You still claim public policy waits for scientific certainty I see. This is an obviously false statement. You also refuse to discuss that this may actually be appropriate when weighing relative risks. This refusal to address how the real world works instead of what the ideal scenario is, is one of the things I find most surprising from someone who I always thought was fairly pragmatic.

As for CO2 is a natural, well duh. So are hurricanes, snake poison, tsunami's, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, asteroid impacts, etc, etc. The natural is good mantra is one of the stupidest viewpoints of extreme greens yet you espouse this view when it suits your stance.

One of the key questions I asked is if you honestly believe that it is likely some convenient just so scenario will result from adding CO2. Your comment along those lines is the one attempt you have made for ignoring the issue, but this statement is not even a half ass explanation. Not only is it as simplistic as the notion that adding greenhouse gases will cause warming, it is far less probable. Mind you I don't claim it is impossible. However, you have given no theory or model to support this "theory" yet somehow think it trumps detailed modeling. It also ignores the data that CO2 levels are rising. So much for scientific rigor and the need for accurately matching data.

Regards,
Mark