Replies

I am 1/2 Swiss. I was quoting from an article in Swiss-American review (or something like that) which directly criticized wasteful farm subsidies. Nothing odd about that. As for your 0.001% argument, that requires models. There is no other way to argue it except as some fringe AGW alarmists do, theorizing about a venus-like CO2 effect. The debate is temporarily moving towards the alarmist side, but alarmists will always end up rejected in the end because their dire predictions, like this year's hurricanes, won't come true. That simply proves that models are more complex than they will admit, that weather provides numerous negative feedbacks, and their models do not adequately handle weather.

Again, I will repeat the challenge I make to all AGW enthusiasts. If your models really do predict warming, then let's use the same models to figure out the cheapest solution which will surely not be the limiting of CO2. Their general rejection of that challenge betrays their agenda which is anti-growth and ultimate anti-humanity. There is no "CO2 commons", there are much cheaper ways to deal with warming, if indeed it is a problem.

Does being 1/2 Swiss mean you hold a Swiss passport? Also, does that mean you have been there?

Regardless, you are correct that Climate Change models are correct and subject to inaccuracies. If they weren't there would be zero debate. That is the way science is.

As for the issue of being an alarmist, I would ask the following questions:

Does your town/city have a fire department? If so, would you say a significant percentage of calls to which they respond are false alarms? Is that a reason for the department not to respond? Is it a reason for them not to exist? When there are real fires, does it generally require the entire capacity of the fire department or is their spare capacity in case of a truly large problem?

Environmental alarmists sometimes are kooks and sometimes they shout when the problem is real. The potential problem in this case is huge and the number of people shouting is only growing.

Talking about 1 hurricane season as proof or disproof of a warming trend is evidence that one does not understand the issue or the debate. I know you are smarter than that.