"Dan" wrote:

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty* from
them, our wait will be eternal.

That is because scientific theories are always evolving. Scientists realize
they don't know everything and never will.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes and
predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations do not, then
it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse-driven
warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No. Is the theory of evolution
"proven?" No. Are they both backed by evidence powerful enough to convince
the vast majority of scientists? Yes.


Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them --
are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and government-controls
on all aspects of human behavior.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both sides,
wouldn't you say?


IF governments could be trusted with such powers, it may be a good
move, if the threat is as you say it is.

But the older I get the less I trust government. And I've never had
much trust in bureaucracy.

No reason you should.

But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It takes
some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as this one. The
easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to deny that the problem
exists.

The founders believed that centralized powers only results in bad to
worse. Factions (ie, differing opinions/ parties/ groups/ causes) all
wrestling in the political arena keeps those same people from killing
each other in the streets.

Things get ugly when one side accuses the other of criminality,
treason, lack of compassion, or care. Then we get beyond the wrestling
and head towards the shooting. And if you think I'm being overly
dramatic, please review US history prior to 1861.

Thus I think the more reasonable approach is civil debate on the
nature of the problem, the possible means to address the problem
that's framed at the conclusion of the debate, and then consensus on
the way forward.

I agree, of course. But much of the "debate" today is really a struggle
against a disinformation campaign being waged against legitimate science.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute