Page 98 of 111 FirstFirst ... 488893949596979899100101102103108 ... LastLast
Results 1,941 to 1,960 of 2209
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1941  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    We're not in a "cooling period replacing ice"...we have cooled from 1999, the warmest year in recorded history. That doesn't mean we've cooled significantly. This is still the warmest decade on record.
    But not likely the Warmest Decade. There are good indications that we've had warmer periods well within our historical record (1000 years or so). Of course, that possibility has been obscured by these "scientists."

    Actually, we are (2007-2008) replacing ice at an accelerated Rate--contrary to predictions (again). This doesn't prove there is more ice--it proves that very quickly, things can change, and reverse, despite CO2 Concentrations rising.

    What this of course disproves is the "Direct relationship" that AGW hysteria relies upon. Obviously, other factors (most likely the Sun) overwhelm the CO2 Concentrations--very quickly.

    To reiterate again--AGW propagandists rely on confusing these issues--the existence of Global Temperature increases, or decrease in sea ice and the causes of these phenomena. They MUST convince you that man is THE cause to justify their wealth-siphoning agenda. They try to convince you that Data measuring something is proof of a theory, and that their predictions are true.

    However, the short term predictions have proven false, and the climate models are highly inaccurate in many ways. However, the propagandists "have their story and are sticking to it." They keep insisting that their LONG term predictions (of global disaster) are true.

    Reasonable people are able to discern between hysteria and politics and actual science.

    KAM
  2. #1942  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    I was unaware that the majority of scientists in the world all belonged to these organizations. Amazing. I feel better now.
    I already posted this for you, but I'll do so again, since you're questioning the scientists...again:

    A partial list of organizations include: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union,American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy,American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association,Association of Ecosystem,Research Centers,Botanical Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

    Outside of the US: Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

    And National / International Organizations taking your side of the argument? NONE.

    But of course, you dismiss the data, and now you'll dismiss the scientists as "biased / liberals / people who rely on data and are thus unreliable / friends of Al Gore" ...3...2...1....
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/21/2009 at 05:02 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  3. #1943  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    But not likely the Warmest Decade. There are good indications that we've had warmer periods well within our historical record (1000 years or so). Of course, that possibility has been obscured by these "scientists."

    To reiterate again--AGW propagandists rely on confusing these issues--the existence of Global Temperature increases, or decrease in sea ice and the causes of these phenomena. They MUST convince you that man is THE cause to justify their wealth-siphoning agenda. They try to convince you that Data measuring something is proof of a theory, and that their predictions are true.
    Any proof of this? Or just your gut feeling? Because there aren't just a few "propogandists", but over 75 major scientific organizations that disagree with you, and not a single one that agrees.

    For example, the UK's Academy of Science, The Royal Society, addresses most of the common misleading arguments (such as those you've presented in this thread) here - if you'd like to look at it with an open mind...rather than dismissing them as "propogandists", go right ahead: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile...d_fictions.pdf


    Reasonable people are able to discern between hysteria and politics and actual science.
    I guess your scientific knowledge is simply greater, and your judgment more reasonable, than the majority of the world's scientists, then. Those pesky scientists...all irrational and all.

    Here's an interesting study about the opinion of the public vs. those with expertise in climatology on the "debate": http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    The author states:

    It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis
    of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/21/2009 at 05:01 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1944  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Any proof of this? Or just your gut feeling?
    No, its actually what Science tells us--you know the stuff that you ignore when it doesn't suit you purposes. Its a theory, but one that has fairly strong evidence. Whereas, I'm sure you would seek to present theory as fact--undeniable fact without any tolerance of discussion, I don't follow that line of reasoning in regards to science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Any proof of this? Or just your gut feeling?
    You really aren't very original in your petty jibes are you? Actually, yes--you can find examples of these sorts of claims from the AGW hysteria brigade all over the place, and often on the daily news. You might have heard of this big Wasteful conference in Copenhagen recently.

    There are these wonderful things called observation and reasoning. If used objectively, it lets you learn many, many interesting things, and is a pretty effective tool at cutting through the propaganda of others. See--at some point you can tune out what people SAY when it contradicts what they DO, or what the actual facts are. I know that you might find this to be a foreign concept, but you should try it some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I guess your scientific knowledge is simply greater, and your judgment more reasonable, than the majority of the world's scientists, then. Those pesky scientists...all irrational and all.
    Greater? No, I wouldn't claim that, I simply don't cherry pick evidence that only favors my position--that's what AGW alarmists must do.

