>
correlate with the local rise in temperatures? Is it the only cause?<br>
Would temperatures be a little lower right now without Man or a lot? I<br>
have no idea.<br>
<br>
Are there mitigating factors that will reduce this carbon surplus? Such<br>
as increase in plant growth or other natural processes that may scrub<br>
CO2 from the atmosphere? I don't know. It seems to me that this
should <br>
play some part, but I'm not a geophysicist or a biologist, or an expert<br>
in agriculture.<br>
<br>
How variable is our nearest star? Obviously, solar input is the<br>
greatest factor affecting temperature. How stable is this
source? Does <br>
it fluctuate? Is the amount of solar radiation hitting the planet now<br>
the same amount that hit it ~50000 years ago? Again, I don't know. I'm<br>
not an astronomer.<br>
<br>
Anyway, there is my much-needed evaluation of the science of global <br>
warming. Hope this helps.<br>
<br>
I would like to reiterate my "political" stance on this, which is that<br>
there are many other reasons to cut back on fossile fuels that aren't<br>
being so heavily debated right now that are just as important as global
<br>
warming if not more so. One big one being the fractious status of the<br>
Middle East and our dependence upon this region for our oil. Notice the<br>
large hike in gas prices that has just occured. Pollution, which
causes <br>
health conditions right now, is also another very good reason to switch<br>
from gas and coal and other "dirty" technologies and to look for<br>
"cleaner" ones. Finite energy supplies running out is another
excellent <br>
reason. When the oil is gone or is too hard to get to, our economy will<br>
probably collapse if we aren't forward-thinking enough.<br>
<br>
It also seems to me that the topic of global warming has been<br>
politicized. Of course, I'm not a political scientist, either. I'm <br>
having a hard time sorting out what is general scientific consensus
about the subject and what is politically motivated cruft. That's not<br>
to say that current scientific consensus on one theory or set of<br>
theories necessarily means anything if the subject is wide-ranging and <br>
full of so many variables as this one is. Even in "cleaner" sciences,<br>
such as astrophysics, you see that scientific opinion over the years<br>
sways from one theory to the next as more data trickles in. And we <br>
aren't even affecting the universe in any significant way ourselves to<br>
muddy the waters. I have no reason to believe that if we just stepped<br>
back and let the climatologists do their thing we would eventually get <br>
to all the answers. I don't believe that we have all the answers right<br>
now. You, apparently disagree. I wish I was educated enough in the<br>
various disciplines involved to be able to give a definitive answer. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>