[liberallarry]

Now I remember you from a previous thread. I've always heard, and believed, that the IPCC presented the dominant view in the atmospheric science community. You referred me to a petition circulated by a well-known scientist, and signed by several thousand people, to the effect that this wasn't so. The IPCC is a political, not scientific, organization and its views are not those of the atmospheric science community, says the petition. I tried to trace it down but couldn't. I don't know anyone in that community. I've not had a chance to ask those scientists I do trust.

If this is the position of the administration they should say so. Let's have the discussion in public.

[kidd]

Petetion Project:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I am one of the signers.

Its unusual to have a liberal come on this forum and discuss things with an intent to expose facts or falsehoods, rather than feelings. Very refreshing. Welcome aboard. The comments can get rough here, but don't take it personally, we do it to ourselves too.

On to the discussion. Ask yourself the following questions:

1) Why does the Kyoto treaty exclude China and India, the two biggest net producers of manmade CO2?
2) If the true goal was to reduce CO2, why is the United States penalized when it and its forests are a net consumer of CO2?
3) If mankind were able to heat the earth with its activities, is there any technology that would allow mankind to cool the earth (one that would be cheaper than partial-global carbon regulation)?