"ENVIRONUST"

> That is a canard. Global warming does indeed exist. No scientist on earth
> denies that. The globe has been warming since about the year 1500.

Man has only been recording decent weather data _anywhere_ since the 1880s,
so I'd say the issue is far from settled. Remember "The Coming Ice Age"
(Scientific American, 1978)? For all we know it may be back in fashion
next decade.

> What IS in question is man's role in it. The issue is far from settled,
> despite the dreams of the media and of various activists.

That's only one of several unsettled questions. Before I jump on the
Kyoto bandwagon I'd like to see open debate on at least these followup
questions:

1. How much harm will GW actually do if it happens? And how much good?
(For instance, I suspect places like Canada would become much more
comfortable to live in and have higher crop yields than now.)

2. Quantify how much it will alleviate that harm if we make the changes.
And how much it will cost, both in money and human lives.

(The EPA's CAFE rules now kill about 2200 people per year by forcing*
them into smaller cars where they're more likely to die in wrecks.
Anyone who still says the rules are a good thing ought to have to show
that the pollution they avoid saves MORE human lives. I doubt it.)

* Yes, when the government limits the supply of large vehicles or makes
them cost more it really is FORCING people out of them, even if the
bureaucrats leave it up to the market to conduct the resulting game of
"musical chairs".

3. In what cheaper ways might we either reverse the warming or alleviate
the harm? Hint: If it happens and is bad, it's almost certainly cheap
and easy to undo; see http://www.reason.com/9711/fe.benford.html .