(This is presuming, of course, that your goal is actual communication rather then throwing out some random hyperbole out on the internet as a knee-jerk reaction to discovering somebody else has a slightly different viewpoint then your own. )

B) I would think that he does understand what a feedback loop is. I also expect that he understands the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, the actual role of IR radiation and CO2′s contribution to keeping the planet warm, and a few other scientific tidbits that most foaming pro-’anthropomorphic global warming theorists’ either completely ignore or do not fathom in the least.

Do you have a crystal clear understanding of what a feedback loop is? From reading your letter, it is far from obvious that you have fully grasped the relevance of the feedback loop to the debate at hand.

Across many different debates, I notice a high correlation between insulting the other side (which this letter does plenty of) and saying things that are just fundamentally wrong.

(re the clarification: spontaneous radiation is widely accepted as only a minor component in the heating of the earth.)

There are so many paper-tigers here it’s impossible to have a real conversation [like point B, that CO2 historically followed rather than led warming ... in other words if every past case of global warming wasn't caused by CO2 than CO2 releases won't cause global warming this time?]

IMO, it is ridiculous to compare global warming claptrap with evolution. But that’s just me.

The scientist is supposed to look at evidence and form a theory based on that evidence and sound scientific knowledge. What global warming “scientists” and “evolutionists” have both been guilty of is trying to explain every relic, every model, every measurement in a way so that it FITS A THEORY IN WHICH THEY ALREADY BELIEVE. That is not science.

Early computer models on climate were designed to speculate on dinosaur extinction. The data was made up to simulate temperature fluxuations, asteroidal strikes, and many other environmental conditions that would have been drastic enough to kill off dinosaurs. They were not, however, used to speculate about competition with better adapted mammals. It was all very interesting. It was all speculative. It was not science, because the conditions being tested WERE NOT MEASURED.

These computer models were then adjusted, with more speculative data, to try to “prove” theories of nuclear winter. Again, no nuclear warfare had taken place, so no conditions were ever MEASURED.

Next, the model that was based on a model was futher adjusted and fed more “made up” data to study climate change and global warming. Remember, however, that at first, these models were used to prove that an ice age was imminent!! That didn’t happen, so we began to speculate about warming.

There was one very serious drawback, however, for ALL of these computer model “experiments.” We only have weather records going back to the 1800s, with a few documented incidences of catastrophies with descriptions of conditions, but NO MEASUREMENTS.

It all may be true. None of it may be true. And there, as the Bard says, is the “rub.”

We do have ONE truth, however: THE “SCIENCE” ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.

BS

CO2 has been shown to lag 2-years behind global temperatures.

It isn’t?

Freedom is NOT the freedom to do anything you want at any time you want any place that you want, regardless of the consequences. Freedom has natural limits.

Freedom is limited by the fact that I can do what I want, when and where I want, PROVIDED IT DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON YOU.

I think that littering in the commons could be seen as an imposition upon others, albeit a small one. An imposition is; however, an imposition. As such, I would not be free to litter in the commons.

While ALL of us agree that to pollute the earth irresponsibly is probably unwise, it is FAR MORE unwise to base policy on blatant falsehood. AGW IS economics, because the farce was designed as a means of furthering control of the world economy.

Climate is a cycle. We go through ice ages, we go through warm inter-glacials. During inter-glacials, there are warm periods (medieval warm period, 1930s, 1990s) and there are “little ice ages” (1350-1800, the one coming up now).

CO2 concentration does indeed PRECEED “climate change”. For the first several hundred years of the last major ice age, the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 600-800ppb, which is over twice as high as it is now, and that was during an ice age! It took several hundred years of ice age for most of that CO2 to be absorbed by the oceans.

As far as the pH of the ocean goes, CO2 is not the primary driver of oceanic pH. Sulfur from underwater volcanoes is a far more important driver of oceanic pH than CO2 could ever be. Sulfurous acid is a moderate acid, and sulfuric acid is a strong acid. Carbonic acid is a pitifully weak acid.

The argument that oceanic pH is rising because man-made emissions are forcing more CO2 into the oceans even as they warm is simply fallacious.

About the abusing of the earth: that’s everybody’s individual right, according to the opinion here. So we just have to hope not too many people think like that.

Personally, irrespective if the world is warming or not, I feel it would be better to stop abusing the earth and live more in harmony with it.

” if matt laid a finger on either one of you then that would be initiation of force. ”

If matt laying a finger on me is an initiation of force, then how is Government laying a finger on me not an initiation of force? Does Government, by any logic, own the commons till someone homesteads them?

Hey D.C., stop your massive littering, especially in Iraq and “Afpak”.

Voluntarism, Gil, look it up. More you read, less you talk.

” You are the ones who keep getting the government involved in this discussion, not me! ”

Interesting how you try to twist the discussion. If you remember, Government was an integral part of the discussion on GW & CC for good reason. From there, the moment you realised you had nothing to say and started smearing me, you tried diverting the discussion to what I considered a fairly irrelevant point on plastic waste. In the middle of that discussion (which YOU started, not I), you said

” I only see a role for a gov involvement if any other solution fails. ”

This is a fairly significant statement from you because I don’t see a role for government even if any other solution fails. That’s the difference between you and me – your readiness and my complete aborrence for a role for government in what essentially lies outside the purview of the most minimalist government (which is all I may be ready to tolerate).

And then you tell me I am dragging government into the discussion. Selective amnesia is not a good way of taking a discussion forward.

“someone must set some simple rules, to steer the direction of the system”

Again, who is that, Matt? This is followed by your speculating on your super-men using the right taxing scheme to get done what you believe needs to be done. Then there is whole lot more of your amateur blah, blah, blah. I’ll skip that. Your latest tactic here (I thought you were the same statist I talked to elsewhere, now I’m really sure because of this):

“mpolkill is asking me to prove I haven’t been indoctrinated in my childhood by evil government.”

I never asked any such thing (never said “evil” government, btw, I strive to cut out redundancy within sentences) Your default setting appears to be that whatever you think is wrong and can’t be solved to your satisfaction by random people on the internet must be fixed by the State. Where on earth did you get this idea (and why do you and almost everyone else have such meager skills in basic logic?) other than directly through the *state run* schools, or through your fellow peasants who also all went through the same schools (not to mention the joke of a media we have)? Bala and I don’t have to explain one damned thing to you to reject your notion that you can steal from us. The onus is completely on you to tell *us* why your morons who confiscated our money to work their miracles in New Orleans and Iraq should be trusted with *anything*.

Finally, you are full of it when you say you are here to learn. You are here to propagandize for the State (unconciously or not) and show all how smart you think you are (and you get almost nada from me in return because you don’t rise to a level that would stir my attention except as an example as to why the State is here to stay, or at least until your generation dies out). If you really want to learn anything, ask for a reading list. You will not be educated in these silly boxes, at any rate. Go ahead, ask and I’ll start off sending you the first lessons as to what exactly the State is (such a mystery why your schools didn’t alert you to these great writings, or denigrated them through false logic!?!)

I ask a normal question and Bala thinks I want to violate his liberty, while mpolkill is asking me to prove I haven’t been indoctrinated in my childhood by evil government. Instead of answering a simple question you guys assume things about me and attack me for that. Now, who is the one with a bad premise here?

It’s you guys who leave me no other option then to conclude that so far there is no answer to my question about pollution.