Read other letters about this article
In regards to your earlier letter to me: Two points: 1.) No one is saying that man can't impact his environment.
I posted a quote from page 2 that said exactly that.
2.) The four quetions I asked may have nothing to do with your argument, but they are the only four questions about global warming that matter. Until they are answered, every other question it moot.
The bullcrap pop argument I refuted is real, as evidenced by the fact that someone posted it. It's entirely incorrect, but not moot.
In regards to C02 -- again, the leading greenhouse gas (in fact, about 95% of greenhouse gas) is simply water vapor. All this "carbon footprint" talk is like complaining about a mouse when there is an elephant in the room.
We can go with analogies all day, and never address the science. It's pointless. In your analogy, if the mouse startles the elephant, he might stampede a hole through your wall. You still have offered no research to support your contentions, merely pop arguments of the sort that Michael Chrichton uses.
And, as for scientists: As I said earlier, in the 1970's, "Global Cooling" was getting its share of magazine covers. At that time, the theory was that too much pollution in the air was deflecting the suns rays, so everything was cooling. If that's the case, let's just start polluting more so we can keep warming in check!
Translation: some scientists have gotten wrong answers, therefore the scientists I disagree with are probably wrong?
Yes, I'm being silly with that last comment. But the logic of much of the "computer modelling" upon which much of the warming alarmism is based is equally silly.
Hundreds of scientific disciplines point to the same answer as the computer models, and it's a typical disingenuous tactic of deniers to characterize all of climate science as a computer model. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Post a scientific paper supporting your position, or admit you're just making stuff up.