The Coming Climate Change

Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. So I studied and I gathered all the info from all the top scientist of our day. By the time I was finished with my project I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"
I was so excited to be the one to let man kind know about this coming doomsday. I worked my butt off I had the visuals and all the reports and the day of the science fair it was perfect........................................... ..

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster what a CROCK. And to think I once as little dude trusted these Scientists with my science project. Oh well I still got an A

Don't despair! it's still coming! See first the 2% additional CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and all the cow flatulance has to heat things up enough to melt the ice caps (watch for the Coke a Cola Bear on a boogie board), then while those of us in GA are enjoying our new, not so salty, beach front property (heck with peanuts man we got condos for rent now!) the ocean currents will change and then it will get cold and those of us in GA, now land locked again (dang where'd I park that combine?!?), will freeze to death (no really warm coats you see) as we watch the glaciers move down out of Tenn and S.C. The only consolation will be even if we can't take the cold like the Yankees at least we will have the pleasure of knowing all that is scraped clean ;) How's them horse apples Sherman!
I know this to be true, cause Big Daddy Gore told me so. Come on sing along. Oh you better not toot, ya better not poot cause the ice is coming to town...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. So I studied and I gathered all the info from all the top scientist of our day. By the time I was finished with my project I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"
I was so excited to be the one to let man kind know about this coming doomsday. I worked my butt off I had the visuals and all the reports and the day of the science fair it was perfect........................................... ..

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster what a CROCK. And to think I once as little dude trusted these Scientists with my science project. Oh well I still got an A

---

Thought someone might like this editorial in our local paper...
All problems should be made 'tradable'

Posted: 6/28/2007

Having contemplated the carbon credit proposal, I am struck with the sheer brilliance of the concept. It appears that if we trade carbon emissions as a commodity, then somehow we are addressing the source of the problem and remediating it. And I thought that to reduce the increase in CO2 we need to reduce the emissions of CO2.

If I am wrong and carbon trading is actually a viable method of reducing the CO2 increases, then I propose that we carry it to the next logical level, "disease credits." Countries with rampant disease such as malaria and AIDS could trade disease credits with healthier countries. By doing so we wouldn't have to actually do anything about disease but we could all feel better about it.

And what of "poverty credits"? Countries with many impoverished people could purchase "poverty credits" from countries with fewer impoverished people. I haven't figured out what they would pay with however.

It seems that if we can make all of our problems a tradable commodity, then we will have no problems at all. I am now going to speak to my kids about "chores around the house" credits.

Chris De Witt, Reno


http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...0301/1100/OPED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluesman

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

---

What a shame that it was all journalistic hype!

newsweek 1975 - cooling world
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/ic...olingworld.pdf

Please direct me to any peer reviewed science predicting an ice-age!
None have been found!

At the time, there was no scientific consensus, because the science of climatology was in its infancy. The cooling during this period was caused by the aerosols of sulphate & etc. liberated in the post-WW2 industrial boom.

There is no comparison between your claims and the state of the science of climate change in the early 21st century.

The science concerning the global warming is overwhelming and unequivocal.

The IPCC state that they have very high confidence [>90%] that the evidence points to the warming being anthropogenic in origin.

Ahh the words peer 'reviewed science'. Thats the whole point of the arguement.

We, the ordinary Joes,the public, say all this "global warming is our fault" stuff is b*ll*cks and the science community say, (very stiff upper lipped voice) 'It's the facts, all the scientists have evidence for it. Evidence to the contrary isn't peer reviewed, so there'.

The simple truth is, due to the problem of grants being hard to come by for the scientific community and goverments eager to obtain more money from the public, it is a bandwagon that could benefit both parties.

Now they use computer modelling software to predict things and throw in a few values and fiddled with the figures until they got an answer they liked, ie the one to provide the golden egg from the proverbial goose.

All those scientists wanting more money say 'aye', the steps to the bandwagon are this way. All those left behind we'll have to call them names like "Maverick, Nutter, layperson".

