Putting the global warming debate aside, I totally agree with you. However, I don't see them being transparent. Furthermore, I think given the complexity of de

Putting the global warming debate aside, I totally agree with you. However, I don't see them being transparent. Furthermore, I think given the complexity of determining what they claim, the simplicity of their model is almost certainly not adequate. I like your Avian Flu example. I think in that case, we would both agree that there is a point at which preparations for such an event would be almost useless when there is a certain lack of information, when what we do know and what we don't know is so muddled that we are not even sure what direction to take. Obviously doctors and scientists are not blind here and know generally what direction to take in their preparations, just not to what scale. What I am arguing in terms of CO2Stats here is that the likely inaccuracy of their calculations just about voids what they are offering because you don't know that what you are getting is in the proper proportion or even that it actually helps to the degree that they say it does.