They admiited to that? Heaven forfend! I must have missed that one. You sure got me there. That proves it. Just what it proves is more elusive. It sounds on the face of it like one of those undeniable truths of nature. Are conservatives supposed to pretend that there are no gases in the atmosphere? That gases cannot produce greenhouse effects? I mean, come on, the political struggle here is over Kyoto-like mandatory solar-powered bicycles. We do not need to deny the existence of gases or greenhouse effects to defend a position that we will not implement Kyoto-like rules. This isn't a religious struggle involving articles of faith; it's politics. Your note seems to be a kind of jihad against any statement that sounds like humans might have any involvement at all. We don't need that to win, so why take such a preposterous position? So what if there is human involvement? It doesn't matter. Everything we do could be swamped tomorrow by some natural force going the other way. If the Earth is gonna have an ice age, it's going to have one, no matter how much we drive around in our SUV's. When it comes to global climate, we're nits. |
I think you are hyperventilating at a straw man. I certainly did not say that the EPA report denied all human involvement in the production of greenhouse gases. If they had said such a thing, it would be rightly viewed as preposterous. What they said was, we don't know how much of the observed temperature change is due to human activity, and how much to natural variability. That seems to me to be a fairly sensible position to take.