Those peers my friend, are ON the bandwagon.

Those scientists you may call "Maverick" are those men and woman who have integrity and honour but unfortunatly very little power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjmerlincnc

Ahh the words peer 'reviewed science'. Thats the whole point of the arguement.

Now they use computer modelling software to predict things and throw in a few values and fiddled with the figures until they got an answer they liked, ie the one to provide the golden egg from the proverbial goose.

---

Here you are using a computer, which means that you use technology. Technology uses science. Science is theory, research is done to prove or disprove theory. If the research provides evidence that does not match the theory [it happens] the theory has to be modified [if appropriate] or discarded completely. A theory is tested by whether it can predict previously unseen behaviour. Naturally, research is done to look for the predicted behaviour. The theory is confirmed or confounded as a result. Science is an iterative process.
This is briefly how science works.

In this respect, climate science is no different from the science of semiconductors that underpins the electronics in the PC or Mac that you are using.

Climate models are part of this. Climate models are quite different from your expressed opinion.

The fact that models have difficulty in modelling ice-melt is because the mechanisms are still not properly understood. Currently the models underestimate melting by a factor of three or so. If it was merely a matter of a little tweaking here and there, then where would the problem be?

Model modification requires SCIENCE! This is why you are wrong!

Very briefly, climate models calculate the climate by incorporating the known behaviour of the various components of the atmosphere and hydrosphere.

I suggest you read the following, it is an introduction:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ions/#more-442

The following includes more information about climate models.
Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" (AIP)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

All of these lead to peer-reviewed science.

The rest of your post was not worth commenting upon. No substance, just rant. Why not check your facts first!

I think we are selfish and ignorant by nature and thats probably whats going to kill off mankind just like what happen to the dinosaurs. The only difference is that it wasn't the dinosaurs fault they went extinct.

Don't think about now. The world took billions of years to be where we are. Yes, yes, it will probably take another billion years before it destroy itself, I hear you say. But why even take that chance. It could happen in the next hundred years or so. If we don't think about ourselves, at least think about the next generation who is going to inhabit this place. Are you happy to leave this world knowing your children will not have a house to live in? I think not, so why not think the same for the future generation.

Forget the argument if global warming or global cooling is happening or not. Something good will always come out of this if we just put all our mind together instead of arguing with each other over the issue.

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

Selfish, yes it is harder to become motivated about issues don't effect ourselves so most people are somewhat guilty of it. IMHO plauge is more likely to decimate mankind than human related climate change, that will also be our own fault due to largely overpopulation.

Many of us that call shenanagians against climate change still belive in stewartship of resources. I personally want to see viable alteranatives to fossil fuels in power production. I'm less worried about the CO2 than the poisions released, even if scrubbed as they have to be taken out of solution and disposed of somehow. I want nature to be something my daughter and her children can experiance, not just read about. I don't want them to have a lower standard of living than myself however.

As far as keeping quite, well that makes you sound like a US liberal. "We know what is best for the world by our unique moral insight so the rest of you unenlightened lessers just stay out of our way and keep quite". Sorry can't do that as I am acustomed to thinking for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexccmeister

I think we are selfish and ignorant by nature and thats probably whats going to kill off mankind just like what happen to the dinosaurs. The only difference is that it wasn't the dinosaurs fault they went extinct.

Don't think about now. The world took billions of years to be where we are. Yes, yes, it will probably take another billion years before it destroy itself, I hear you say. But why even take that chance. It could happen in the next hundred years or so. If we don't think about ourselves, at least think about the next generation who is going to inhabit this place. Are you happy to leave this world knowing your children will not have a house to live in? I think not, so why not think the same for the future generation.

Forget the argument if global warming or global cooling is happening or not. Something good will always come out of this if we just put all our mind together instead of arguing with each other over the issue.

