"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:13:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global
climate
change.

Now at least that's the beginning of a more honest line of argument. If
you've got an agenda, push the merits of that agenda itself, instead of
pushing it as a false choice when compared to someone else's agenda.

I do not push planting trees as "a false choice...compared to someone
else's
agenda." I advocate planting trees as something that we should be doing,
period. But I am also not trying to force others to spend their money
doing
so -- I simply would like to encourage it. Al Gore's agenda is that of a
Chicken Little who would *impose* his agenda on the world. I do not claim
that planting trees will have a specific impact on Global Climate Change,
which I believe to be beyond the influence of humans in the large scale,
but
rather that doing so WILL offset, to a certain degree, the damage we have
done to the environment.

Come on... the evidence is there. We're a major contributor to the
warming. We can do something about it or not do something about it. If
we don't the consequences will be quite bad.

We successfully reduced the size of the holes in the ozone by direct
efforts of removing the CFCs. Are you going to claim that it was never
a problem?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.