On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:03:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:33:22 -0800, jps wrote:

If we cannot conclusively prove man has XX% involvement in global
warming, should we simply sit back and do nothing?

That is like saying, "They didn't tell me where to go, so I don't know
where I'm going, but I've got to leave and hurry to get there..."

Cutting emissions, though, is a good idea, regardless....

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. I miss 'em.