The fact that Teach believes this is a strong argument against AGW reveals the inconsistency in his own position. Because then if even one person is truly living a carbon-neutral life, by his logic, he would have to accept their evidence. Of course he will then move the goalpost by declaring that’s not his definition of carbon-neutral.

By the way Teach, you asked the question yourself. “Follow the science. Um, sure. Whose science?” What scientific organization do you recommend?

So, illuminate me, Reasic.

I’ve already tried that. You ignore everything you don’t agree with, much like a stubborn child with fingers in his ears. If you want some information, go back to my previous comments and read over them.

And, while you are at it, tell me why you have barely changed your lifestyle to match your beliefs. I mean, if AGW is true, why not walk the talk?

Please tell me, specifically, what I am not doing that I should be doing. I’ve given you a list of my actions, so you tell me what I’m missing. And while you’re at it, tell me what “draconian measures” I’d like to have applied to others instead of myself (from ARS). To my knowledge, I haven’t called for any.

By the way, one of your favorite targets for “hypocrisy”, Al Gore, lives a carbon neutral lifestyle.

It’s become clear that you’ve based much of your distrust of climate science on gossip about what certain people have done in their lives, rather than the actual science, and the funny part is that this whole “hypocrisy” schtick is a sham. What better way to fight against scientific evidence that you don’t understand, right?

You’ve demonstrated that you have NO idea what you’re talking about when it comes to climate science, and now, you’ve demonstrated the same with the cap and trade system. If you set up an argument for your opposition that you think is stupid, maybe it’s because you don’t understand the argument. Just a thought.

You really need to learn something about climate science before you continue to embarrass yourself here. This is getting really ridiculous. Silke, myself, and others have offered reasonably simple scientific rebuttals to your nonsense, which you have consistently ignored. If you want to continue on in your ignorance on this subject, that’s your business, but it definitely doesn’t bode well for your credibility on the issue.

How about the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences?

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/basics.shtml

Or maybe our own governmental agency charged with protecting the environment – the EPA. This was their assessment even under the Bush Administration:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

What scientific organization do you think we should listen to? (that’s not a rhetorical question, please answer it)

While I support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions I do think you are right that the cap-and-trade model has some flaws. There is definitely a potential for fraud and abuse.

I disagree with you that Senator Boxer wants to screw the economy in favor of her global warming legislation. The fact that her committee won’t even submit a bill to the Senate until the end of this year and that one of the Senate’s first piece of major legislation is a stimulus bill refutes that claim.