I repeat. You really do have reading comprehension issues. My comment about LA smog had nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases nor AGW per se , but rather about the broader issue of concern about the environment. It is a rule of thumb that the first paragraph of a sentence is the topic sentence for a paragraph.

I was one of the eco-freaks before there was an EPA.

Here is a restating of that sentence: “I have long been concerned about the environment, and showed that by being an environmental activist well before the EPA was created.” The remark about LA smog was made in the context of the environmental concern at the time: health issues, and to point out that progress had been made. I never heard any connection made at the time between smog and AGW. Nor am I making one now. I never claimed that smog and greenhouse gases could be equated, nor that smog could be related to AGW. They are both subsets of environmental issues.

If you had background in science then you’d know the ’smog’ of 40-50 years ago to which you refer, which was largely particulate matter, is quite different to the greenhouse gases affecting the atmospheric chemistry.

I referred to smog in LA, and contrary to what you claim,smog in LA was NOT largely particulate matter.

Haagen-Smit, a Dutch flavor chemist who had once developed perfumes, knew that Los Angeles smog was unlike air pollution in eastern U.S. cities, where it was chiefly composed of sulfur dioxides from burning coal[particulates] and heavy oil…After analyzing the contents and using them to create artificial “Haagen-smog” in the laboratory, Haagen-Smit announced in 1952 that ozone, the primary ingredient in smog, was not directly emitted from tailpipes or smokestacks, but was created in the atmosphere. Driven by sunlight, a photochemical reaction combined hydrocarbons from oil refineries and the partially unburned exhaust of automobiles with nitrogen oxides, a combustion byproduct, to form ozone.

Regarding your claim that I am equating smog and greenhouse gases/AGW, see the above.

You’re confused. Smog is different to greenhouse gases. My post at 1.33pm was about greenhouse gases and not smog.

If you had background in science then you’d know the ‘smog’ of 40-50 years ago to which you refer, which was largely particulate matter, is quite different to the greenhouse gases affecting the atmospheric chemistry.

Neither do I need to convince you of anything. The USEPA reached it’s conclusions and published it’s findings after a period of consultation and consideration of the counter-arguments.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html#findings

I was one of the eco-freaks before there was an EPA. I was involved in the first Earth Day. So, I take the long view. The air in LA is much cleaner than it was 40-50 years ago, in spite of much more auto traffic today. IMHO, the EPA has over-stepped its bounds in recent years.

I will not convince you, and you will certainly not convince me. I have a bit more background in math and science than the Goreacle.

So in 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency conducted its own independent investigation. It’s findings were published on 7th December 2009:

“After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”

D

> At the most basic level, having a pantry full of canned food means you won’t go hungry.

Well, as long as you remembered a manual can opener!!

Don’t laugh, people forget things like that and have to futz with using screwdrivers and the like for the job.

> The somewhat rambling point is, that if we ever return to the stone age, we would survive it fine. And knowing what the non-stone age life is like, we will work all the harder to get it back. So it is not worth it to be fearful.

Anna, it pays to be fearful. A true collapse would mean that the land is well above its non-technical carrying capacity. At that point, the pleasantries of civilization will be stripped from our bones one way or another — either we will do it ourselves or someone who has will do the stripping for us.

SF has dealt with this theme a number of times. Offhand, I can recommend three books on the idea (well, one novel and two series):
Lucifer’s Hammer (novel), Niven/Pournelle
Island In The Sea Of Time (series), SM Stirling
Dies The Fire (series), SM Stirling

The two series are related, in one, the island of Nantucket is transported back in time to 1000BC, and is the story of their efforts to survive and prosper. The other is what happened back in the world where Nantucket “disappeared”, as “the Change” renders all modern tech — steam engines, explosives, etc., non-functional via subtle changes in the laws of physics.

> He was fired for excessive capital costs involved, since such winds occure here only once in 50 years.

Precisely. So why overengineer them? As long as the mechanisms are in place to perform requisite repairs with reasonable timeliness, the overhead and inconvenience are minimal.

That, of course, provides the answer to “why not ‘x’” as being what it almost always is:
“How much does it cost?”
and the equally important
“Who pays?”

And yes, we do love our big old trees.