Post by James Christophers Post by Tony
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of that, I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.