<div>All:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does the dire threat of radical climate change deserve an immediate response to radically alter the way we live, i. e. dramatically lower fossil fuel CO2 emitting use? Though the scientific consensus appears solid, debate continues among scientists, with apparent credibility, about the reliability of some of the predictions of the IPCC. So this is not a local issue? Given that local (Moscow/Pullman) car and light truck use dumps tens of thousands of tons (no joke!) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and the connections in the local economy to the transport of goods produced and shipped from elsewhere (China!) via fossil fueled means, our response to these facts is either responsible or irresponsible, based on the reliability of the IPCC predictions. A pro-growth Moscow that does not seek to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions is irresponsible in the extreme, if the IPCC findings are basically correct. We would be selling out the future of the planet, with long term local negative impacts, for short term gain.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>IPCC skeptics in Nature Magazine:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/schwartz07nat.pdf">http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/schwartz07nat.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>IPCC scientists respond and the skeptics respond again:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/forster07nat.pdf">http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/forster07nat.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>Ted Moffett<a href="http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/schwartz07nat.pdf"></a></div>