Tom has quite clearly pointed out how tough dealing with CO2 emmisions is. Unfortunately that is the main driver of the agenda to ignore the real science behind GW. It's too hard to deal with so let's pretend it's not an issue or delay doing anything until we know beyond a shadow of doubt that is a problem.

I keep asking what real world data it will take to convince the GW doubters and never get an answer. I think it's clear that they can't provide one because most won't even consider the possibility that it is real.

How many class 5 hurricans per year beyond the norm for how many years will it take to convince doubters GW is real?

How high will the average temperature have to increase before doubters will believe GW is real?

How long will the correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures have to correspond before GW doubters will believe there is a link?

How much arctic ice will have to melt to convince doubters GW is real?

How many ocean currents will have to change before changing waterfall patterns convince doubters GW is real?

How many other planets besides Venus and Mars will we have to validate GW models on before they are accepted as a valid tool?

The main source of CO2 emmissions is fuel consumption. Switch the basis of our energy infrastructure and the problem is largely dealt with. This is hard but not theoretically impossible. There is no reason to label proponants of GW as some kind of anti-technology return to the stone age faction when solving the problem does not require such an approach. Increasing fuel efficiency modestly would have a big impact on emmisions.

Fuel economy does not sell Cars in America Tom. The average fuel efficiency has been dropping due to a switch to SUV's and minivans. It only sells cars when fuel prices are high enough to hurt disposible income significantly. Gas is cheap these days as I have been trying to tell all the blood for oil nuts.

Regards,
Mark