[handlewanker]

Dufa, I suppose it would be fair to say that there are about 1 million active scientists in the world that are actively involved with climatology, but be free to correct me if I'm out by a few thousand or so.

So, can you say with any accuracy, say a 20% accuracy, how many of these very learned gentlemen disagree with the global warming concept?

If you were to say that half disagree, then that is tantamount to your saying that the other 500 thousand scientists (who agree with the concept of global warming) are in the pay of the various interested parties to portray the global warming/cooling/climate change scenario as a coming catastrophe of humungeous proportions just to ensure their monthly salaries arrive on schedule.

What brand of Koolaide are you on old chap?

I don't think that you have the capacity or capability to analyse the various thought trends of so many scientists, so what do you do to get your "consensus" of opinions, use a blindfold and a pin to pick them?

That's really pseudo scientific orientation.
Ian.

[dufas]

Dufa, I suppose it would be fair to say that there are about 1 million active scientists in the world that are actively involved with climatology, but be free to correct me if I'm out by a few thousand or so.

So, can you say with any accuracy, say a 20% accuracy, how many of these very learned gentlemen disagree with the global warming concept?

If you were to say that half disagree, then that is tantamount to your saying that the other 500 thousand scientists (who agree with the concept of global warming) are in the pay of the various interested parties to portray the global warming/cooling/climate change scenario as a coming catastrophe of humungeous proportions just to ensure their monthly salaries arrive on schedule.

What brand of Koolaide are you on old chap?

I don't think that you have the capacity or capability to analyse the various thought trends of so many scientists, so what do you do to get your "consensus" of opinions, use a blindfold and a pin to pick them?

That's really pseudo scientific orientation.
Ian.

Coming from a pseudo human such as yourself, I can understand your annoyance that I don't drink your brand of Koolaide.

Likewise, I am fairly sure that you would include political scientists in with the climatology crowd...got to manipulate the great unwashed, right.

I didn't find how many scientists there were world wide, but there are 60,000 physicists (from survey in Physics Today) in the USA and over 31,000 of them have signed an anti-human caused global warming petition, but I know that you are only interested in the scientists that you support so any discussion to this end would leave you incapacitated moreso than you are now. You should really go back to your ants and playing with your favorite body parts and allow we normal people space to carry on an intelligent discourse which will only confuse you more..

[MrWild]

I didn't find how many scientists there were world wide, but there are 60,000 physicists (from survey in Physics Today) in the USA and over 31,000 of them have signed an anti-human caused global warming petition, but I know that you are only interested in the scientists that you support so any discussion to this end would leave you incapacitated moreso than you are now. You should really go back to your ants and playing with your favorite body parts and allow we normal people space to carry on an intelligent discourse which will only confuse you more..

Did a search for your survey and NO hits came back. Physics Today however has a LOT of artcles about the science of global warming and they seem to buy into it. http://www.physicstoday.org/?CFID=43...TOKEN=61011965

Maybe I have the wrong Physics today? Have a link? The scientists I know all buy into the religion as you say.

[dynosor]

The scientists I know all buy into the religion

Who do they work for? Universities, funded by govt grants? If so, they don't have a choice.

[One of Many]

I do agree with you, somewhat. wouldn't AWG be more like a cult where AL Gore is standing in front of his followers who each hand on his every word while the allowed scientific community backs up his every statement??

You ain't here playing the game right if you agree, but who the heck is Somewhat? Me One_of_Many, Somewhat someone else! LOL!

Asoooooo, I see. Maybe you mean Gore is rather like SunmyungMoon, not you agree with Somewhat?

My guess is the devout followers of Gore dwell on the Hollywood stylized fad facts far more than actual science. It's a well wraped package!

Here is the STAT's poll that says a lot on what they think of Gore, Hollywood and the media in general. This is a poll of slightly less than 500 like minded, unionized individuals. Not exactly a broad spectrum, but interesting none the less.

As with any poll, carefully chosen data and the results of narrowly phrased questions are what is published. The survey question were not included within this article. I have have heard of several polls results trash when it didn't meet the story line for critical evidence.

