"I do have a good old hard copy of Webster's Dictionary if that's where you're going..."
No, I wasn't. Nevermind.

A priori (my dictionary and my old Latin text says it's two words, but whatever) sounds a bit like a circular argument in this case. "I know this is true because it is known to be true". Also, my actual present day observations, a posteriori, may be a little different than yours. Doesn't make me right or you wrong. Or vice versa.

Listen, my intent was not to argue whether climate change is real or not, whether CO2 is causing it or not. We can beat eachother over the head all day, especially pointless since you seem determined to prod me into defending a position I don't fully agree with in the first place (I thought I had made that clear; perhaps I didn't).

For the record, I think that some climate change theories with regard to human CO2 output are worth investigating furthur (you, apparently, don't). Recent human experience with CFC's has taught us that even relatively small amounts of certain substances can produce quite apparent and measurable changes in a large system (such as the atmosphere). Obviously CFC's were not present in the atmosphere until human activity placed them there; CO2 has been a component of the atmosphere probably since before the surface of the planet had cooled solid, as has water vapor (which has a much larger greenhouse-effect than CO2). So it would stand to reason that our climate system is a lot better adapted at dealing with water vapor and CO2 than CFC's. Nevertheless, I feel the lesson stands.

I also think that dire predictions of global catastrophy due to human activity over that past 100 years (in a system that's been churning along for hundreds of millions of years, with far greater variation than any human has ever experienced) are downright irresponsible, with the possible exception of future annihilation by nuclear weapons (we do seem to agree on this).

I do think that there is some merit completely outside of global warming theory to slowly reducing our dependence on hydrocarbon-based energy sources. These are not unlimited resources -- whether you agree with M. K. Hubbert or not, every annual report from every major oil and gas producer makes it clear that the stuff is getting more and more costly to find and extract. The argument that drastic, forced reduction of dependence on hydrocarbons will only serve to further impoverish developing societies stands, to a point. I've never seen an addendum to that argument which deals with what happens to the resulting (increased) future population of the world that will have to deal with the actual "end of hydrocarbons". I don't particularly want to be around for that. I doubt you do, either.

Back to home plate. As I stated earlier, I took issue with your unsupported authoritarian tone. You feel that it's justified. Fine.

RE the railroad stock, I should have dumped both four months ago, before they both lost 20%-40% of their value. They both hit highs that I doubt I'll see for a long time, if ever. They've recovered a bit, but that said, I'm still in wait-and-see mode (kind of like how I feel about climate change). I expect that the election results will cause a brief surge in the market, followed by a long, slow realization of the actual effects that the election and subsequent leadership change is going to have. Whether that realization will constitute a slow rise or a slow fall, I'm really not sure.

Thanks,
Alex M.