That post was supposed to be back at http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/22147.html where I left a little more.

Your hypothesis is that a greenhouse gas won't cause global warming. When it comes to making wagers, I'll wager yours is wrong. I'm not certain, but absolute scientific proof has seldom been a basis for political or legal action in this country.

In politics and real life decisions have to be made without absolutely certainty especially when risks or rewards are high. This is done all the time in every day life, business, sports, and even warfare. You can choose to support a hypothesis that has no evidence or support one that has supporting if inconclusive evidence, but don't try and claim your position has more scientific basis.

Decisions are made all the time based on incomplete data by balancing the probability of events with their risks and or benefits. I don't think GW should be fought at all costs. I do think that fighting it should begin before it is a certainty because it may be too late by then and the hypothesis is fairly well supported.

Your whole stance treats inaction as if it were nuetral. You seem to think action is wrong unless it is proven beyond doubt to be required. I Strongly disagree with that stance. To take no action in the face of a realistic risk places responsibility for the negative consequences on those who fail to act. Of course in our culture we can always feign ignorance especially politicians who will be out of office by the time the impacts are felt or new to office when the effects are proven.

I believe you should act to minimize any large risk early enough to prevent it if you have a reasonable basis for believing the threat is real. I have yet to hear you or anyone else who dislikes taking action against GW to list what you would require as proof in terms of global mean temperature rise or increased storm damage before you would be willing to take the risk seriously. It does not appear you want to admit you are willing to risk these negative consequences, but that is what your stance means.

Regards,
Mark