<<If CO2 is not implicated in GW, then it makes no sense to try to reduce its levels in the atmosphere, as it's perfectly harmless>>
This statement is not controversial. Nobody denies it, not even Al Gore. You were saying that it made sense to reduce CO2 emissions whether they had anything to do with GW or not. I replied that this made no sense, as the only harm attributed to CO2 is GW; the stuff is otherwise harmless or even beneficial. So if CO2 isn't contributing to GW, there is no problem to solve.
Now, the whole question revolves around whether C02 emission ARE responsible for GW, and if so, to what extent. This is precisely the point under dispute, with the alarmists claiming proof that GW will a) be very bad and b) is mainly caused by manmade CO2 emissions, and c) can be signficantly ameliorated by lessening CO2 emissions. Skeptics reply that the scientific evidence for both a) and b) is sketchy at best, and any improvements from c) will cost trillions and be insignificant. They believe that GW is a) unlikely to be very bad b) has not been proved to be mostly of manmade origin, and c) and cannot be significantly altered by current or future changes in CO2 emissions.
Why do you think there is such a difference between us and the rest of the major industrialized countries???
Because our political position in the globe is so different from everybody else. The Euro politicians could happily sign onto Kyoto and mouth the GW words whether they believed it or not, knowing that they would reap a short term political benefit with no costs at all for nearly a decade - even then, nobody would pay much attention when they failed to actually reduce emissions as promised. For the US, it's different. The burdens imposed on the US would be disproportionately higher, and all the UN would notice every tit and jottle of treaty performance in their favorite game of gang-up-on-big-bad-America. |