    And again--you insist on demonstrating your worship of organizations. You go right ahead, but you aren't talking about anything other than opinion.

    I'll remind you again, since you have a great capacity for selective ignorance. MAJORITY opinion has NOTHING to do with Science, NOTHING. This is the lie that you AGW propagandist keep on pushing, but it remains a lie.

    Of course, your "gut" probably tells you that if you repeat a lie enough times, it will become truth. Well, thankfully we don't all share the same progressive tendency towards self-delusion, and justification.

    KAM
  5. #1945  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    No, its actually what Science tells us--you know the stuff that you ignore when it doesn't suit you purposes. Its a theory, but one that has fairly strong evidence.
    Any more convincing than:

    It was colder this year than last
    If you melt ice, it doesn't overflow the cup.

    Because it's ironic that you think that you're a better judge of science than the world's climatologists.

    There are these wonderful things called observation and reasoning.
    Yes. The majority of the world's scientists use it to make their conclusions.

    I know that you might find this to be a foreign concept, but you should try it some time.
    Yes, insulting me makes your scientific basis stronger.

    Greater? No, I wouldn't claim that, I simply don't cherry pick evidence that only favors my position--that's what AGW alarmists must do.
    And the majority of the world's scientific organizations are all alarmists? Quite the conspiracy theory you've got going.

    And again--you insist on demonstrating your worship of organizations. You go right ahead, but you aren't talking about anything other than opinion.
    No, based upon the majority of scientific judgment, as evidenced by the fact that not a single reputable organization believes your "strong evidence". It's not about worshiping organizations, it's about evaluating credibility. If people with expertise overwhelmingly believe something, it's more credible than non-experts posting on the internet.

    MAJORITY opinion has NOTHING to do with Science, NOTHING. This is the lie that you AGW propagandist keep on pushing, but it remains a lie.
    Again with the insults. You can call me a liar, but majority opinion of experts certainly means more than the opinion of a few deniers who refuse believe the actual evidence.

    Of course, your "gut" probably tells you that if you repeat a lie enough times, it will become truth. Well, thankfully we don't all share the same progressive tendency towards self-delusion, and justification.
    The insult trifecta, congrats! Doesn't mean you've provided any actual evidence, other than to predictably dismiss data and the view of scientific opinion. But if insults are all you've got, then by all means continue.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1946  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Any proof of this? Or just your gut feeling?
    No, its actually what Science tells us--you know the stuff that you ignore when it doesn't suit you purposes. Its a theory, but one that has fairly strong evidence. Whereas, I'm sure you would seek to present theory as fact--undeniable fact without any tolerance of discussion, I don't follow that line of reasoning in regards to science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Any proof of this? Or just your gut feeling?
    You really aren't very original in your petty jibes are you? Actually, yes--you can find examples of these sorts of claims from the AGW hysteria brigade all over the place, and often on the daily news. You might have heard of this big Wasteful conference in Copenhagen recently.

    There are these wonderful things called observation and reasoning. If used objectively, it lets you learn many, many interesting things, and is a pretty effective tool at cutting through the propaganda of others. See--at some point you can tune out what people SAY when it contradicts what they DO, or what the actual facts are. I know that you might find this to be a foreign concept, but you should try it some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I guess your scientific knowledge is simply greater, and your judgment more reasonable, than the majority of the world's scientists, then. Those pesky scientists...all irrational and all.
    Greater? No, I wouldn't claim that, I simply don't cherry pick evidence that only favors my position--that's what AGW alarmists must do.

    And again--you insist on demonstrating your worship of organizations. You go right ahead, but you aren't talking about anything other than opinion.

    I'll remind you again, since you have a great capacity for selective ignorance. MAJORITY opinion has NOTHING to do with Science, NOTHING. This is the lie that you AGW propagandist keep on pushing, but it remains a lie.

    Of course, your "gut" probably tells you that if you repeat a lie enough times, it will become truth. Well, thankfully we don't all share the same progressive tendency towards self-delusion, and justification.

