...this is from a normal citizen and was posted to a blog. He writes better than I do, so I will post his statement:


"Actually William, no I am not backing off.

I notice you did not answer my question either.

My position has not changed. It is that we don't know enough about climate feedbacks to restrict CO2 emissions.

Since some analyses point to 1998 as the hottest year and some to 2005, I think it's fair to say that in any event global warming is slowing. In that vein I pointed out further variability. There is no crisis in the immediate future (from global warming anyway) so we have better things to do with our resources, until we actually have a handle on feedbacks. One of those things is further research. There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers (some with no data or algorithm backup) that show anything anyone wants to prove. It's *all* cherry picking.

In particular, the concept that increased damages from tropical storms are primarily due to "global warming" is absolutely ludicrous and I don't understand how anyone who has seen the development in hurricane prone areas over the last few decades could say that. Of course, there are people who just sit in their labs and never get outside - to them it's plausible.

It's all part of the welfare state/lack of personal responsibility we have gotten ourselves into. CO2 is the base of the food chain, but despite the billion or so people on the edge of starvation there are selfish people who want to limit it, therefore food, with:

1. no reasoning remotely related to reality (e.g. clouds), or

2. The potential for them to make a lot of money off carbon trading or some other aspect of limiting fossil fuel use.


Posted by: Steve Hemphill at December 1, 2006 05:15 PM"