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexccmeister

I think we are selfish and ignorant by nature and thats probably whats going to kill off mankind just like what happen to the dinosaurs. The only difference is that it wasn't the dinosaurs fault they went extinct.

Don't think about now. The world took billions of years to be where we are. Yes, yes, it will probably take another billion years before it destroy itself, I hear you say. But why even take that chance. It could happen in the next hundred years or so. If we don't think about ourselves, at least think about the next generation who is going to inhabit this place. Are you happy to leave this world knowing your children will not have a house to live in? I think not, so why not think the same for the future generation.

Forget the argument if global warming or global cooling is happening or not. Something good will always come out of this if we just put all our mind together instead of arguing with each other over the issue.

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

---

OK smoke another one Bro, The world has mabey 200 years left. And man will not destroy it nor will "Mother Nature" GOD will destroy this earth and all the evil that is in it. The best you can do for your childern is to teach them how to get saved and then when the rapture comes they will be lucky enough to be spared from all the nasty stuff that GOD has planed for mankind.

That is why I do not wory about global warming. I FEAR GOD MUCH MORE
SO does that mean we should poison the earth and let ne next gen worry about it, Hell no, But we need ro be reasonable too. You lib enviormental wackjobs have got so out of control that a guy can not even build a road now days with out going around every pile of pink lizzard crap he spots along the way.

Just let me build my home without the DEQ documenting ever blade of swamp grass too. It has just got out of control.

Bluesman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexccmeister

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

---

Sounds good to me just don't expect me to shut up when you keep asking for my money to support your ideas.

They can't tell me if its going to rain in a few weeks.
They have been WAY OFF prediciting the past 2 years hurricane seasons activity.
When we do have a hurricane they can't tell me where it will go tomorrow.

Now please tell me why I should listen to these same people tell me about whats going to happen in 100+ years from now much less pay for their research.

I see it as a research grant free for all and if the scientist can get the politicians on board then they are on the free grant money gravy train. After all the government has my money to give away on such things. Of course the results of the research will be inline with what they want the results to be. Then at the end of the reports it will always say "more research is needed," as it always says. AKA we need more grant money so we can keep our jobs.

Considering how long earth has been here and how miniscule an amount of time they are using to base all their stats on its rather ridiculous. Seems A LOT of ice melted off all on its own long before internal combustion engines were around. If the ice is melting due to rising CO2 emissions soley then we should still be covered in ice from the last ice age. Its kind of big balls to make such claims on such limited timelines when considering the time line of earth itself. If we jump everytime a sensor twitches with new laws and regs we will end up with more of the same that we have now. Stupid laws and regs that do nothing but jack things up and cost us all more that in the end do nothing to stop the problem that was originally supposed to be fixed.

Give a grant to most any scientist and you will get the results you wanted to get, especially if they know more $$$$ is to follow once the initial "results," are in.

The whole carbon credit deal is nothing but a scam of a cottage industry that Al Gore expects to profit from. When people like him and Babs who preach global warming stop flying in private jets exhausting more CO2 than I will in my life on one trip in their plane I might listen. Then again, I could never see me listening to anything those blow hards have to say short of goodbye and good ridence.


Bowman

Please, get out of the mindset where you are surrounded by disasters an calamities all around you all the time. Stop having the arrogance to believe you can "make a difference". About the bogeyman de jour under the bed; he's not real, he's not there but he does make it easier to ignore what you should be doing.

You want to live a much happier, longer and more stress-free life? You want to do something that matters? You want to make a difference in this world? Turn off your TV and cancel your news magazine subscriptions. Unsubscribe from "the sky is falling" websites. Then help the people you know, care for those who could really use your support and love the ones who miraculously have found you worth loving. Fix it so when your time comes, someone cares. That will take your mind off of this global warming idiocy.

Your future ends in (75 - your age) years. Give no thought beyond whatever that number is. You won't be there but I assure you your great-great-great grandchildren will be. The future will take care of itself, with or without your concerns, as it has for 4.6 billion years now.

There are things more important in life than this popular, vulgar and hysterical fetish. It is a type of twisted religion and you should repudiate it. Our technology is not a sin and it does not require a sacrifice to atone for it. Have no use for a medieval religion, even if it's called environmentalism, that relies on superstition, fear, scientific ignorance and economic envy that offers to cure what does not ail.

Life is sweet and the sun shines and graces you with its light. You have the choice to see it for what it is or turn everything around you into darkness, fear and crap. The experience you have on life's one circuit on the Merry Go Round will be what you made of it. There are no second rides ever.

Optimist or pessimist?

Mariss

Well said Mariss.

It's funny that every other country in tghe world basically agrees that climate change is THE issue for the next century. Tomorrow a new report is coming out. As if the one that came out a couple of months ago, from the UN wasn't enough.

I'd like to know how any of the Global Warming deniers can literally see the ice melting before their very eyes and still think the way they do. Well, not really. If you can't see what's happening with your own eyes, then I can't be bothered to care about your opinion.

Most of you are probably old enough to have children. Maybe grown children. It's interesting to me that those of you who fit that description are prepared to leave a world that closely resembles a mad max movie to those kids so you can sound authoritative without doing any actual research yourselves.

The ONLY constant is change.
Consensus is political.
Science is demonstrable, repeatable exercise of facts.
There is NO consensus of science, there MAY me a consensus of scientists who are subject error.
The best state of climate is WHAT, WHERE and FOR WHOM?
And what kind of arrogance decides to "control the weather" for his own benefit?
Or is it just another power play to gain political dominance and financial gain?

dang

1) The scientific method does not rely on consensus. Only a herd is guided by consensus. In science one right person trumps 10,000 wrong ones. Think Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, Copernicus and even Dr. William Grey .

2) Deniers; what a strange an interesting word. Religious in connotation, a word reserved for heretics and blasphemers. It does frame the context though; the argument has nothing to do with reasoned thought, rather everything to do with belief, feeling, fear and superstition.

3) "Believe as I do or else your opinion and you are not worth my consideration." This is dehumanizing and this dehumanization is the first step on a trail that leads to the worst humans beings have done. All reason and humanity ends at that trail head.

My friend, you have been manipulated. No amount of 747s or i-pods, cars, plasma TVs or CNC machines differentiate you from our ancestors who also were equally susceptible. Here's how the manipulation works: First put into your head a tremendous calamity is looming. The cause of the calamity is something you are doing and therefore you are responsible for it. You are then offered a way you can deflect the calamity by doing something personally, as an individual, to rectify it. Something like separating green waste from glass and cardboard in your trash or buying a Prius; doesn't matter.

This is the clever part. Fear leads to a desire for action and an approved action is offered. Taking that action validates what you feared is real and that only your actions can forestall the feared consequence. Now you believe in what you might have doubted or at least kept an open mind about. Sin and atonement, fear and pagan sacrifice, carbon offsets and special dispensations. This trick has been played unchanged for thousands of years.

Yes, we have two young adult children. My wife and I have taught them well about many things.

Mariss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mariss Freimanis

3) "Believe as I do or else your opinion and you are not worth my consideration." This is dehumanizing and this dehumanization is the first step on a trail that leads to the worst humans beings have done. All reason and humanity ends at that trail head.

My friend, you have been manipulated. No amount of 747s or i-pods, cars, plasma TVs or CNC machines differentiate you from our ancestors who also were equally susceptible. Here's how the manipulation works: First put into your head a tremendous calamity is looming. The cause of the calamity is something you are doing and therefore you are responsible for it. You are then offered a way you can deflect the calamity by doing something personally, as an individual, to rectify it. Something like separating green waste from glass and cardboard in your trash or buying a Prius; doesn't matter.

This is the clever part. Fear leads to a desire for action and an approved action is offered. Taking that action validates what you feared is real and that only your actions can forestall the feared consequence. Now you believe in what you might have doubted or at least kept an open mind about. Sin and atonement, fear and pagan sacrifice, carbon offsets and special dispensations. This trick has been played unchanged for thousands of years.
Mariss

---

Exactly what skeptics are doing. Don't believe in this thing. Its a lie, its fiction and etc etc etc. Lets put it in perspective here. When we the believers feels something should be done, what ever the outcome, and here I have to say its only good outcome, affects us all whether you believe it or not. But when we have to accept what your opinions are and if everyone does that, we might as well just go along the same route and pollute the air more and more and wait till the climate starts to effects us all. Which side should I go with? Its pretty obvious isn't it?

Look at the ozone layer, its scientifically proven that CFC caused the depletion of the ozone. When countries starts to ban the use of CFCs. The ozone layer starts to rejuvenate. What further facts do we need. Its staring us right in the face. When a chemical like CFC can do such a thing. Imagine the effects of what other pollutants we put out can do.

And yes, it is fear, fear for our humankind. Fear for the result that our ignorance will produce should we go along this route of self destruction. Human being are capable of doing that.

And because you "believe" the boogie man will get you, I should give away two thirds of my income. Abandon my life style because you "feel" SOMETHING should be done whether it is right or wrong.

No, chickenlittle, I won't follow you into the cold, dark night and starve my self on the basis of your faith. It is your religion, YOU follow it. As for me, I can recognize pagan gods at a huge distance and smell a B.S. story farther than that.

By the way, the last "crisis" with the ozone layer turned out to have NOTHING to do with chlorofluorocarbons. ANOTHER scientific consensus that has been PROVEN wrong after great expense!


To listen to todays lunatics you'd expect flying saucers on the White House lawn, souls flying off to the tails of comets and maybe Farrakhan's "mother ship" to be discovered in orbit. In the bargain maybe all those inductees will be released from the black helicopters.

When "the outcome" will be destruction of the world economy you can expect THAT change to be met with armed resistance.

As I sit here with a terminal case of COPD I'm VERY interested in clean air. So lets clean up the air for the sake of clean air. We can pick up all the trash without starving. We can hunt for a real answer to the energy question without adopting a Spartan life style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhowelb

And because you "believe" the boogie man will get you, I should give away two thirds of my income. Abandon my life style because you "feel" SOMETHING should be done whether it is right or wrong.

No, chickenlittle, I won't follow you into the cold, dark night and starve my self on the basis of your faith. It is your religion, YOU follow it. As for me, I can recognize pagan gods at a huge distance and smell a B.S. story farther than that.

By the way, the last "crisis" with the ozone layer turned out to have NOTHING to do with chlorofluorocarbons. ANOTHER scientific consensus that has been PROVEN wrong after great expense!


To listen to todays lunatics you'd expect flying saucers on the White House lawn, souls flying off to the tails of comets and maybe Farrakhan's "mother ship" to be discovered in orbit. In the bargain maybe all those inductees will be released from the black helicopters.

When "the outcome" will be destruction of the world economy you can expect THAT change to be met with armed resistance.

As I sit here with a terminal case of COPD I'm VERY interested in clean air. So lets clean up the air for the sake of clean air. We can pick up all the trash without starving. We can hunt for a real answer to the energy question without adopting a Spartan life style.

---

jhowelb

I actually agree with you on a great number of points, the ones we disagree on don't really matter. For me, consensus is irrationality defined. Who needs to think, when we can just agree, and get along, because I'm just too much of a spineless, ballless **** to stand for something and fight if necessary. That's what consensus is. The "can't we all just get along" mentality that searches for it's "leader", with the mewling, bawling sheeple following the shepherd to the brink, and morphing into some twisted lemming, jumping into the abyss while that "leader" stands by to pick up the pieces and find a new cause to poster-boy.

