CO2 and global warming

Martin Frey wrote in message . ..
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

American politics gets more generally deadly the more you know about
it. This is very scary stuff.

Yes, to the scientifically and economically ignorant.

I don't understand how concern about the lack of response from the US
to the possible connection between human activity and major
degradation of the environment can only scare the ignorant.

Please enlighten me. If you are just mouthing off ad hominem - that
may be a better indicator of ignorance than fear of global catastrophe
if precautionary preventative action is not taken by the most
profligate producer of CO2 in the world.

You have a number of assumptions in your statement that need to be
clarified.

* What is the magnitude of global warming? How is it catastrophic?
Provide evidence.

* Is a warmer climate a problem? Provide your reasoning.

* How much of global warming is anthropomorphic? Provide evidence to
support your assertion.

* Assuming the above answers haven't provided a compelling arguement
that global warming is a non-significant event, (and that's my
conclusion) present your case that the benefits of economic
developement based upon cheap fossil fuels don't greatly outweight the
costs to adjust to different weather patterns.

* Assuming after all of the above, we decide to mitigate anthromorphic
global warming defend your assertion that we should do this by
limiting CO2 production vs. other methods of mitigation.

* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

--
Oh, and lastly, define your statement "major degradation of the
environment" with numbers and supporting criteria. Note that changing
the tempurature isn't "degrading".

Cheers

--Fred