Larry,

Fair enough comment on the windy posts. It just flows when I get wound up on a subject I'm passionate about. I don't really give a rat's ass about Kyoto and am well aware models don't constitute absolute proof. There is however a big difference between evidence, proof, and no evidence at all. Models are evidence especially when derived independently. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that indicates "increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas will not cause global warming".

All I usually see on this board and from anti-GW types is pot shots at computer modeling and environmentalists as a whole. As a some time computer modeler and programmer I think the pot shots at models are treating occasional failures as some kind of norm rather than the exceptions or learning process they really are. Computer models are widely used in this day and age and the antagonism towards them as a basis for GW dismissal seems to me to be luditeish.

I also have no problem with weighing the economic costs of stoppping global warming against those of not stopping it as a rational basis for taking action. It seems to me that people on both sides frequently don't want to admit the cost of following their chosen path and take a stand on some fundamental principle rather than a rational cost benefit analysis (ie save the Earth at all costs or don't cost me any money).

Don't blame you for not responding to everything it's just frustrating to have what I see as the key differences and major debate leverage points ignored to repeat the same old comments on what seem more preriphereal issues in many instances to me.

For instance:

1) Public policy is seldom made on the basis of conclusive scientific evidence. You have never addressed this let alone explained why you think Global warming should be an exception.

2) You repeatedly make comments like models are not scientific proof (something I agree with) yet seem to have no problem making decisions based on totally unsupported assumptions like "increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas will not cause global warming".

3) You keep avoiding the issue that many of life's choices involve uncertainties just as great as whether GW is real or not yet can't wait for scientific proof before making a decision.

4) You do not address what level of risk is great enough to warrant action without absolute proof.

All of these issues seem to me to be crucial for rational people on both sides of the issue to find common ground. I really don't relish being diametrically opposed to you on any issue and would prefer the air was cleared a little rather than digging ruts deeper.

There I Go Again,
Mark