Yeah, it wasnt much of a response I admit, I didnt have much time. :) My credentials? A maters in computer 'science', or at least thats what the course was called, not that its terribly scientific since its more engineering. Anyway, here is my argument vis GW: 1) We know CO2 should cause warming. 2) Theres a lot we dont know about the climate system. 3) (And allmost all scientists say this) it is curently impossible to detect or identify a recent temperature rise that can be attributed to CO2, or is distinctly caused by CO2, against the background of natural variability. (Because there have been equally large and rapid warming perilds recently (quoting Dr Jones herem BBC interview) If it turns out that the only temperature rise from CO2 is 1 degree (which is what it should produce given fundamental physics (quoting Lindzen and the Royal Society paper here)) then it, and the extra CO2 will be a benefit to mankind and the planet. If it turns out that various feedbacks amplify that warming (which is what the computer models are set to (quoting Lindzen) and that amplificaiton is sufficient then there *could* be an effect on weather patterns. However, since the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and we have already increaed CO2 by 40% or so since preindustrial times, then: 1) We have already had most of the warming we are gong to get. 2) That warming has had no noticable effect on weather patterns such as would lead to an increase in storms or droughts. (Various scientific papers attest to this) Now, stastics in all this, and Bob Watson of DEFRA describes it nicely, says that in the absence of any other known factor, the only likely cause of the recent warming is man made CO2. Now tell me, does stastics work in a system where many factors are very badly understood? (quoting IPCC) If you want proof of all that I have quoted I will provide them but I assume you are familiar with them already.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