Also with most polls, you don't publish what does not support the foregone conclusion for doing the survey. First and foremost to see if their message or agenda is effective. Like any advertising campaign, change the message until it roots itself with higher positive feedback without changing the survey questions. They can claim non-partisan, but rarely can they claim nonbiased. I take note of how they put Gore's film in a favorable light as 26% say it is very reliable, which is also to say 74% see it as problematic. Avoid negative connotations unless they fit the intent, as it were. Freudian slip maybe?

STATS survey

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, and Thanks Dufas.....Somewhat, that's funny shi!


DC

[Paulo E.]

<~~~~ Makes yet another mental note: Ask Dufas for his brand of Laxative. I guess, the need to use it has come. On a lighter note. Dufas can you please stop Spiking the Koolaided, I mean Koolaide here Koolaide there LOL. I know your Koolaide must have some powerful hacilugenics. All in good fun, thruth is that I enjoy verymuch reading your opinions as you guys seem to be good debaters. Cheers Mates:cheers:

Ps: Someone call Al Gore pls.... Its cold as heck, here in South Florida today. Can someone ask him to turn on the Global warming machine ? LMAO

[dufas]

You ain't here playing the game right if you agree, but who the heck is Somewhat? Me One_of_Many, Somewhat someone else! LOL!

Asoooooo, I see. Maybe you mean Gore is rather like SunmyungMoon, not you agree with Somewhat?

My guess is the devout followers of Gore dwell on the Hollywood stylized fad facts far more than actual science. It's a well wraped package!

Here is the STAT's poll that says a lot on what they think of Gore, Hollywood and the media in general. This is a poll of slightly less than 500 like minded, unionized individuals. Not exactly a broad spectrum, but interesting none the less.

As with any poll, carefully chosen data and the results of narrowly phrased questions are what is published. The survey question were not included within this article. I have have heard of several polls results trash when it didn't meet the story line for critical evidence.

Also with most polls, you don't publish what does not support the foregone conclusion for doing the survey. First and foremost to see if their message or agenda is effective. Like any advertising campaign, change the message until it roots itself with higher positive feedback without changing the survey questions. They can claim non-partisan, but rarely can they claim nonbiased. I take note of how they put Gore's film in a favorable light as 26&#37; say it is very reliable, which is also to say 74% see it as problematic. Avoid negative connotations unless they fit the intent, as it were. Freudian slip maybe?

STATS survey

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, and Thanks Dufas.....Somewhat, that's funny shi!


DC

Somewhat....heheheh It's a matter of sentence structure and punctuation..
It should have been "I somewhat agree with you but.." I didn't want to introduce the 'but' in there, that would seem too personal.... and there is no way I would address you as 'but' ;->

British comedian Benny Hill had a very funny and telling skit on the structure, punctuation, timing, and reading/speaking of words. He took the writings and the spoken word of famous writers and politicians and read them aloud as they were originally done and then applied slight modifications with not changing the wording, only changing the timing which inferred a change in punctuation.

One example was the line " What is this thing called love ?" After going through a progression of re-reads, he ended up on " What is this thing called,..[pause]..love?" which even though the same words were used, the connotation is completely different.

There is another polling method that was recently used here locally that was intended to give desired results. The pollster would call and the first question would be "Are you a Democrat or Republican ?" If the person that answered stated that they were Republican, the pollster would thank them and end the call. If a Democrat answered, the pollster would go on to other questions and these answers were what constituted the survey. It came to light when the polling results were published and hundreds of Republicans called the people that requested the poll and stating that no questions were asked of them.phone records were audited, and compared to the number of Republicans listed, the poll was retracted and a liberal polling company bit the dust...

Addendum..... Targeted polls have been used for every means imaginable. Back in the 70s during the heyday of militant feminism, the NOW organization was presenting polls done by Playgirl magazine to politicians as the gospel of American thought, Hustler magazine did their own poll which was, as expected, 180 degrees out of phase with the NOW/Playgirl poll which was the point of the Hustler poll. It depends on who, what, and why the poll was done in the first place.

[dufas]

Did a search for your survey and NO hits came back. Physics Today however has a LOT of artcles about the science of global warming and they seem to buy into it. http://www.physicstoday.org/?CFID=43...TOKEN=61011965

Maybe I have the wrong Physics today? Have a link? The scientists I know all buy into the religion as you say.

Can't speak about it then because Paul E says "<~~~ Makes another mental not: Do not speak about religion" Tabooo subject............

[Paulo E.]

Can't speak about it then because Paul E says "<~~~ Makes another mental not: Do not speak about religion" Tabooo subject............

AMEN brother Dufas Praise the all mighty lord GORE.

LOL... Kind of reminds me of Starwars.

Ps: Im still waiting from someone to turn on the climate change machine, still a bit chilly here in South Florida.


<~~~~ Makes another mental note: Speaking about religion is not taboo... as long as you all agree with my point of view and have no say in it :argue:


Cheers :cheers::cheers:

[dufas]

Did a search for your survey and NO hits came back. Physics Today however has a LOT of artcles about the science of global warming and they seem to buy into it. http://www.physicstoday.org/?CFID=43...TOKEN=61011965

Maybe I have the wrong Physics today? Have a link? The scientists I know all buy into the religion as you say.

On a less facetious note, you are correct...after looking, their web site does not carry the statistics. I read it in their printed magazine while waiting for an acquaintance at a medical equipment manufacturer. I do find it odd that the web site does not mimic their hardcopy output.


As far as the scientist dissenters, http://www.petitionproject.org/ has a list of 31,000 plus petitioners giving their names.......

[Paulo E.]

Dufas, That is a staggering number of signatures. I wonder if you happen to know, how old this article is or rather if it is an ongoing project. All the same an impressive amount of signatures.

I was reading a couple of articles from Nasa a document from Wikipedia with a brief history of some of the most recent poles, some showing dissent from the main stream as well as some showing wide consensus. Being wikipedia and all I would not stake my life on it since the entries can be alter by anyone but at least it gives you a reference of the studies.

Ps: I am interested in seeing if there is any wide dissent from any Climatologist body of science, if so please forward me a link.

Here they are for anyone who may want to read them.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...WarmingUpdate/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ific_consensus


<~~~~No more mental notes for the day ( I'm tired and it's about time to go home ) Cheers :cheers:

[dufas]

Dufas, That is a staggering number of signatures. I wonder if you happen to know, how old this article is or rather if it is an ongoing project. All the same an impressive amount of signatures.

I was reading a couple of articles from Nasa a document from Wikipedia with a brief history of some of the most recent poles, some showing dissent from the main stream as well as some showing wide consensus. Being wikipedia and all I would not stake my life on it since the entries can be alter by anyone but at least it gives you a reference of the studies.

Ps: I am interested in seeing if there is any wide dissent from any Climatologist body of science, if so please forward me a link.

Here they are for anyone who may want to read them.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...WarmingUpdate/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ific_consensus


<~~~~No more mental notes for the day ( I'm tired and it's about time to go home ) Cheers :cheers:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdat...Questions.html states the last petition drive ran until March 2008 and by inference, is ongoing. Below is a snippet from this page.



Snip============================================== ===============
In December 1997, then U. S. Vice-President Al Gore participated in a meeting in Kyoto, Japan during which he signed a treaty to ration world energy production based upon fear of human-caused global warming. This treaty was not, however, presented to the United States Senate for ratification.

Since before that Kyoto meeting and continuing to the present day, Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the "science is settled' – that an overwhelming "consensus" of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.

Moreover, these proponents of world energy rationing have consistently argued for more than 10 years that, in view of this claimed scientific "consensus," no further discussion of the science involved in this issue is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax and ration hydrocarbon energy.

Since, however, these claims were not successful in convincing the United States government to initiate energy rationing, the United Nations has held a series of international meetings attended by a central group of about 600 scientists, some additional scientists outside of this group, and a large number of political and bureaucratic representatives – approximately 2,000 in all. The United Nations has also hosted larger meetings, including many non-scientist participants from environmental, business, and political organizations.

During and after each of these meetings, there have been further publicity campaigns claiming that the "science is settled" – that the "consensus" of scientists in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is so overwhelming that further examination of the science is unnecessary.

Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that this claimed "consensus" does not exist, a group of scientists initiated the Petition Project in early 1998. Thousands of signatures were gathered in a campaign during 1998-1999. Between 1999 and 2007, the list of petition signatories grew gradually, without a special campaign. Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.

The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of "consensus," release of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a "consensus" and "settled science" in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse.
snip============================================== ===========

Addendum...... Interesting government blog site... http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...Minority.Blogs

[One of Many]

I am interested in seeing if there is any wide dissent from any Climatologist body of science, if so please forward me a link.

Paulo,

It is very difficult to nail down wide dissent since there is or has been evidence of Global Warming. Some of that can be peer pressure to speak out against the united brotherhood in any capacity.

Where ever I have research that topic, the divide is along the line of whether it is human caused, an imminent threat, the use of exaggerated results, poor data methods, reliance on computer climate models and their undisclosed data sets. Which all to often lead to irresponsible hyped conclusions many do not want to be tied to as a consensus. The Media, Hollywood and Politicians thrive on apocalyptic stuff because it pays well, entertains and consumes their captivated audiences time as a "trusted" source of hand picked and manipulated facts. As they say, one persons trash is another persons treasure.

It takes due diligence in reading both sides of the GW issue. Spot the difference between reliable information, misinformation and bias via op-ed commentary spun toward an Authors objective, then verify when possible. I find it harder to rely on news brought to me for my convenience, than when I make the effort on my own accord. IMHO, television news personalities and news paper writers are not really any more climate qualified than you and I. Even the STATS survey admits that as a poor sole sources to rely on and far too many use it to defend what they have been fed without questioning it.

I quit watching the MSM, oh.......round about the time I invented the Internet!


Here is a list of links.

Climatologists Who Disagree

Do not rely on anyone but yourself. Search the web for verification, falsification, agreement and disagreement on the climate or sciences. Keep in mind, the real challenge is to learn something from both sides valid arguments, then give credit where due. If we are not to lean on our own understanding, why lean on anyone else? We don't need to know it all. But, you can do pretty well, to learn to collate and summarize the larger picture both pro and con.

DC

[Paulo E.]

Thanks for the answer, Dufas.

One of many, I was looking a bit more towards an organize movement of Climatologists who dissent, I was reading from the link and there are a wide number of scholars not all Climatologist or in fields related to it. I guess my question is: If there is such a large number of dissenters and there is data or theories to support the claims, should there not be a coalition or an organization that has published papers in reputable places like the Scientific Journal and the likes ? Maybe it is the mass media that does not allow this papers to get out, but if this is the case should the Scientist not organize and provide a stern response ?

That was the reason why before I was asking for a group of climatologist, there are other bodies of science that deal with issues of this nature but in the end, climatologist are the ones that should be giving us answers. Not that blogs or other links are a bad source of information but I would like to see a number of publications that can scrutinize by their peers, such a publication in the Science journal or the likes. I think this is by no means a sure science and on both sides of the isle there are wide differences of opinions, even then on the link One of many gave me, there are quotes and tidbits of informations and some Papers as well. Papers written by anyone in either side of the argument should be presented and be allowed to be scrutinize by their peers, that is science after all, proving out theories.


<~~~~ Makes a mental note: Eagerly awaits several links from reputable sources of information such as Nasa, EPA or any major Scientific publication. Not particularly looking for what Uncle Bob's blog or Rush Limbaugh have to say in the matter.

[NinerSevenTango]

Paulo,

If you're interested in learning the truth, then pay attention to the tactics of those who make an assertion. The burden of truth is always upon the one making the assertion; logically, it is impossible to prove a negative.

In the case of global warming, we find concrete evidence that the purveyors of this theory falsified their data and are keeping the algorithms for how they 'modify' the data secret, even though they do their research with public money and despite the fact that they are supposed to reveal it when publishing in refereed journals. Further, we find that satellite data contradicts land-based temperature data, so they simply leave the satellite data out of their calculations.

The computer programs that give rise to the apocalyptic predictions are unable to predict the present when fed data from the past.

