Mike Warren wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)

From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

But, since the United States is a net Carbon SINK of US CO2 emissions,
it just doesn't matter to us Yanks (i.e. our forests eat more CO2 than
our production creates).

This all assumes that global warming is indeed _caused_ by CO2, and
not the other way around. Correlation does not imply causation -- wet
pavement does not cause rain.

It also assumes that the sources of CO2 are primarily due to man (as
opposed to natural source, such as the exposure of carbonate rocks,
sea bottom, to the atmosphere).

And then there's the whole issue of how these "temperature measurents"
are being made... (Yes, I have some familiarity with the contents of
the NOAA/NCDC databases, and the problems with trying to extrapolate
meaningful conclusions from the data contained within).

Unfortuantely, I've momentarily mislaid one of my favorite NCDC
documents, describing a large number of items that result in "local
temperature increases" (i.e. "global warming"), these include changes
in instrumentation, changes in personnel, changes in time of day for
measurement, and heat island effects. By and large, these have not
been corrected nor controlled for...

And then there are the issues of solar output (which most certainly
changes), adapative aperature hypotheses, and others -- which are
never addressed by the alarmists.

But my favorite issue has to be that the global warming alarmists
always compare temperatures to 1850, the END the "Little Ice Age".

That behavior is much like looking at a thermometer in June, and then
comparing it to January, and claiming "Look! Global Warming!".

And then the real bottom line is: even IF (anomalous) global warming
is really occurring, and even IF it is man made, and it is
preventable, if it is does not result in deleterious effects, it still
doesn't matter.

Now don't go cite all the problems that the newspapers claim "global
warming" will cause, as it's the exact same list that they predicted
back in the 1970s, when they claimed it was "global cooling".

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues