mikkey

Instead of being so obsessed with the UK, John Rich might want to focus more on some of the pressing issues in the US – which according to so many Americans is the best country in the world: 1) The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population (a total of about 2 million – the highest in total in the world), followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and Dominica (420). The UK has 139 per 100,000 (about one fifth of the US). 2) The overall performance of the United States health care system was ranked 37th by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000, but the same report assessed Americans' overall health at 72nd among 191 member nations included in the study 3) The murder rate in the US is 0.042802 per 1,000 people which is three times as high as the UK (0.0140633 per 1,000 people ). 4) In the US 13% of all households total income are under the US federal poverty threshold. The bottom 20% of households had a yearly total income of less then $19,178. In the UK the bottom 20% of households income was (converted for exchange rate) about $27 thousand or less – i.e. about 40% more. 5) The average composite literacy score of native-born adults in the U.S. was 284 (Level 3); the U.S. ranked 10th out of 17 high-income countries; The average composite literacy score of foreign-born adults in the U.S. was 210 (Level 1); the U.S. ranked 16th out of 17 countries. So dear John, seems to me there is lot here for you to sink your teeth into on domestic issues instead of taking every snippet of “bad news” from the UK . And note, I did not even include gun issues…… --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Ever watched "jaywalking" on Leno???? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Just a general point about health care. There is a global problem that health costs are spiralling out of control and problems with lack of capacity in regard to beds and treatments etc. We are simply getting older and in the industrialised world the demographics are changing dramatically. This means that we are getting more sick (e.g. cancer, heart, stroke etc. etc.) because there are so many more older people. For example the cancer rate per capita in India is only a fraction of the rate in the western countries. Why? Simply because average life expectation is so much lower - so people dont get old enough to get cancer. So with people getting more sick and new more expensive treatments and drugs arriving - the cost are out of control and this leads to that in countries with universal public health care cant cope with demand (leading to waiting lists etc.) and in the States it leads to more expensive health insurance or HMO's that try to avoid paying for treatment. I think the debate needs to take this into account. I do however think that there is an advantage in a government owned universal health care system, which is that you easier can implement integrated health policies, e.g. in regard to fighting obesity or the treatment of the elderly in regard to ensure a balance between what we call nursing homes and public hospitals so that fragile seniors dont end up in hospital (which is expensive) but in nursing homes. Just some food for thought. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well, on the bright side, this should give Jon Stewart some juicy material for "The Daily Show". I love Jon Stewart! Funny as.. so lucky that we have our own Comedy channel down under so we can see shows like this, Colbert etc. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well, I have not seen "rationing" but "wait" - yes as described abobe. But it is normally contained to elective surgery. And as I said - in some places like here in OZ you have the choice to take additional insurance to avoid this. As said, its far from perfect - and well, it is not in the States either. I think the key problem is that the main problem for people without or limited insurance is not waiting time for elective surgery... All I can say is, that in all western countries outside the US people think that universal health cover in one form or the other is the right thing. But you yanks like to be different --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

I have lived under socialized health care systems in both Europe (several countries) and here in Australia. From my point of view it works quite OK. The biggest problem in the system is that it leads to waiting times for elective surgery. In regard to cost, well yes it has to be paid via taxes, but then again health insurance in the US is expensive - so I am not sure how the $ side of it works out for the average consumer. I quite like the system here in Australia. There is a public medicare system that ensures that most basic health care is covered. You might have to pay a little (about US$30 for a visit to a doctor of your choice etc. and most of your cost for dental, glasses etc.) but most things are for free and most importantly prescription medicine is subsidized so nobody has to pay more then $30 per purchase (free for pensioners). Then you have the choice to "top-up" with private health insurance. This covers use of private hospitals to avoid waiting time for elective surgery and covers "extras" like chiro, glasses, dental etc. This health insurance is made affordable by government subsidies - so most families take it. I pay about $200 a month to cover my family. The system is far from perfect, but works quite well. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

As a non-american, let me see if I understand it. So a President can free aides who are convicted for obstruction of justice, which they committed to ensure that said President or his VP are not implicated in a scandal/unlawful action? Isn't this a huge hole in the principle of seperation of power in the US? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

So, how was the film? Anything interesting or new? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well, the Crocodile Dundee spirit is well and alive http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/aussies-repel-iran-navy/2007/06/22/1182019311499.html I can imagine "this is not a gun, THIS is a gun" . Australians are of course enjoying this story..... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

One more point. The reason that I have changed my mind in regard to AGW is that I am always concerned when one side of the argument thinks it needs to use scare tactics and highly questionable conclusions. One is the above issue of sea level rises based on thgat all the ice will melt (which is bollocks) and the other is that every bad thing that happens is linked to global warming. Here is an example: Lately it has been claimed that global warming will spark epidemics. Here is a scientific article that debunks this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/278/5340/1004 Why does the church of catastropic man made global warming constantly need to use scare tactics? I believe that this tactic will backfire. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

I must say I am quite disappointed that you either don’t read my posts or misrepresent them. I think I make it quite clear that the first two articles linked are from scientific journals and the op-ed by the Czech President is just that – but that I like his point of view. So your last sentence above is highly misleading. That comment was not in the papers. I am also disappointed that you continually use the term “deniers”, which is clearly wrong and a term used to assign sceptics an “evil” label (references to holocaust deniers). No one denies there is climate change and that we are in a warming period. What is questioned are the factors influencing it and the previous fluctuations which can not have anything to do with human activity. One thing that I have found in my search for opinions on the subject is that “global temperature” is a problematic issue. Where do we measure it? Are the measure points representative? Going back a hundred years or more where is the historic comparison data from around the globe? I have seen data that shows that temperature fluctuations are NOT consistent around the globe. BTW I read an article that established that temperatures in urban areas are higher then in rural areas, due to buildings, roads etc. How does this influence the data? As mentioned by Durrenberger there is so much uncertainty in this area. “Several”? You post the hockey stick which has been discredited and is no longer used by the IPCC and one more graph without any source. As Durrenberger wrote there are many climatologists who believe that the Medieval Warm Period had higher temperatures than recent times. The problem is that it is not easy to reconstruct exact "global" temperatures going back hundreds of years. There are alternative “graphs” – which show the Medieval Warm Period had higher temperatures than recent times. So how is this settled? And who says that the planet is not warming? This is piss weak buddy. And BTW I have yet to see a convincing argument from your side why the ice core research clearly shows that increase in CO2 has followed and not predated earlier rises in temperature by several hundred years. The science is NOT settled – that is the whole problem. Your side of the argument is consistently making this false claim. Everybody agrees that we are going through climate change. But it is NOT settled by how much human activity has caused it. There is a current majority view - but it is not settled. In the links and sources I have provided there are many scientists - including climatologists - who do not agree. Again - everybody agrees that we have global warming - but not everybody agrees that CO2 from human activity is the key and deciding factor. You might, but most campaigners on your side of the argument (for example here in Australia) are vehemently against nuclear power. Now this is cow manure buddy. The rise of seas levels is one of the most popular scares by the church of AGW and eaten raw by the media. There is clear scientific evidence that sea levels do not rise and fall consistently around the planet – for example it has been proven that the sea level at the Maldives (which has been used as one of the areas which will disappear) actually has fallen over the last 50 years. The IPCC itself predicts a maximum of 56 cm in sea rise by the end of the century. Also, because the temperatures in Antarctica (which holds 80% of all Ice on the planet) and parts of the Arctic are so low, a rise by several degrees in temperatures will actually increase the ice layer (while melting at the edges). Why? Because a rise in temperature will increase precipitation and as the temperature is so low to start with it actually will increase the ice layer. While glaciers at the coast of Greenland are melting, the ice cap in central Greenland has actually increased according to recent studies. As Durrenbergers says: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Hmm.. these are scientific studies published in scientific papers... but you just stamp them as untrue. Typical for the AGW religion. BTW it is not just Neptun that is warming, Mars is too - but great to see you can "raise" me the poles of Jupites.... lol I have shown a number of sources in this thread where scientists are disagreeing with the view that the debate on mand made GW is settled and is not challenged. The only thing that has happened is that posters try to discredit them. The sceptics are NOT saying that there is no climate change, they are saying that there is a lot of the uncertainty what causes it and what is going to happen next and that we always had ongoing climate change - both cooling and warming. Talking about temperatures - let me mention the famous "hockey stick" which was used for years to "proof" the claims of catastrophic man made GW. The hockey stick has been clearly discredited and is no longer used by the IPCC in its latest report. The same IPCC who has downgraded a) the human influence on GW by 25% and b) the projected sea level rises to 17 - 56 cm. The same IPCC that contains scientists who publicly disagreed with the findings of the majority of the IPCC. Yes science is rather boring taht is pobably the reason that the church of man made global warming has used unproven claims and scare campaigns. So how is it that the science on GW is so settled that we can make political decisions that will have huge cost and changes to our lives? This is what the Czech president is saying and the fact that mande made GW alaramists at the same time are against nuclear power which is free of CO2 shows what he is talking about. But no - the "deniers" (funny term used trying to link scpetics to holocaust deniers) are unqualified but Al Gore is the messiah and everything he told us is "true". The "deniers" are not denieing there is climate change - they rightfully claim that the science is uncertain and more and more recent data is pointing towards that GW is not just about CO2. Lets see what a senior climatologist - Bob Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, - thinks. He had enough of Al Gore. He lists just some of the Gore scares that have got him heated. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/LecturesbyGore.doc --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Documentaries, like editorials, are proof of nothing except the message the producers want to deliver. The effect (or lack of effect) of man made CO2 will be elucidated by scientists and reported in peer reviewed journals. So what about this? Take Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, of the School of Geographic Sciences of Nanjing Normal University: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/703/2007/00000095/F0020001/00000199?crawler=true or this: In a study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, H.B. Hammel of the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., and G.W. Lockwood of Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz., found that Neptune’s brightness appears to correlate with temperature changes on Earth. They also noted that Neptune’s temperature warmed from 1980 to 2004. Since there are no humans on Neptune to cause anthropogenic warming — the crime that Gore and the Greenshirts have accused mankind of committing — another explanation is needed. Hammell and Lockwood believe the changes might well be solar-driven. they write in their abstract. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml Czech president Vaclav Klaus puts it beautifully: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Here is another documentary that pokes big hole into the alarmist GW theory: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=Global+Warming+-+Doomsday+Called+Off Interesting for those of us who keep an open mind. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

I find it interesting how again individual skeptics are attacked - never seen that with GW doomsayers. The list I used is from one of my sources and some of them might be more or less credible, but most are very credible. I have not seen any of you posting valid counter points to the critism raised by many scientists, i.e. that solar activity correlates better with temperature fluctuations then CO2. I have not seen you admitting that many alarmists you all find credible have been shown to fudge with the data. E.g. the propaganda that sea levels will rise by many meters when the latest IPCC report talks about 17 inches. Again, radical changes to our wealth and social fabric are demanded based on a theory that is NOT proven. There is a lot of evidence that scientists projections can be wrong. Remember the debate about population explosion? Remember Y2K? This debate reminds me of what happened in the middle ages when somebody claimed the earth is not flat. All some of you are doing is to go for the man - not the ball. This is why the whole subject stinks. The debate is being shut down and I don't like it. Climate is a difficult question and the science is uncertain, what we need is to continue the research (with an open mind) and the debate and not blindly heading off in one direction. I raised many questions in a previous post - I have not seen any real reply to it. So - why are GW doom sayers against nuclear power and all for solar and wind power? Why does CO2 lack behind temperature change in the ice core research, but solar activity is far better correlated? I am not excluding human activity as a possible factor. But what I am saying is that the blind believe that the current majority theory is bullet proof might turn out to be a major mistake. There is a good chance that we can not stop climate change (due to factors we can not influence) and that we might be better off to focus on mitigating the effects of it instead. One thing is getting more obvious - the doomsday predictions by the church of global warming are starting to be discredited. Have a look how the IPCC has already downgraded many of the initial forecasts. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

One of the myths that tick me off is that the current GW "believe" is universally accepted and that sceptics are all paid by oil companies or loonies and their work on par with 9/11 conspiracy theories. 1. Scientists who doubt there's a scientific "consensus" that we face dangerous man-made global warming: Prof John Christy, IPCC lead author and head of Alabama's Earth System Science Centre: "I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists (who say) humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true." Prof Charles Wax, Mississippi state climatologist: "There isn't a consensus among scientists." Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA's senior climate scientist: "The only consensus I'm aware of is that it's warmed in the last century." Prof emeritus Joel Kauffman, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia: "(M)any professors of climate science realise that carbon dioxide generated by human activity has caused little or no global warming." 2. IPCC scientists who doubt even the IPCC, said to represent 2500 scientists who all believe in dangerous man-made warming. Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman: "There is no serious threat to the climate." Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: "There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons." Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer: "The continued fairly unchanging warm weather since 1998 shows no signs of increasing, and is probably influenced by changes in the sun." Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: "It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." 3. Petitions of scientists who doubt the faith. A 2006 letter to Canada's Prime Minister signed by 60 experts in climate-related fields: " 'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified." The Oregon Petition of Dr Frederick Seitz, US National Academy of Sciences past president, with the verified signatures of 17,800 scientists and technicians, including 2600 climate scientists: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." The 2005 Leipzig Petition of Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at Virginia University, and signed by about 80 prominent scientists and academics: "(W)e cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions." 4. Experts who once believed but now doubt. Prof Nir Shaviv, Hebrew University astrophysicist: "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming." Dr David Bellamy, famed green activist: "Global warming is largely a natural phenomenon." Dr Reid Bryson, top climatologist and founding chairman of Wisconsin University's meteorology department: Temperatures are rising "because we're coming out of the little ice age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air". Prof Tim Patterson, Carleton University paleo-climatologist: "The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Prof Emeritus Jan Veizer, Ottawa University environmental geochemist: "The past record strongly favours the solar/cosmic alternative (to human gases) as the principal climate driver." 5. Australian doubters. Bob Carter, research professor at James Cook University: "That 20th century warming - the most recent of many previous warm phases of similar or greater magnitude - was dangerous or human-caused, or even that the warming has continued after 1998, all yet remain to be demonstrated." William Kininmonth, former National Climate Centre head: "(A)larmist predictions have no sound basis." Dr David Evans, former climate modeller at the Australian Greenhouse Office: "(N)ew evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now sceptical." Ian Plimer, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University: Blaming humans is "pseudo-science". 6. Interesting doubters. Prof Antonio Zichichi, World Federation of Scientists president: Plausible "man is not to blame". Prof Edward Wegman, who led an inquiry for a US Congressional committee to check IPCC statistics: "The assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported." The late Roger Revelle, the professor Al Gore says first warned him of warming: The science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action". Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Russia's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory: "Solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040. It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on earth in 15 to 20 years." There's dozens more. Now count: How many has the media spoken to? Isn't it high time it let just some of these sceptics - at least this once - explain themselves to the public? Debate really shouldn't be this frightening. Not if the truth is on your side. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well, welcome to the real world. This is actually one of the big issues. Nature is extremely complex - this is why many people have issues with the Co2 explanation and the modeling. You should also have a look at Michael Crichton and not dismiss it "he writes novels" - as he his main points are around humans inabaility to fully understand and manage complex systems - like climate change. PS: You wrote: But you had time to reserach in detail who is involved with the institue that sponsored one of the films. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Yes I have - the reason I started researching skeptics was that the film actually raised my BS alarm - this because I had so many chats about climate with my buddy who actually is a scientist working for the weather bureau. I find the comparison of the 2 documentaries with 9/11 conspiracies pathetic. They raise scientific questions - questions people who believe the "carbon" theory don't want to answer. Your reaction is exactly why I have become more and more critical of the “GW movement” – anybody who questions their wisdom is attacked. It’s a little like Scientology… Especially in the "Swindle" documentary there are some very senior scientists asking these questions as well as a co-founder of Greenpeace. The issue that one scientist appearing in it was miffed afterwards - does not change this. There are some issues you can “attack” in these – but on the other hand – there is also clear evidence of inaccuracies in Al’s piece. So have YOU watched these 2 documentaries? Be honest. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

