Jump to content


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



Recommended Posts

That's true, but the situation is not dissimilar to that in A&E when an unconcious patient is presented who has fading life signs. There might be a hundred things killing the patient, some feeding one to another, but the doctors will concentrate first on the apparent, and then from what's apparent, the things known to be, and visibly most obviously likely to be, having detremental effect. One thing is for sure, doing nothing does not solve the problem.

SF: I don't dispute that, taking your analogy what I am saying is the patient is losing blood due to a blooming great big hole in him which is getting bigger. You are right that the initial response is to give the patient more blood but ultimately the hole will need to be closed or the excises is futile because you will just need more and more blood to keep the patient alive. This is what I am saying about C02 yes it needs reducing but because of other factors I don't think its anything more than firefighting.

I have to make the point that scepticism need not be an attack on AGW or suggest we take no action, its simply a sensible stance to take when there is so much more to be learnt.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following on from your colourful metaphors, surely, if the patient had a number of injuries, the doctors would treat all of them as quickly as possible.

HP; for us, looking down the line a few decades, it is firefighting, and not even that. But this isn't the whole story (is it ever?). The point about emissions reduction is that we are trying to stop the patient's fever from getting worse; we know what might happen if his core temperature goes too high, so we stabilise it...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...