So the Danes made first trip through the Northwest Passage. Any guess on the cargo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Ozone Hole Science Revisited - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Current science puts the whole CFC/Ozone depletion theory on its ear. We simply don't understand these things nearly as well as we think we do.

---

Interesting read thanks.

I think from what I've read; beef farts and open air dumps that are not capped off and burned or collected - methane emissions are also a factor as well as jet engines, aside from industry and car fume.

Most of those are poison gas and rarley occur naturally from volcanoes and the like, so really you have to conclude the majority is probably fucking over the natural balance somewhat; dont you recon?

Also logic sort of points to that we've dropped immisions and the hole has shrunk some.

Its not 'on its ear' either when you read the last few paragraphs of both the scientist -Rex and the authors note.

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."
Of course, it may be that Rex's research has gone wrong somehow or that another chemical mechanism involving CFCs will turn out to be chiefly responsible for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that all scientific results are provisional and may change in the light of new evidence.






By the way, for anyone who cares about my own take on the ozone hole/CFC issue, in chapter 8 of my 1993 book, Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, I concluded:

Despite a great deal of continuing scientific uncertainty, it appears that CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to a tiny amount of global ozone depletion. If CFCs were allowed to build up in the atmosphere during the next century, ozone depletion might eventually entail significant costs. More ultraviolet light reaching the surface would require adaptation—switching to new crop varieties, for example—and it might boost the incidence of nonfatal skin cancer. In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of CFCs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Maybe it is just change, in the way the world was meant to change, and our greed and general 'fuckedupedness' is the instrument of that change?

---

fuckedupedness ;D I hope thats eventually put into that new modern dictionary.

Your right, "on its ear" was an overstatement but my point that what we once believed to be definitive truth and fact based on science is no longer certain stands. We don't currently have a good understanding of how/why our climate changes or how much effect human behavior is having on it.
@IamInuit you got build a bigger quote database. You work that one into just about every topic on this board. ;D

It's not the job of the rational majority to provide quotes to back up what the scientific community agree has a 95% likelihood of being influenced by mankind. The fact that their is a 5% wiggle room for debate just proves the validity of the process.

The climate hasn't warmed in 15 years and yet none of the Global Warming Alarmists have said "See what we're doing is working" you know WHY they don't do that? Hint, it's the very same reason Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson won't recognize any progress made in race relations....if it looks solvable then there's an END to the crisis and if there's an END then eventually these people will have to find another scam to run on people so they can keep their wealth.

Al Gore is a scam artist in the very same way Al Sharpton is, they shake people and companies down for their wealth because they hype up problems which they in all honesty don't care one little bit about actually solving.


Anthropogenic Global Warming is a SCAM, it's bullshit, complete garbage.

How do I know this? Because the solutions these morons offer are nonexistent. They don't like "fossil fuels" :rolleyes: ....what do they propose we use instead? They propose NOTHING. They don't like coal because it's "dirty" but then they don't like nuclear energy either which is the cleanest most efficient energy there is known to man. They want to break society down, they want a return to pre-industrial revolution life and I'm sorry I find that regressive, idiotic, and very self centered considering Al Gore still flies around in a private jet, owns the company he buys "carbon offsets" from, and lives in a huge fucking mansion that uses gobs of power......so yeah the Global warming crowd is either dopes who buy into the bullshit idiots like Gore spew or their people like Gore who benefit financially from the suffering of other humans.

The 95% line is misleading though GB. Yes the earth is getting warmer, yes humans affect the climate but a 98% failure in anthropogenic models shows that outside of those generlizations they don't understand much and we shouldn't allow people to politicize these issues and fundamentally change energy policy.

So you think continuing to burn fossil fuels is not problematic ?

We are going to success ourselves right out of business. Or to be more blunt watch ourselves go into extinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

So you think continuing to burn fossil fuels is not problematic ?

---

So you think 250 years of fossil fuel use is fundamentally changing what has always been a fluid climate over the last 10 billion years? If it were that simple then AGW proponents models would be able to provide more accurate predictive analysis. I think we should strive to reduce pollution and conserve energy. I think we should dedicate money to continue both renewable energy and climate studies but I don't think we should wreck economies on a theory whose premise is shaky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

So you think continuing to burn fossil fuels is not problematic ?

---

Just take a moment to weigh out the pros and cons of USING the internal combustion engine and NOT UNSING it, there's no feasible/viable alternative that has been suggested by the brainiacs crying about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

We are going to success ourselves right out of business. Or to be more blunt watch ourselves go into extinction.

---

More people will die in a more horrible fashion if we go the "Green" route than if we go the industrial route. How does medicine get to 3rd world countries? Do they make it there? Do the Greenies carry it over on foot? No PLANES, TRAINS, & AUTOMOBILES are used to deliver goods...but hey the more people that die the less pollution right, I mean we exhale that evil CO2 that's "destroying our climate" :rolleyes: so we should just starve people out like Mao or Stalin did and then the Earth will be happy, or better yet how about mass sacrifices to Magna Mater (Mother Earth).....perhaps we can throw some virgins into volcanoes to appease our Earth Mother????

That is just fucking dumb, aid workers are not the problem, fat lazy cunts and the actual concept of a 'drive in' anything are the problem. If you really believe there is no alternative to a petrol or gas driven combustion engine then you are deluded by your own myopic desire to defend your position in the face of all reason. You are beyond rationality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

So you think continuing to burn fossil fuels is not problematic ?

---

Just take a moment to weigh out the pros and cons of USING the internal combustion engine and NOT UNSING it, there's no feasible/viable alternative that has been suggested by the brainiacs crying about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

We are going to success ourselves right out of business. Or to be more blunt watch ourselves go into extinction.

---

More people will die in a more horrible fashion if we go the "Green" route than if we go the industrial route. How does medicine get to 3rd world countries? Do they make it there? Do the Greenies carry it over on foot? No PLANES, TRAINS, & AUTOMOBILES are used to deliver goods...but hey the more people that die the less pollution right, I mean we exhale that evil CO2 that's "destroying our climate" :rolleyes: so we should just starve people out like Mao or Stalin did and then the Earth will be happy, or better yet how about mass sacrifices to Magna Mater (Mother Earth).....perhaps we can throw some virgins into volcanoes to appease our Earth Mother????

---

I have no idea why you choose to run the topic off into ane imaginary dead end away from any validity?

Of course there are alternatives that are workable in the modern world, to bring up horse and cart mentality or go back on foot and try to corner greens that way is cheap sots nearly political like.

#1 Hydrogen engines. (the original one from the 60's from out here in Australia got bought out by BP and shelved). Its was so much of a threat one brother who wouldnt be bought out just went missing the other got a service station.:-X

You can get them these days: But only on a grass roots level they wont be manufacturing cars on mass though and its for none of your reasons stated, its because of petroleum and the world financial games governments and the money markets all have invested there.

You can get change overs though like here.. Hydrogen hybrid Conversion installed in the SF Bay Area for $1600 for most cars and small trucks. These are HOD (hydrogen on demand) nothing is stored. Gas or Diesel on hybrid or not. Plus you get a tax credit for installing hybrid hydrogen upgrades. 35%-60% gains. Talk to @HYBRIDwatercar on twitter or tinyurl.com/waterpowered.

People are lazy though and dont care so long as they are getting along and ends are being met people go with the crowd,me too guilty as charged.


I think the answer always was and forever will be found in Solar Electromagnetic energy and water.

Solar, hydrogen to helium is the answer that is right in front of us and free, but money and petroleum rules mankind for now as does electric light force energy all for sale and all used for control and all are fought over as well.

Its not hard to work out the real why.

It has nothing to do with going back on horse back or sailing from country to country those insinuations are demeaning to the conversation and turn it into an argument instead.

Of course some Chemicals and medicines are for the greater good, as are many modern things but there are limits to how far we can stretch our game before it bites us back.

We lose 30 thousand people per year in Australia just through the wrong drug being prescribed and that is just one area where we have pushed our game to far to fast at our own expense. Same with antibiotics they saved millions now they are over prescribed and are are the cause to why super bugs are now killing us.

The long term answers are never out on the extremes,or found in politics and to argue those sides for the sake of being onside is stupid the answer is balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

That is just fucking dumb, aid workers are not the problem, fat lazy cunts and the actual concept of a 'drive in' anything are the problem. If you really believe there is no alternative to a petrol or gas driven combustion engine then you are deluded by your own myopic desire to defend your position in the face of all reason. You are beyond rationality.

---

Is this directed at me?

Empiricide is not a real word. But I'm sure you catch my drift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

That is just fucking dumb, aid workers are not the problem, fat lazy cunts and the actual concept of a 'drive in' anything are the problem. If you really believe there is no alternative to a petrol or gas driven combustion engine then you are deluded by your own myopic desire to defend your position in the face of all reason. You are beyond rationality.

---

Is this directed at me?

---

No, it is directed at Lyles post that has now been thoroughly dismantled by Andre. :-)

OK Hydrogen engines.... they would be safe??? Also water vapor is a "greenhouse gas" and I don't believe extra humidity would be welcomed in the Southeastern United States

Oh my God!!!! Extra humidity and water vapour! We are all doomed. At least we won't get asthma.

Noxious gases.

:-\ Im not certain which ones can be managed best to be honest. But water driven vehicles I would think would be somewhat easier than LPG, petrol or diesel.

Anyway there are plenty of alternatives we could invest into aside from going back to walking or rowing medicine to 3rd world countries was my point.

Electro magnetic machinery is another that may come into its own, solar power combinations of both that and magnetic was once used.

:) We could even end up with a new band called DC/AC, instead of AC/DC :)

Probably was the better way to go for energy storage.

Turning air to helium is an ancient one that may arise again for our betterment, if we dont fuck everything up first and end up in a dust bowl.

Another trouble is investment, if all super funds and the like are invested into alternates instead of fossil fuels they will no longer support the all the other sub businesses that mining and the likes create and the economical structures that exist will suffer thats the main reason so many politicians on your side of the argument stand up for the way we are heading and they'll pay scientists to find in their favour just as the other side pays scientists to find in theirs.

On another note yesterday Nasa stated they were about to release info that would change world perspective. I woke up looked at their site this morning and its been taken down due to lack of governments funds. :o WTF? I dont believe that, :confused: it isnt a new rocket program :confused:its just a fucking web site:confused: its not even April the first :confused: wtf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Oh my God!!!! Extra humidity and water vapour! We are all doomed. At least we won't get asthma.

---

We do love our water sports. :boat: < Always wondered when we could use that smiley.

Humankind’s legacy will turn out to be a blimp on the map in the history of life although the earth could collapse by us taking its guts to fuel our cars. Any creature as successful as we are is long extinct. That plug in on the wall does not change that fact. The only difference here is our extinction wipes out almost every resource on the planet leaving it a wasteland. No species has exploited this place like we have. Shark fin soup ffs. Shame we die when the earth is dead.

Maybe its meant to be? We as modern humans dont follow our instincts as much we tend to out think ourselves, we think out alternatives to what should come natural and we are happy to pay later on, like later on wont exist.
Its interesting at the least. We sure wont die from boredom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Maybe its meant to be? We as modern humans dont follow our instincts as much we tend to out think ourselves, we think out alternatives to what should come natural and we are happy to pay later on, like later on wont exist.
Its interesting at the least. We sure wont die from boredom.

---

I'm not convinced that we have any instincts left save fight or flight. Our direction as a species looks learned to me and also as individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Oh my God!!!! Extra humidity and water vapour! We are all doomed. At least we won't get asthma.

---

Apparently you've never experienced 100% humidity with 90°+ heat. It would KILL YOU gramps

Nothing is more empirical then the denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Nothing is more empirical then the denial.

---

15 years.....no warming and no climate models to explain it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Oh my God!!!! Extra humidity and water vapour! We are all doomed. At least we won't get asthma.

---

Apparently you've never experienced 100% humidity with 90°+ heat. It would KILL YOU gramps

---

The air conditioning is much more likely to do me in first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Oh my God!!!! Extra humidity and water vapour! We are all doomed. At least we won't get asthma.

---

Apparently you've never experienced 100% humidity with 90°+ heat. It would KILL YOU gramps

---

The air conditioning is much more likely to do me in first.

---

:rolleyes: yes of course..... spend a summer near where I live and THEN you can talk. Hell ask Spicoli or VC about what is worse heat or humidity. You can't fathom it. I've experienced dry heat and humidity and I'm sorry but humidity makes heat oppressive. You might not want to believe that but it's true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Oh my God!!!! Extra humidity and water vapour! We are all doomed. At least we won't get asthma.

---

Apparently you've never experienced 100% humidity with 90°+ heat. It would KILL YOU gramps

---

The air conditioning is much more likely to do me in first.

---

:rolleyes: yes of course..... spend a summer near where I live and THEN you can talk. Hell ask Spicoli or VC about what is worse heat or humidity. You can't fathom it. I've experienced dry heat and humidity and I'm sorry but humidity makes heat oppressive. You might not want to believe that but it's true

---

Humidity was unheard of once here in Melbourne being so far south with sea breezes to ease the summer heat and fresh storms rolling in from the west all time, the last 10 years have seen many days in the 80s and 90 % at times 100% humidity, people are even growing some far northern rainforest style palms here easier,never could do that not so long back. That type of climate change happened fast down here I think it came with the Elnino pattern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Maybe its meant to be? We as modern humans dont follow our instincts as much we tend to out think ourselves, we think out alternatives to what should come natural and we are happy to pay later on, like later on wont exist.
Its interesting at the least. We sure wont die from boredom.

---

I'm not convinced that we have any instincts left save fight or flight. Our direction as a species looks learned to me and also as individuals.

---

Yeah. The Im alright Jack syndrome.Most who are doing above average in a system wont want any changes, they'll pay for the continuance on each end and fight for it and its leaders views to the end.

What a peculiar argument, 'We should ignore global warming as it might not be us and furthermore I don't want to live like the people from 300 years ago'. Bahaha, Kabong indeed! And the worlds :dummespost: goes to......and the Klitschko hugging too. :cwm3: ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

What a peculiar argument, 'We should ignore global warming as it might not be us and furthermore I don't want to live like the people from 300 years ago'. Bahaha, Kabong indeed! And the worlds :dummespost: goes to......and the Klitschko hugging too. :cwm3: ;D

---

Always with the disregarding "What a peculiar argument" like you're floating above all humanity. Let me tell you something "teacher" 15 years 0 warming.....none, nil, nada, zilch....and what's best about that is these precious "scientists" who are paid to find proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming, can't explain it, they even LAMENT the fact there has been no warming for that long because it shows the flaws of their models and of their studies.

You want to bang the drums about the studies and then you want to avoid the REALITY of the situation. Odd another person in academia avoiding reality.....just a bunch of pussies in mortarboards

Their is nothing 'precious' about scientists just because you disagree with them Lyle. Stop for a moment and take a breath. Then when you have stopped coughing try and imagine a world where you are not the uppermost authority on every subject and winning is not everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

What a peculiar argument, 'We should ignore global warming as it might not be us and furthermore I don't want to live like the people from 300 years ago'. Bahaha, Kabong indeed! And the worlds :dummespost: goes to......and the Klitschko hugging too. :cwm3: ;D

---

Always with the disregarding "What a peculiar argument" like you're floating above all humanity. Let me tell you something "teacher" 15 years 0 warming.....none, nil, nada, zilch....and what's best about that is these precious "scientists" who are paid to find proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming, can't explain it, they even LAMENT the fact there has been no warming for that long because it shows the flaws of their models and of their studies.

You want to bang the drums about the studies and then you want to avoid the REALITY of the situation. Odd another person in academia avoiding reality.....just a bunch of pussies in mortarboards

---

Or isn't it more likely that your argument is in fact just peculiar and it is you who are expressing the view that your opinion counts for more than those of most scientists and potentially the future of the rest of humanity.

I also see the traditional and useless argument of Lyle attacking teachers and furthermore scientists as supposedly they are not man enough. I can only assume that he is jealous being someone who recieves less than a week of vacation per year in one of the most labour unfriendly countries in the world, whilst I spend 5 months a year doing unmanly things and generally idling about.

Now what my profession has to do with this argument is clearly anyones guess, but Lyle thinks it is important, and as we know Lyle doesn't think he can be wrong about anything. What an absurd little man he is.

The only person denying reality is Lyle himself. A person with cancer can be in remission and it will come back doubly so and kill them later on. That is why a person with a history of cancer gets checked more frequently than someone who has never had it. Lyle advocates a slight case of remission as being evidence that we should ignore it and just suffer the later consequences. Of course, Lyle the witch doctor knows far more than all the doctors of the world.

Quote:

---

Or isn't it more likely that your argument is in fact just peculiar and it is you who are expressing the view that your opinion counts for more than those of most scientists and potentially the future of the rest of humanity.

---

For someone that rails against religion, I find your take on this pretty amusing. You are one of the boards premiere skeptics but on this you question nothing. The Earth has warmed and cooled multiple times w/o any help from man. The only science that is settled is that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The relationship between man-made emissions and the most recent warming trend is still largely not understood. If 98% of all my predictive analysis on a topic was wrong, you, me and everyone else would come to a natural conclusion that my basic understanding of the topic was flawed. For some reason AGW doesn't get this kind of treatment despite the entire climatology discipline scratching their head about the last 15 years and all their models being utter failures. Once science is politicized the way "climate change" has been it stops being about data and empirical evidence and starts being about a zero-sum game. To work in my own quote, Mark Twain once said "It is easier to fool someone than convince them they were fooled." Keep up the end of the world fear mongering though, W and Obama would be proud.

Global warming is not a good name for it. Probably be much more productive to call it 'climate change' as in the climate that was once north has moved even further south, south of the equator. Same happening to the far north too I hear.

The climate is and has always been changing. The moniker switch is nothing more than a PR move by special interests so that no matter what happens they can take credit for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Or isn't it more likely that your argument is in fact just peculiar and it is you who are expressing the view that your opinion counts for more than those of most scientists and potentially the future of the rest of humanity.

---

For someone that rails against religion, I find your take on this pretty amusing. You are one of the boards premiere skeptics but on this you question nothing. The Earth has warmed and cooled multiple times w/o any help from man. The only science that is settled is that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The relationship between man-made emissions and the most recent warming trend is still largely not understood. If 98% of all my predictive analysis on a topic was wrong, you, me and everyone else would come to a natural conclusion that my basic understanding of the topic was flawed. For some reason AGW doesn't get this kind of treatment despite the entire climatology discipline scratching their head about the last 15 years and all their models being utter failures. Once science is politicized the way "climate change" has been it stops being about data and empirical evidence and starts being about a zero-sum game. To work in my own quote, Mark Twain once said "It is easier to fool someone than convince them they were fooled." Keep up the end of the world fear mongering though, W and Obama would be proud.

---

There is a big difference between science and religion. The latter is hocus pocus and fairy stories, whilst the former is on the whole carefully researched investigation. Obviously I have far less time for the 'evidence' of a bunch of primitively informed men, than I do of people who carry out research and do so following careful checks and balances. Unlike religion, science cannot conjure up magic and Gods, but it can formulate reasoned explanations for the world around us and of course I trust that more than religion which is flawed to its core.

You disagree with most of the worlds science, yet what are your credentials? I am not a scientist, I know about my field and I can talk politics as politics is baby chess. However, I will not pretend to know better than the clear consensus of educated professionals trained in their field (not politics or economics which are bought). You are a tiny minority of the educated opinion, so what makes you know so much more than them. Where are your research papers? In what journals are they published?

Logic would assume that the opinions of the tiny minority of corrupted minds are bought by exploitative and deranged lobby interest groups which do invest significant sums of money into their own self preservation. Unless you have invested in nasty energy forms, I don't see what the argument is. You would sooner play the dice with the overwhelming consensus of research and opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Global warming is not a good name for it. Probably be much more productive to call it 'climate change' as in the climate that was once north has moved even further south, south of the equator. Same happening to the far north too I hear.