    Edited to add: Your second link there...yes, interesting. Now correlate how likely it is that those answering "yes" had some financial stake in climate research (fueled by AGW alarmism).

    And once again--you just keep on proclaiming the same fallacy--in different forms. Popularity doesn't define science. Its ridiculous that you keep pushing this nonsense.

    I don't care if 6 billion people BELIEVE in your Alarmist predictions. One piece of evidence that DISPROVES it (as the predictions have been dis-proven in short term already) trumps ALL of that opinion, and "consensus."

    KAM
  7. #1947  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I don't care if 6 billion people BELIEVE in your Alarmist predictions. One piece of evidence that DISPROVES it (as the predictions have been dis-proven in short term already) trumps ALL of that opinion, and "consensus."
    That statement, repeated many times on this thread, merely shows that you really have no idea how science is conducted, how scientific consensus is reached, or what compelling evidence truly is.

    And, sad to say, you have no interest in learning more. Just dismiss all science, all data, and the opinion of 90% of the world's climatologists if it disagrees with your political position....while calling anyone who disagrees with you a "liar", "deluded", or "propogandists". It's truly unfortunate, because you might learn something by actually looking at what science truly is and does.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1948  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    "There are good indications"? Really? Where?

    (obscured by those dastardly scientists hoping to gain power and money)
    Actually, it is funny you mention that, because the Medieval Warm Period has been specifically targeted by AWG alarmists as a threat to their agenda.

    Now, you will notice I said "good indications" of a THEORY. I said there was some strong evidence in support of that THEORY. That's different from claiming it is a FACT--that again is what alarmists do--overstate things as being factual when they are not.

    Is it a certainty that it was warmer? No. It is however a valid theory.
    There is some evidence that suggests it was warmer. Others think it might have been about the same as our recent peak. Some evidence claims it was high, but not quite as high. I'm sure others claim that there was no such thing at all.

    I know that AGW alarmists like to pretend that their theories are Fact, and other theories are fantasy, but I acknowledge that they are all theories, with differing levels of evidence.

    It is useful to note this (and important for AGW alarmists to obscure) that temperatures vary greatly in cycles--with and without the sort of influence man has on CO2 today.

    Of course given that people are ALREADY making a lot of money off off Global Warming Hysteria, it makes you look a bit ridiculous to mock that idea.

    KAM
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1949  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That statement, repeated many times on this thread, merely shows that you really have no idea how science is conducted, how scientific consensus is reached, or what compelling evidence truly is.

    And, sad to say, you have no interest in learning more. Just dismiss all science, all data, and the opinion of 90% of the world's climatologists if it disagrees with your political position....while calling anyone who disagrees with you a "liar", "deluded", or "propogandists". It's truly unfortunate, because you might learn something by actually looking at what science truly is and does.
    Exactly what have I dismissed?

    Again--Consensus is not part of the scientific method, and no amount of you wishing it were makes it so.

    Again--you just don't seem to comprehend what you are being told. My position doesn't rely on denying ANY data. That's what you AGW Alarmists MUST do, because you are the ones seeking to promote a half-truth to forward an agenda.

    My position is much easier--I simply have to disprove your claims, and in fact...I don't need to do anything--facts are facts and AGW claims are already PROVEN incorrect in a variety of ways.

    You continue to make a fool of yourself relying on opinion and parading it around as if it is scientific fact.

    I'm sure that if your propagandist fueled selective evidence is very compelling--most half truths are.

    KAM
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1950  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That statement, repeated many times on this thread, merely shows that you really have no idea how science is conducted, how scientific consensus is reached, or what compelling evidence truly is.

    And, sad to say, you have no interest in learning more. Just dismiss all science, all data, and the opinion of 90% of the world's climatologists if it disagrees with your political position....while calling anyone who disagrees with you a "liar", "deluded", or "propogandists". It's truly unfortunate, because you might learn something by actually looking at what science truly is and does.
    Lets be fair. I haven't seen anyone debate the actual science lately. You're pointing to the "consensus" in agreement and KAM's pointing to the dissent in agreement. So, as much as you claim the dissenters here are appealing to ignorance, you are appealing to consensus. Science, and logic, be damned.
  11. #1951  
    By alarmists and propagandists, you're referring to the entire scientific community. The fact that you're making accusations of a world-wide conspiracy, and accuse others of "looking ridiculous", is somewhat ironic.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1952  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yes, I'm not sure why we continue to "debate" with KAM. He/she really has no idea what scientific investigation means and speaks from ideology rather than proof.

