From: John Beckett 

"Geo."  wrote in message
news::
> I watched a show on polar bears and how the ice is melting causing problems
> for them. Then in that global warming swindle movie they interviewed some
> oriental scientist who resides on the northern edge somewhere and his
> comment was that there is nothing different happening, "it's like
that every
> spring".

It seems that no matter what claim is made, there will be many sincere
proponents, AND many sincere opponents.

I wonder if it is today's media, or internet celebrities, or something in
the air, that makes it so easy to find people to argue any case.

I suppose there have always been a large number of stupid people, but maybe
we weren't seeing so many of them 20 years ago. Some day-time TV here the
other day showed a mother who was very proud of her 8-year old daughter,
who was on the US pageants trail. Before-and-after pictures showed a lovely
young child (before), and a grotesque caricature with fake teeth (after).
It was really SICKO ... but the mother couldn't see it.

What is an appropriate response when you see someone supporting a
particular pov? Common sense helps of course. Plus, one should be very
careful to NOT make conclusions when the subject area is simply outside
one's expertise - I'm thinking of your comments about how a few hundred ppm
CO2 couldn't be a problem in the atmosphere. Maybe 500 ppm is a problem,
and maybe it isn't, but no one here has shown any background that would
qualify them to comment.

All we can do is quote someone. That someone may be a genius, or they may
be the person who runs the "no plane crashed into the Pentagon"
website.

We should apply a risk analysis. What if we reduced pollution and it turned
out that there was no need? OMG we could have had more money to buy donuts
and cell phones.

What if we did not reduce pollution, and it turned out that there really
was a need? That might be a real problem.

John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5