It's because we do not trust the source. It's the exact same reason I don't like to get my information about how well the war is doing from The Pentagon or The White House. The same reason I don't want the foxes guarding the hen house. You post raises a number of points. I'd love to go into each one in detail but because of the shear volume of points, it's impossible. At least within the time constaints I have at the moment. Hmmm, there are numerous scientists who raising the same questions. You would smack my head if I discredited a source of yours just because Greenpeace is involved..... I never said take this source or the interesting "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documetary as gospel, but they raise valid points - points many people do not want to answer - because they can't.... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well, well.... but no discussion of the points it makes. I have noticed that Carbon GW proponents mostly try to discredited skeptics instead of answering the questions raised. And when it comes to money, any idea how many $'s (grants), jobs and influence there is at stake for the people involved in the "carbon based global warming catastrophy" industry? So there is no interest there? Isn’t it a fact that many of the people being most “catastrophic” in their arguments are people who are against economic growth, “industrialism”, “consumerism”, nuclear power and globalization? You could easily discredit a lot of these people. And BTW try to research how many people of the IPCC panel are actually scientists, and how many of these are actually climate scientists. Also try to look for how many on the panel actually disagree with many of the findings and methodologies. Now let me boil my position down to these points: The problem with the current GW “carbon” theories and the predictions made - especially the "catastrophic" ones - is: 1) Some of the data underpinning it has been discredited e.g. the hockey stick (which is no longer used in the latest IPCC report. 2) The FACT that CO2 increase has lagged behind to temperature increases by hundreds of years has NOT been explained. Why have we had strong variations in climate and temperature before industrialism and before humans walked the earth? 3) Why did we have the medieval warming period followed by a small ice age? 4) Look at the “range” of uncertainty documented in the IPCC reports. There are lots of things we do not know – the IPCC itself classifies the knowledge about a lot of possible factors which either can cool or heat the planet as either “low” or “very low” – including the solar aspects. Some of the latest research indicates the possibility that solar influences by far could exceed CO2. BTW the latest IPCC report has cut the human influence on GW by 25% and the estimate of sea level rises by 50% to 17 inches. This just from one report to the next. Even if you accept that human activity – especially CO2 – is a factor – there is NO certainty by how much. So where is the scientific certainty in this matter that people want us to base extreme economic and political measures on? 5) What about nuclear power which is nearly carbon free? Most “carbon” GW proponents do not want it. Why? Is it because the GW “movement” is more about anti-economic growth and ant-industrialism then global warming? 6) The climate is far more complex then ANTHING ever modeled on computers (besides the many uncertainties and lack of certain data). One issue is rarely mentioned is that temperatures are not increasing evenly around the planet. Even at the poles there are areas where ice is melting, but others where it is increasing. And while we are reasonable good at forecasting the weather for a few days (a friend of mine is a senior scientist at the Australian Weather Bureau) – it gets quite uncertain past 3-4 days. So how do you think it gets for global models years ahead? 7) Also in regard to modeling. Try to look at other major issues modeled in the past – how accurate were they – for example the population “explosion” models a few years ago? Or the death toll resulting from Chernobyl. 8) What about the third world? Why are we not talking about Africa? We are moaning about poverty in Africa and on the other hand we will not be able to provide power generation to develop the countries – and no - solar panels and wind mills will not suffice. These energy sources can not provide base load and are around three times more expensive making industries depending on them uncompetitive. 9) In the always pessimistic forecasts (if you believe in the theory that CO2 is THE major factor in climate change – and many doubt that) the models always base themselves on worst case scenarios. But some of the strongest growing and CO2 increasing economies like China and India have enormous scope for energy efficiency gains – something the predictions don’t take into account. 10) If you for one moment assume some of the more moderate predictions for temperature increases, it is never mentioned that there might a swell be some good effects as well as negative ones. E.g. some areas of the globe will be able to produce more food. 11) What is the REAL agenda of the GW lobby? I detect too much of a “green” “religious” zeal that is convinced that modern society is evil and we should go back to a “natural” live style. In conclusion: I have great concerns that we are being forced into quick drastic measures that will greatly affect the economy and global development, based on uncertain science. I am concerned how this issue is being handled by the media – e.g. many people now think New York will be under water soon, when the latest prediction by IPCC says a sea level rise of 17 inches. I am concerned how people who question the science and assumptions are treated. I am concerned that the hysteria will drive political agendas that are hastily constructed and badly implemented – making the “cure” worse then the disease. This all said – I am a great proponent of looking after the environment. I also agree that we have to decrease the amount of fossil fuel we use. Not because of GW – but because they have other environmental downsides and because fossil fuel reserves are not infinite and major reserves are located in bad geopolitical locations. This does however demand smart investment and politics and not hysteria. Just think about these BS carbon trading schemes and carbon offsets. It has already been documented that many of these are flawed, will be bad for economic efficiency and result in a lot of money being wasted.http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/carbon-credits-dont-grow-on-trees/2007/05/23/1179601494650.html. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

This one is also of interest http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/ --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

No matter how much GW proponents scream and carry on - it is a fact that the ice core research has shown CO2 level rises have lagged hundreds of years behind temperature increases - which could be caused by CO2 release from oceans due to temperature increase. The problem is that we do not know how the climate works - we do not know. Unfortunately there are now so many scientists (in regard to their jobs and grants) and politicians that have staked their reputation on the carbon theory that it is very difficult for skeptical scientists to be heard. Have a look at the Global Warming Swindle documentary. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Yes, but lets ruin our economies and stop developing Africa - because we have to act now - even so we have no idea if reduction of man made CO2 will stop GW. We can easily be in a situation where the cure will be far worse then the disease. Have a look at this presentation by Michael Crichton - it is not so much about GW as such - it is about how there are "scientific" certainties all the times - which later are shown to be "hot air" (pun intended). It also has some very good points about the complexity of nature and how trying to put complex issues into computer models causes bad political outcomes.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2795753336403393538&q=Michael+Crichton+Independent&hl=en --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

I haven't had time to look at the whole thread and don't know if it ha sbeen posted before, but I found clips from this very interesting documentary on You Tube. Search for"Great Global Warming Swindle" ob You tube and watch. Very interesting stuff... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Spot on. Perth has already built one and Melbourne is looking at it. Issue is that it will be very expensive (3.5 Mill people in Melbourne) and consume a lot of energy - we have coal fired power plants (plus gas fired ones) - so the greenies would not like it. Also, price of water would more then double.... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.