wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:32:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not much
of
a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


I doubt there is any way for 6 billion people to live on the planet in
a carbon neutral way.
When is gets to be 10 billion that is certainly going to be true. We
better spend our money figuring out how to live in a warmer world.

You're probably about the population number, and we are going to have to
figure out how to live in a warmer world, but we also need to do everything
possible to stop that trend or it'll be much, much worse...

Long before we have the Al Gore scenario we will have a nuclear war
and that will cool things off.