    It's like asking how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
    You certainly aren't debating anything--because parroting what you are fed can't rightfully be called a Debate.

    Ideology? What ideology would that be? The one that doesn't select data, but rather is willing to consider ALL of the Data--which is what AGW alarmists specifically REFUSE to do. I don't follow the ideology of destroying, manipulating and obscuring Data--that's what your side does.

    The ideology that refuses unilateral declarations that the "debate is over" and the "science is settled" both of which are totally anti-scientific--yeah, that's YOUR ideology. I actually respect the scientific method.

    Of course, you two agree, so you can claim "consensus" and close this discussion I suppose.

    KAM
  13. #1953  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Again--Consensus is not part of the scientific method, and no amount of you wishing it were makes it so.
    And you refuse to learn the difference between "consensus" and "scientific consensus", and staidfastly cling to the misunderstanding that scientific evidence isn't used by scientists to inform their opinion.

    Again--you just don't seem to comprehend what you are being told. My position doesn't rely on denying ANY data.
    I comprehend fine...I simply believe your political position in the face of science is rather illogical.

    My position is much easier--I simply have to disprove your claims, and in fact...I don't need to do anything--facts are facts and AGW claims are already PROVEN incorrect in a variety of ways.
    That's a weird idea - you don't actually have to be right, just try to prove me (and, by me, the world's scientific consensus) wrong. Good luck with that...you've been doing a swell job thus far.

    You continue to make a fool of yourself relying on opinion and parading it around as if it is scientific fact.
    You continue to call me a liar, self-deluded, and insult me continually with remarks like I'm "making a fool" of myself. I'm certain that groovy, despite his position on your side of the argument, will agree that it's against forum rules and take action.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1954  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    By alarmists and propagandists, you're referring to the entire scientific community. The fact that you're making accusations of a world-wide conspiracy, and accuse others of "looking ridiculous", is somewhat ironic.
    Entire Community? There is no agreement in the "entire community." You can't even avoid making blatantly false claims--you are so wrapped up in your own propaganda. Talk about Irony.

    You really are pathetic--I've told you many times that I've made no accusations of a conspiracy, and just because you are unable to learn what the word means, or how it is properly applied, doesn't mean your petty little accusations are any more accurate.

    Now, please avoid lying about what I've said. Of course, if that were the case you'd not have much of anything to say. I'm afraid I really do have to insist--stop lying, please.

    KAM
  15. #1955  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I actually respect the scientific method.
    Do you have any evidence of that?

    Of course, you two agree, so you can claim "consensus" and close this discussion I suppose.
    We're not claiming it - the majority of scientists are, based upon the evidence of the world's climatologists.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. #1956  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You really are pathetic--I've told you many times that I've made no accusations of a conspiracy, and just because you are unable to learn what the word means, or how it is properly applied, doesn't mean your petty little accusations are any more accurate.

    Now, please avoid lying about what I've said. Of course, if that were the case you'd not have much of anything to say. I'm afraid I really do have to insist--stop lying, please.
    Again I'm called a liar, and pathetic as well. You'll note that I haven't engaged in name-calling, as I simply rely on the scientific consensus and data to inform my decisions.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #1957  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Lets be fair. I haven't seen anyone debate the actual science lately. You're pointing to the "consensus" in agreement and KAM's pointing to the dissent in agreement. So, as much as you claim the dissenters here are appealing to ignorance, you are appealing to consensus. Science, and logic, be damned.
    Groovy, the consensus is indeed based upon the science of the world's climatologists. In other words, the scientific consensus is based upon science and logic, not assumptions of a world-wide conspiracy. And, despite KAM's continual referring to me as lying, claiming that all of the world's scientific organizations are "propagandists" promoting an agenda does indeed point to a conspiracy.