The science community has a direct monetary and ideological motive to promote this theory -- their funding gets cut off if they are a 'denier', and most of those on board are philosophically in favor of some measure of socialism (dreaming that scientists could run socialism better than thugs, but that's a different discussion).

The community chooses to ignore physics in its conclusions, particularly the fact that CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas is not a linear function, but drops off with increasing concentration, so that further increases make very little difference. This is a measurable and proven fact of physics, not taken into account in the models. Further, the models ignore or understate the potency of the strongest greenhouse gas of all - water vapor. Clouds!

The deeper you look into this, the worse it looks. What you find is that a disinterested person who begins to examine the data soon rejects the 'news view' of the issue.

On issues where power and money are not so much at stake, a theory will lose credibility when its underlying data and logic are shown to be flawed, and it will be discarded or severely modified if it is shown to lack predictive ability.

In this case, there is a competing theory - one backed by physical experiment, fitting all data going back into history, and also being predictive. That theory is the idea that sunspot activity correlates with temperature here. The idea is that solar storms eject matter which interacts with the magnetic field of the earth, and that interaction causes the shielding effect of our magnetosphere to increase. That shielding effect decreases the number of cosmic rays that penetrate the atmosphere. When solar storm activity decreases, more cosmic rays interact with the atmosphere, causing high clouds to form, which reflect more sunlight, causing cooling, and vice versa. This mechanism is how cloud chambers are used to detect cosmic rays in the first place. The cosmic ray flux varies with sunspot activity, and so does the amount of high cloud cover, and so does the temperature. Certainly, this theory deserves at least as much attention as any other. Its only drawback is that it doesn't give politicians unlimited power over your productive activity - the power to tax, regulate, and bend its aim to their service.

It was predicted that cooling would commence when the last solar storm cycle ended, and it has -- giving back all of the warming that has been attributed to CO2. Since the last cycle was a long one, it has been predicted that we may be in for an extended quiet time on the sun. The last time that happened, it corresponded to the 'little ice age'. Let's hope that doesn't happen, the effects of colder weather on human life are pretty bad -- and will be made worse if some humans shut off life-giving energy to others.

The fact that the ice caps are growing and getting thicker while temperatures drop around the globe seems to be blacked out of the popular press, and regular alarmist predictions keep coming out of the government labs in spite of it. The result is the loss of credibility of science itself. The government-paid scientists have become the handmaidens of statists, and the press is doing everything they can to hide the fact that they have been impaled on their own thermometers.

Look to see global warming fade from public attention, and not just because it isn't happening. The argument was seized upon as a handle to gain illegitimate power, but now the failure of paper money is giving those who would rule us a better and faster way to assume total control over their object. The public can be counted on to swallow the misinformation in the press about that, too. They will demand to be taken care of rather than rise in anger at having the entire value of the economy stolen out from under them, taking their wishes, hopes, dreams, and their future away from them along with their careers, their homes, and their life's savings.

Cheers,

--97T--

[One of Many]

Thanks for the answer, Dufas.

One of many, I was looking a bit more towards an organize movement of Climatologists who dissent, I was reading from the link and there are a wide number of scholars not all Climatologist or in fields related to it. I guess my question is: If there is such a large number of dissenters and there is data or theories to support the claims, should there not be a coalition or an organization that has published papers in reputable places like the Scientific Journal and the likes ? Maybe it is the mass media that does not allow this papers to get out, but if this is the case should the Scientist not organize and provide a stern response ?

That was the reason why before I was asking for a group of climatologist, there are other bodies of science that deal with issues of this nature but in the end, climatologist are the ones that should be giving us answers. Not that blogs or other links are a bad source of information but I would like to see a number of publications that can scrutinize by their peers, such a publication in the Science journal or the likes. I think this is by no means a sure science and on both sides of the isle there are wide differences of opinions, even then on the link One of many gave me, there are quotes and tidbits of informations and some Papers as well. Papers written by anyone in either side of the argument should be presented and be allowed to be scrutinize by their peers, that is science after all, proving out theories.


<~~~~ Makes a mental note: Eagerly awaits several links from reputable sources of information such as Nasa, EPA or any major Scientific publication. Not particularly looking for what Uncle Bob's blog or Rush Limbaugh have to say in the matter.

