Replies

My guess is that in a face to face conversation we would find we agree on most points. Our mild areas of disagreement is what makes this interesting.

In terms of the anti climate change water vapour argument, I have posted about this before.

If you view the atmosphere (the greenhouse gasses that is) as a glass that is 99.99 water vapour, then it does make logical sense the .001% is irrelevant.

However, the reality is that it a glass is not the correct analogy, but rather a sensitive (yet sometimes self-correcting) balance. If you add too much is one direction you will get a signficant shift. We don't know how much that is and could be less than .001%. If you combine human emissions with what might be a normal cyclical warming, the shift could be very, very great and the self-balancing mechanism will take a time-period longer than is relevant for human beings.

Ultimately it is quite obvious from the time that I have been posting at FR that the climate change debate is moving in my direction and not the other way.

Even if you don't believe in it personally, it is simply time to start advocating reasonable measures based on conservative market mechanisms. Otherwise we are going to get something much, much worse, more costly and more destructive.

By the way, have you ever been to Switzerland? I have and I understand why they pay the price they do to keep their country looking like it does. Actually this is the first time I have ever, ever heard anyone criticize the way the Swiss run things. Very odd Palmer, very odd.

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.