Re: Global Warming - I love that it's finally getting attention

The reason H2O is not a problem, and makes much of the GHG arguments moot, is that:

1) it swamps the effect of all other gasses combined.

2) it has a negative feedback effect, i.e. cloud cover reflects a high percentage of the solar flux back into space, *cooling* the atmosphere by as much as 20, 30, 40 degrees per day!

Thank you for appreciating the reason I don't go spouting my company pitch.  Most* of the ads on the boars are pretty benign.  They are offerings by companies that in all respects pass the "stink test".  By that I don't find a need to scrape them off the bottom of my shoes.
*There was 1 ad a few weeks ago that did stimulate my gag response, and when the board issues are corrected, you may be able to read it... 

Recycling cans... Here we have a profound difference of opinion.  And I'll put it to you this way... "please send me $1750 to cover the defecit of recycling the estimates 1000lb of cans for fiscal year 2008"  Hey, it's for the greater good... what are you waiting for?

See the greater good has now become your burden to carry.  We allowed the company, with it's fleet of trucks free access to out waste stream of Al cans, yet they refused the offer??? Why?  Did you mean to imply that we, the association, owe them a profit?  I didn't think so.  Actually you can easily prove me wrong on this issue by cutting the check.  I will provide certified receipts that the quantity of cans will be recycled.  So the greater good really isn't as compelling an argument as it was in the previous post?

Actually, my belief system is very easy to define and defend. 

I believe in the Scientific Method.  I've reversed opinions 180 degrees when new proof or better theories come along that better fit the observed data.  1 piece of bad data can destroy even a cherished theory.  A real theory is also able to make predictions about new never before seen circumstanced.  When a prediction is made the theory can either be reinforced but never proved, or the theory can be discredited.  It's a high stakes game!

I believe in the laws of economics.  While they involve the behaviors of people, the axiom of "what a prudent person would do" has as an underlying assumption which is "in the absence of an agenda".  I use this test whenever the question of "will they or won't they?" comes up.  But since it specifically ignores the issue of agenda, it is a blunt tool.

In those two I am extremely rigid, because they are the framework on which all my other beliefs are based upon.

I hope the little insight into me explains why I'm so taken aback by so many "popular positions". 

Science, digested for the masses, is less rigorous, and more open to interpretation, is frequently misunderstood, and propagated.

Decisions as to how money will be spent are frequently overridden by agendas, even when the transaction is deemed "imprudent".

These two loopholes are the stock & trade of the political class.  Again I leave you to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Regards,