I am so sick of the Armageddon view point. People are their own problems. They cause them. They live them. They make the same mistakes, in repackaged form. NEW! IMPROVED!! and just as stupid as before. But it's NEW! IMPROVED!! it can't be wrong. Psychology is science, but just because it's twisted to invade the brains of millions or billions of people sucking MY air, doesn't mean that whatever point they pontificate and regurgitate is science. Just the method of brainwash or brainwiping.

Every living creature on earth evolves...or eventually goes extinct. So when man starts making those next jarring steps into evolution...will the rest of the devolved in our species make a consensus that they are an aberration and should be destroyed to preserve "humanity"? Evolution by committee? What a frightening idea to mull.

On a lighter note...what's wrong with a Spartan lifestyle? The Spartans were the greatest warriors the world has ever seen, until they were corrupted by outside influences. Influences they allowed. Sometimes maintaining pur sang in a subculture can allow a culture to flourish.

As sad as it makes me, we view violence as a necessary evil when diplomacy fails. But it makes heroes out of common men. If those same common men displayed those acts of violence out of that environment, he is called a criminal and penned like an animal for a length of time, sometimes the remainder of his life. Violence is part of nature...we are part of nature...and violence is very much a part of us. Just as the ability to reason, and to make art. As a species we need to remember why we are top of the food chain. Violence. We may have more mental capacity than other species, but we have soft bodies, no claws or fangs. It is only because of our untold penchance for violence, a carnal bloodlust, that brought us to where we are. That violence bred an instinctual fear in every animal on land. One that is still very much present in most of the animals still alive. One that is missing in modern man, when he sits in the relative comfort of home and makes decisions that affect others around him. Only when he is confronted with violence and his life put in jeopardy does he begin to use his facilities for reason.

I do not condone tyranny. Oppressed and oppressors alike can turn to either. I do suggest that an armed society is a polite society due to the unarguable fact that people think before they speak or act when under the influence of an untimely death. I won't harm you if you don't harm me.

The tie-in is that surrendering your freedoms or rights to those who mean you harm is more evil than the evil being done to you. Man was born a fighter, and when a fight is brought to you, you must engage with the full measure you are capable. This is what has brought civilization to the high-point (for what it is) we enjoy today.

Are you familiar with the Inquisition? Of burning witches at the stake? Violence being done in the name of (insert your cause here) against other men is evil. Violence done in response to those who do violence to you, is to establish balance and order to the chaos that flourishes.

We only seek to live. We do not have an agenda. We are not trying to convert. We do not seek to punish outsiders and reward those who have been loyal. So why do the neo-greenies seek to push an agenda, in which there is no room for anything other than their ceremonies & litagies. To establish a new world order that will destroy the middle class and further seperate the poor and the wealthy. Why are so many of the future slave-class willing to drink the kool-aid with bright-eyed enthusiasm?

Well, that was very flowery prose.
A consensus in scientific terms is when a group of ->scientists<- use scientific method to reach a conclusion which is published, reviewed and then agreed upon. Scientists live to bash each other's theories. Would ya'll have me believe then, that all these great minds have suddenly stopped nit picking with each other in order to follow the leader?

Also, how could the ultra rich better corner everyone else than to downgrade any new energy source, ya know aside from oil. I should, from now on refer to oil as peak oil, because it's very nearly gone all together.
I'm also not sure how multiplying the energy sources available to us, and thereby creating untold numbers of new jobs would further separate the rich and the poor. Oh, and did I mention that Oil is sold to us by people who HATE US?

Me thinks that the flowery prose hides within it a lack of consideration of these merely semi literate, but obvious points. You don't make soap for a living do you WYLD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjmerlincnc

The simple truth is, due to the problem of grants being hard to come by for the scientific community and goverments eager to obtain more money from the public, it is a bandwagon that could benefit both parties.


Those scientists you may call "Maverick" are those men and woman who have integrity and honour but unfortunatly very little power.

---

Dear cjmerlincnc,

Absolutely..,

Look at this " policy document "

http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

Page 25, Treating Climate Change as Beyond Argument

Best wishes,

Martin