Reply to comment

So the rest of his statement (the begining part), to me, is nothing more than build-up to his thesis - that of trying to find a ground where conclusions about the effects of climate change are not matters that humans should concern themselves with. He posits a large percentage of error for a single degree of change - then says that the value (with a large percentage of error) has been "pretty well nailed down" to being the result of man.

If this were 1997 and people were saying "oh, we don't know for sure" - I might agree. We are now in 2007 and frankly the evidence keeps mounting that it is a continual change - one happening even faster than the models predict.

If we were to take his statements at face value, that we cannot make guesses about the future based on current activities and past knowledge - and that because one's view of the climate is relative one cannot make claims of a "bad" climate future, then we should just remove ourselves from all positions of reason. Waiting for the elevator to arrive at my floor after pushing the button now becomes more a matter of luck than statistics and logic. If I am waiting for over 1 hour for it - I am just unlucky (or dumb). Without being able to reason out that the elevator is out of service based on my experience, I might end up waiting all day.

Perhaps the last bit above is trite, but you get my point. We CAN make statements that warming is "bad" for us - we have the evidence to prove it and Fred does a great job of outlining some of the issues. Heck, on a personal note, I certainly don't want any africanized honey bees or fire ants in my backyard! (my climate being the only protection from their vicious ways)

Eric