"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" writes:

But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy
to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Therein lies the rub, eh?

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
equivalent
of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science"
of
"global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political
motives --
at
least here in the U.S.

Like the EPA?


Whereas I see it's *denial* as being driven by transparent motives.

Exactly.

Also?