"Reason"  wrote in
news:cn3dcv$cvp$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org:

> 
> "William Morse"  wrote in message
> news:cms17n$11ve$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>>
>> Agreed that while there is reasonably good evidence for global
>> warming, and there is very good evidence for anthropogenic effects on
>> atmospheric chemistry, and there is a plausible model for the
>> connection between the anthropogenic effects and the warming, the
>> case for a causal connection is far from proven.
>>
>> Having said that, simply based on the known anthropogenic effects on
>> atmospheric chemistry, and since we are still largely ignorant of
>> possible interactions between atmospheric chemistry and climate, it
>> is difficult to argue for any course other than the "conservative"
>> one - which is to do everything possible to limit emissions of carbon
>> dioxide, including signing the Kyoto protocol.
 
> There exists at least a reasonably doubt that human activities may not
> account for a significant portion of global warming. If this
> hypothesis is not fully investigated and tested, we run the risk of
> embarking on a false course of actions, which could be a costly
> mistake.  It's worth at least a mention that certitude is a prime
> component of ignorance, and there seems to be a high degree of
> certitude in this discussion.  Better to ask whether the other side
> has a legitimate argument than to dismiss it out of hand. 


No one, AFAIK, is proposing to start spending any significant fraction of 
the GDP in sequestering carbon anytime in the near future. The action 
that runs the risk of being a costly mistake is to do nothing to curb 
carbon dioxide emissions. We need to transition away from fossil fuels in 
the next several decades in any case, and  many decisions made today on 
the basis of current policy will have effects on energy use for decades 
into the future. Encouraging conservation and alternative energy sources, 
given the current state of affairs, is the only sensible choice, even if 
it turns out that increased carbon dioxide emissions is not causing 
global warming. 

But we are wandering somewhat off-topic here. You had mentioned previous 
periods of non-anthropogenic global warming. Given that the current 
global warming may continue even if we immediately reduced carbon dioxide 
levels to pre-industrial levels, what changes in ecologies were produced 
by earlier warming episodes?

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/13/04 5:55:33 AM