Paulo,

You will be waiting for a long long time. What you seek is the Holy Grail, the Chalice of the Eucharist, or call it the Mother Lode, all in one place to simplify it for your convenience.

In that respect, the IPCC report for all intents and purposes was intentionally created as such. I still liken it to biblical proportions, since it includes all of the apostles bringing forth artifacts of conscience and apocalyptic results if certain criteria align. What is not clear is correlation, nor difinity in how all the artifacts interact, with the interpretation left to eminent authority to dispense as it sees fit and the fringe distorting it for their own manipulative purposes.

DC

[dufas]

Paulo,

You will be waiting for a long long time. What you seek is the Holy Grail, the Chalice of the Eucharist, or call it the Mother Lode, all in one place to simplify it for your convenience.

In that respect, the IPCC report for all intents and purposes was intentionally created as such. I still liken it to biblical proportions, since it includes all of the apostles bringing forth artifacts of conscience and apocalyptic results if certain criteria align. What is not clear is correlation, nor difinity in how all the artifacts interact, with the interpretation left to eminent authority to dispense as it sees fit and the fringe distorting it for their own manipulative purposes.

DC

The IPCC, established by the UN, became a perfect tool to establish an international power base.

I think that the political history of the UN should be added to formula. The UN has for the last 40 or so years been looking for a way to tax, control, and otherwise dictate to countries, especially western countries, any and all agendas that they aspire to. At the risk of repeating myself, it was tried and failed during the 60s and 70s with the global drought and the global cooling fiasco. In between and after those operations, just about every excuse that the UN body could come up with has been tried to gain that power. AWG seems to have given them the leverage that is needed to push their agenda on to the world. Luckily, they have, until AWG, failed at most of their maneuvers. AWG may just be the vehicle that finally gives them what they want.

[One of Many]

The IPCC, established by the UN, became a perfect tool to establish an international power base.

I think that the political history of the UN should be added to formula. The UN has for the last 40 or so years been looking for a way to tax, control, and otherwise dictate to countries, especially western countries, any and all agendas that they aspire to. At the risk of repeating myself, it was tried and failed during the 60s and 70s with the global drought and the global cooling fiasco. In between and after those operations, just about every excuse that the UN body could come up with has been tried to gain that power. AWG seems to have given them the leverage that is needed to push their agenda on to the world. Luckily, they have, until AWG, failed at most of their maneuvers. AWG may just be the vehicle that finally gives them what they want.

The climate or energy rationing is only one aspect to the UN's global governing of all resources. The body of the UN is derived of some very corrupt leadership panhandling to help their own, by helping themselves to the wealth of productive nations. Within the US it is called the Global Poverty Act. Within the UN it is call the Millenium Development Project.

The robbing the hoods - aspect

When it comes to reducing poverty within our own borders, the bulk of aid is shipped far far away, never to be seen again. This gives spreading the wealth a whole new meaning that a certain voting bloc didn't see coming or intentions never widely publisized.

DC

[dufas]

The climate or energy rationing is only one aspect to the UN's global governing of all resources. The body of the UN is derived of some very corrupt leadership panhandling to help their own, by helping themselves to the wealth of productive nations. Within the US it is called the Global Poverty Act. Within the UN it is call the Millenium Development Project.

The robbing the hoods - aspect

When it comes to reducing poverty within our own borders, the bulk of aid is shipped far far away, never to be seen again. This gives spreading the wealth a whole new meaning that a certain voting bloc didn't see coming or intentions never widely publicized.

DC

That is what I mean. The global warming proclamations by the IPCC is just one part of a larger picture. Some of the pieces of that 'big picture' are in place now. Other pieces are sure to fall into place. The blind 'voting bloc' will always give unwitting assistance, some are willing participants.

[dufas]

just a few moments ago, the news stated that a group of global warming scientists are complaining about the huge sums monies being handed out in the various bailout schemes isn't coming their way.

They are especially miffed about the automobile manufacturers possibly getting any of the money, after all, they said, the automobile is the one major cause of the world's problems and shouldn't be given any help to allow them to keep destroying the planet.