Hi char,

Quote:
char: "I have not invoked Al Gore or his movie, which I have not seen and have no intention of seeing. Can you deal with the evidence presented to you, or would you rather argue with Al Gore? If it's the latter, please give him the benefit of your wisdom as to what he is saying. I'm not interested."


No, I'd rather argue the global warming issue, which is Gore's raison d'etre, for which he has been nominated for Academy Awards and for which he may even be nominated for a Nobel prize. He's the focal point of the debate, char, much to your consternation I'm sure, but so it goes. If you want to distance yourself from Gore, who has championed pretty much everything you have, you'll have to do a better job saying you're 'not interested'.

Quote:
iowan15: "Kyoto is a 'concerted' response. How's that workin' out for you?"

char: "It's working better than if we didn't have it,"



Oh? It is? Just recently I read where the EU countries that are signatories are emitting more CO2 now than before they went Kyoto green.

Quote:
char: "but worse than if it were truly a concerted response of the world's biggest polluters, the biggest of which is the US. Maybe you aren't aware that the US is not a signatory."


I was very much aware, and grateful, that the US was not a signatory, thanks to the 98-0 Senate vote against ratification. And given that it hasn't worked in the countries that have ratified it, I think your confidence that it would work if there were truly a concerted response of the world's biggest polluters is misplaced.

Quote:
iowan15: "Just like we muddled through the population bomb scare, the Alar scare, the acid rain scare, etc."

char: "The results aren't all in on the population challenge, but thanks to some extremely aggressive action by many governments around the world, we're in a lot better position than we could have been."


So nothing counts against those positions. I didn't think so. It's the same with the GW alarmists. Everything counts, including global cooling, in favor of global warming. How convenient.

Quote:
char: "Alar was a minor scare that one network hyped, and doesn't belong in this category."


Sure it does. There were Congressional hearings, complete with Hollywood Alar experts, like Meryl Streep, and extensive news coverage, notwithstanding your suggestion that it was a one network piece. Apple sales plummetted, some apple growers were put out of business, and Uniroyal had to yank Alar from the market, despite the baseless suggestions that Alar was causing cancer in children. It was hyped by environmentalists, facts be darned.

Quote:
char: "Acid rain has done a lot of damage to forests and fish, but thanks to some government action to control sulfur and nitrogen emissions, it's a lot better than it would have been had it gone unchecked. Your examples aren't working very well for you, are they?"


I think they have. In each case, the crises were way overblown, just as I think is the case with GW.

Quote:
iowan15: "You're one fearless forecaster, char!"

char: "I've already made my forecasts; they're essentially the same as those made by the majority of the world's climate scientists. In my last post, I was drawing a comparison between the effects of you or me being wrong. It's just a fact that the consequences of doing nothing if we could ameliorate and plan for AGW are devastating, but the consequences of doing something when it wasn't necessary are in the category of annoyances. But I guess you'll be dead before the worst comes, so why should you care?"


Maybe we can dub this latest ploy 'Al Gore's Wager'! :) I can see you've been reading your Pascal recently.

later. iowan15