Larry,

You keep avoiding the big glaring hole in your arguments. CO2 is an experimentally proven greenhouse gas. That is a scientific fact not dogma. Choosing to believe increasing it will have no effect on global temperature until proven otherwise with long term climactic data or a huge increase in temperature directly correlating with CO2 levels is not based on scientific reasoning no matter how often you repeat demands for absolute proof.

It is my understanding that current models are an attempt to predict the degree of the effect of CO2 concentrations and associated variables alone. They do not presume to model all other effects on climate. Your demand is simply not a reasonable one as you should know. We don't have computers capable or even the theory to account for all the historic variability in climate.

The best that can be expected is to predict the effect of CO2 on top of natural variability. It is reasonable although not certain to assume that the impact of CO2 on increasing global average temperature will be about the same with all other variables held constant as it will on top of those variables especially over a relatively narrow temperature range. This certainly can't be proven until we have a model that predicts the impact of all important variables. You should know we don't have that capability and aren't likely to anytime soon. We have neither the computational power or the basic theory to explain many past instances of climactic variability.

Your stance boils down to despite the fact that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas I'm going to assume it won't hurt us until absolutely proven otherwise. Of course you have yet to describe in any concrete terms what would constitute proof in your mind. You have set no fraction of degree error limits, no way to deal with natural variability, and most importantly no figure on increase in loss of life or property that would cause you concern. The fact that this proof may come only after large increases in loss of property or life is an issue you refuse to address as is the issue of lack of certainty in most policy decisions. It doesn't sound like you are really looking for proof of a problem to me Larry so much as excuses for inaction. It is far easier intellectually to set impossible demands for proof before taking action that it is to weigh risks and benefits in uncertain situations. But thankfully most people even politicians manage to do this on a day to day basis.

I have no political dogma as far as political parties go Larry. I'm an independent who votes for Republicans a slight majority of the time because I am pro business and personal/fiscal responsibility for the most part and not too fond of welfare. However I am a strong supporter of public education (especially science), freedom of religion, and environmental responsibility and therefore dislike the far right far more than the far left. Frankly both parties carry good ideas too far most of the time and end up generating unforseen negative consequences. Instead of lets move a little in this direction and see if it helps they want to take a wrecking ball to things and add on a whole bunch of start-up learning/curve problems.

As for your earlier comments

I have never claimes to support Kyoto. I certainly think it is rather silly to commit to reductions you have no real idea how to meet. I think it is also obvious that we need to go far beyond it to make a dent in the problem. However, I find it rather selfish for the richest nation in the world to demand poor countries keep their standards of living low before we agree to any potential reduction in ours so we can continue our accustomed level of pollution. You are aware of the per capita energy consumption figures for the US compared to other nations aren't you? The industrialized countries have more power to reduce emmissions because they are the prime producers of them. However relying solely on industrial nations is an obvious gaping hole to a real solution. Poor countries will inevitably add more CO2 to the atmosphere as their productivity increases without technology. The solution is new technology for everyone.

In answer to your question on technology, solar power, fuel cells, fusion, wind power, and many other technologies are possible solutions. Solar power can certainly be stored through electrolysis in the form of H2 and O2 for fuel cells. We can even resort to old fashioned combustion of H2 and O2. I think fusion is a must though because I think solar and other renuable sources of energy are far too limited. I think fission may even have a place. The risks of radioactivity must be weighed rationally against the risks from burning fossil fuels including issues of proliferation and foreign dependence. Simply increasing gas mileage is a good place to start and yes I think it is entirely appropriate to reduce the number of gas hogs for the public good.

Regards,
Mark