---

Ah yes, the "catch all" of "Anthropogenic Climate Change" if it gets "too hot" then CLIMATE CHANGE, if it gets "too cold" then CLIMATE CHANGE, if a hurricane happens CLIMATE CHANGE if no hurricanes happen then CLIMATE CHANGE if there are more tornados or less tornados then CLIMATE CHANGE......do you guys not see that? Too much rain, too little rain, more wind, less wind, more ice, less ice, under the guise of Climate Change whatever happens we're at fault no matter if things change or they stay the same....it's a SCAM to perpetuate a false crisis to line the pockets of people like Al Gore.

Here's a conundrum for you Climate Change types....if humans COULD control the climate, if they could.........SHOULD they control the climate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Or isn't it more likely that your argument is in fact just peculiar and it is you who are expressing the view that your opinion counts for more than those of most scientists and potentially the future of the rest of humanity.

---

For someone that rails against religion, I find your take on this pretty amusing. You are one of the boards premiere skeptics but on this you question nothing. The Earth has warmed and cooled multiple times w/o any help from man. The only science that is settled is that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The relationship between man-made emissions and the most recent warming trend is still largely not understood. If 98% of all my predictive analysis on a topic was wrong, you, me and everyone else would come to a natural conclusion that my basic understanding of the topic was flawed. For some reason AGW doesn't get this kind of treatment despite the entire climatology discipline scratching their head about the last 15 years and all their models being utter failures. Once science is politicized the way "climate change" has been it stops being about data and empirical evidence and starts being about a zero-sum game. To work in my own quote, Mark Twain once said "It is easier to fool someone than convince them they were fooled." Keep up the end of the world fear mongering though, W and Obama would be proud.

---

There is a big difference between science and religion. The latter is hocus pocus and fairy stories, whilst the former is on the whole carefully researched investigation. Obviously I have far less time for the 'evidence' of a bunch of primitively informed men, than I do of people who carry out research and do so following careful checks and balances. Unlike religion, science cannot conjure up magic and Gods, but it can formulate reasoned explanations for the world around us and of course I trust that more than religion which is flawed to its core.

You disagree with most of the worlds science, yet what are your credentials? I am not a scientist, I know about my field and I can talk politics as politics is baby chess. However, I will not pretend to know better than the clear consensus of educated professionals trained in their field (not politics or economics which are bought). You are a tiny minority of the educated opinion, so what makes you know so much more than them. Where are your research papers? In what journals are they published?

Logic would assume that the opinions of the tiny minority of corrupted minds are bought by exploitative and deranged lobby interest groups which do invest significant sums of money into their own self preservation. Unless you have invested in nasty energy forms, I don't see what the argument is. You would sooner play the dice with the overwhelming consensus of research and opinion.

---

You clearly don't understand what the science is on this issue or what I believe but much like a religious believer have no shortage of faith in the politically charged talking points you are being fed.

Interesting article on confirmation bias
Climate Change and Confirmation Bias - Reason.com

But just in case you need an actual scientist's take on it,

Can We Trust the U.N.'s IPCC Climate Models? - Reason.com

No, it isn't political. Personally, I think it became political when the work of Tesla was dismissed into the garbage pile and fossil fuels (mainly oil) became God. It was a mistake and since then everything has been invested into oil and the US financial corporations in particular refuse to sway no matter what.

Energy has become such a money spinner and has made some very, very rich. It became political going down that route. Genuine scientists don't have a financial motive in this, but little old America....Well, you know the score.

I will read the links properly with a cup of tea in the morning. With this issue I have no vested interest, if anything I should be indulging in doom and gloom, but I try not to. I think science caused it and I think science can reverse it and I want everyone to continue happily. Of course, there is the other side of me that says you are all fucked and you will deserve it.

I just don't think it is tenable to assume that burning the planet to a cinder is part of a natural process and to just ignore things. Things are changing and thus we have an obligation to change. If you don't change, then you should and will become extinct. I have no worries about that, but some of you have children. You cannot play games and it just shocks me. Well, actually, no maybe I am not shocked anymore.