    Reasonable people can disagree on the topic of global warming, but my position on this thread has continually been informed by and a discussion of the nature of scientific consensus: it's not merely the opinions of people, but their conclusions based upon the prevailing scientific research available.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1958  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    And you refuse to learn the difference between "consensus" and "scientific consensus", and staidfastly cling to the misunderstanding that scientific evidence isn't used by scientists to inform their opinion.
    You don't even seem to know what you're saying, so I doubt you know what I'm saying. Scientific EVIDENCE is not Fact, and Consensus does not make it fact. Consensus--that means scientific consensus, since you can't bridge the gap does not trump evidence contrary to the opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I comprehend fine...I simply believe your political position in the face of science is rather illogical.
    And here you attempt to perpetuate the lie that those people (like me) who don;'t accept your politically based conclusions (in denial of evidence they dislike) are politically motivated. Your "logic" is that of a child whining to get his way until his mommy relents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That's a weird idea - you don't actually have to be right, just try to prove me (and, by me, the world's scientific consensus) wrong. Good luck with that...you've been doing a swell job thus far.
    Of course, I cannot convince a cult member that his programming is wrong--that takes a specialist. Of course, once again, you display your gross ignorance regarding the scientific method. AGAIN--for others reading--you have no capacity to understand apparently, that is how SCIENCE works. Disproving a theory takes just one example.

    You apparently don't understand either the inherent nature, or my explanation of it to you regarding this truth. I don't have a theory to defend--I simply don't believe the theory that you've been told to believe, and that you dutifully parrot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You continue to call me a liar, self-deluded, and insult me continually with remarks like I'm "making a fool" of myself. I'm certain that groovy, despite his position on your side of the argument, will agree that it's against forum rules and take action.
    I don't care one way or the other--You are a liar, and you lie about what I say--and I'm not going to stand still for that. You are making a fool of yourself in my opinion, and only you can fix that. On top of that, I think you are a pathetic coward, who hides behind carefully crafted words, and then cries when someone doesn't play the same game.

    I'm sorry if that bothers you so much that you want to have the moderators put me in time-out. None of it changes your pathetic dishonesty, or dependence on propaganda.

    I'm not intentionally trying to break any rules, but if I have--well, then I deserve to be punished, I guess. But spare me the mewling little victim stance will you.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1959  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Groovy, the consensus is indeed based upon the science of the world's climatologists. In other words, the scientific consensus is based upon science and logic, not assumptions of a world-wide conspiracy. And, despite KAM's continual referring to me as lying, claiming that all of the world's scientific organizations are "propagandists" promoting an agenda does indeed point to a conspiracy.

    Reasonable people can disagree on the topic of global warming, but my position on this thread has continually been informed by and a discussion of the nature of scientific consensus: it's not merely the opinions of people, but their conclusions based upon the prevailing scientific research available.
    Actually, your position is based on the political consensus CLAIMING to represent science, but which is actually selectively dismissing science, when it disagrees with your predetermined conclusion.

    That's what makes you a propagandist, and someone spitting in the eye of science, and covering that fact by claiming "scientific consensus" which DOES NOT trump actual facts.

    You become a liar, and not just a parrot when you misrepresent what I've said--repeatedly, and that is unacceptable. I'm sorry if I'm unable to turn a blind eye to these lies, but I have no obligation to accept lies about my own actions.

    KAM
  20. #1960  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Really? Isn't there a MUCH clearer connection between Pretend-There-Is-No-Problem and Money?

    Power changes year by year as elections happen. Companies that burn fossil fuels keep their same leadership for decades. Who's going to have an easier time making and keeping billions?
    Pass a carbon trading scheme and you'll have people siphoning off some of those billions with very little effort and add no value to the end users. The political wrangling in Copenhagen was all about money and wealth transfer. It also has been known for quite a long time that the easiest way for scientists to get grant money is to somehow tie the project to global climate change (when I was at a Federal science lab in 1990, the standing order was to tie the project to climate change no matter if it had anything to do with it or not). Science organizations aren't going to kill their cash cow. If you don't think this is all about money and control, you are just kidding yourself.

    Humans have lived when the planet was cooler as well as warmer. The Vikings used to farm Greenland for crying out loud. IMHO, the residents of the Maldives should worry more about a killer tsunami than global warming.

Posting Permissions