Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[JR Texas]

Very predictable responses.......neither one of you can address the criticisms raised about Lomborg's position on climate change.

All you can do is post pseudo-scientific nonsense over and over again.

Continue to embrace your own exploitation

At the very least, it is an interesting example of how people can be totally controlled by BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Fortunately, most people don't embrace your position.

[teatree]

Very predictable responses.......neither one of you can address the criticisms raised about Lomborg's position on climate change.

All you can do is post pseudo-scientific nonsense over and over again.

Continue to embrace your own exploitation

At the very least, it is an interesting example of how people can be totally controlled by BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Fortunately, most people don't embrace your position.

I have never heard of Prof Lomborg before so can't really comment on him, but I certainly would NOT go to sourcewatch to find out more info.

Sourcewatch is a partisan 'warm monger' website masquerading as a balanced database of environmental information. It is a wiki site which means that ANYONE can edit the information (as long as it supports AGW or attacks the skeptics). It is a 'one stop shop' for 'warmers' to go in order to find something to discredit scientists who are skeptical. Just type in 'Prof Whatever' into the search engine and presto, you can dismiss all of what the prof said without ever having to actually look into it yourself.

[thaihome]

Very predictable responses.......neither one of you can address the criticisms raised about Lomborg's position on climate change.

All you can do is post pseudo-scientific nonsense over and over again.

Continue to embrace your own exploitation

At the very least, it is an interesting example of how people can be totally controlled by BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Fortunately, most people don't embrace your position.

You didn’t address Lomborg's position why should I address your link attacking the messenger? You just posted the link and then went into your BIG OIL (and now BIG GOVERENMENT) rant.

I’m sure you have heard of Patrick Moore. Well here is what one of the founders of Greenpeace says about environmental extremism and we have seen this throughout this thread time and time again:

Environmental extremists are anti-human. Humans are characterized as a cancer on the Earth. To quote eco-extremist Herb Hammond, "of all the components of the ecosystem, humans are the only ones we know to be completely optional". Isn't that a lovely thought?

They are anti-science and technology. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and unnatural. Science is invoked to justify positions that have nothing to do with science. Unfounded opinion is accepted over demonstrated fact.

Environmental extremists are anti-trade, not just free trade but anti-trade in general. In the name of bioregionalism they would bring in an age of ultra-nationalist xenophobia. The original "Whole Earth" vision of one world family is lost in a hysterical campaign against globalization and free trade.

They are anti-business. All large corporations are depicted as inherently driven by greed and corruption. Profits are definitely not politically correct. The liberal democratic, market-based model is rejected even though no viable alternative is proposed to provide for the material needs of 6 billion people. As expressed by the Native Forest Network, "it is necessary to adopt a global phase out strategy of consumer based industrial capitalism." I think they mean civilization.

And they are just plain anti-civilization. In the final analysis, eco- extremists project a naive vision of returning to the supposedly utopian existence in the garden of Eden, conveniently forgetting that in the old days people lived to an average age of 35, and there were no dentists. In their Brave New World there will be no more chemicals, no more airplanes, and certainly no more polyester suits.

[JatujakShopper]

There IS no spoon!

[JR Texas]

When you can come up with an intelligent response, let me know. Thanks.

[zzaa09]

Such a racket. And certainly a multi-billion profitable one at that. Earth Climate Changes. Pro, con, or indifferent - big, big business.

[ballzafire]

No sense in trying to hold an intelligent conversation with JR Texas.

He's clearly some low-life knuckle-dragger that derives pleasure from being irrational and intransigent.

Put him on ignore...

[JR Texas]

No sense in trying to hold an intelligent conversation with JR Texas.

He's clearly some low-life knuckle-dragger that derives pleasure from being irrational and intransigent.

Put him on ignore...

I think a lot of people have already put you on ignore.

The problem is that you and your "scientific crew" ignore all of the scientific facts and keep vomiting up what BIG OIL is feeding you.

It is nothing but a grand conspiracy............all lies..........so no need to take it seriously.......Sourcewatch is biased.........give us a break!

You can't defend your position with hard scientific data.

All you can do is claim the other side is lying, or assert that is all a grand conspiracy to create BIG GOVERNMENT (something that already exists).

Who is being irrational?

Again, it is fascinating to see how easy it is to manipulate people to the point that they will actually embrace and promote their own exploitation.

The good news is that the scientific consensus has put you on hold.........responsible scientists and political leaders are trying to move forward on climate change.

The problem, of course, is that corrupt politicians and BIG OIL are doing everything in their power to prevent positive action on climate change.

[JetsetBkk]

"Published papers show that it is always the temperature that rises first by at least several hunred years to a few thousand years, and THEN the CO2 curve responds".

[ballzafire]

"Published papers show that it is always the temperature that rises first by at least several hunred years to a few thousand years, and THEN the CO2 curve responds". [

Yes. There's an ~800 year lag between the onset of the sun-induced warming and the rise in CO2 that follows, being released primarily from the oceans.

Exactly.

But don't tell JR that. He might attack you for being "unscientific". LOL.

[JR Texas]

"Published papers show that it is always the temperature that rises first by at least several hunred years to a few thousand years, and THEN the CO2 curve responds". [

Yes. There's an ~800 year lag between the onset of the sun-induced warming and the rise in CO2 that follows, being released primarily from the oceans.

Exactly.

But don't tell JR that. He might attack you for being "unscientific". LOL.

Already been discussed.........misleading information. Learn something:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[thaihome]

...The problem, of course, is that corrupt politicians and BIG OIL are doing everything in their power to prevent positive action on climate change.

Jr, can you explain, preferably in your own words, what BIG OIL’s motivation is and what they hope to gain by preventing “positive action on climate change”?

TH

[JR Texas]

...The problem, of course, is that corrupt politicians and BIG OIL are doing everything in their power to prevent positive action on climate change.

Jr, can you explain, preferably in your own words, what BIG OIL’s motivation is and what they hope to gain by preventing “positive action on climate change”?

TH

MONEY, POWER, CONTROL

[thaihome]

...The problem, of course, is that corrupt politicians and BIG OIL are doing everything in their power to prevent positive action on climate change.

Jr, can you explain, preferably in your own words, what BIG OIL’s motivation is and what they hope to gain by preventing “positive action on climate change”?

TH

MONEY, POWER, CONTROL

OK. Natural human traits. But how does denying manmade climate change get them that?

TH

[teatree]

"Published papers show that it is always the temperature that rises first by at least several hunred years to a few thousand years, and THEN the CO2 curve responds". [

Yes. There's an ~800 year lag between the onset of the sun-induced warming and the rise in CO2 that follows, being released primarily from the oceans.

Exactly.

But don't tell JR that. He might attack you for being "unscientific". LOL.

Temperature goes up 1st then CO2 lags behind. This is indisputable and is clearly proven in the ice core records. This fact highlights the dishonesty of Gore who intimated in his movies that it the relationship is the other way round.

[JR Texas]

OK. Natural human traits. But how does denying manmade climate change get them that?

TH

If they can convince people (in particular, politicians) that climate change research is a hoax and not based on hard science (exactly what they want you to believe), action on a new energy system for the 21st century--one that will liberate us from BIG OIL and free us from BIG GOVERNMENT--will be avoided.

Instead, we will continue to use BIG OIL technology that is outdated and destructive in terms of economies, environments and social structures worldwide.

And that will maintain the global energy status quo. BIG OIL will gain in terms of more profits, power and control.

As I have tried to explain repeatedly, it is possible to engage in a globally shared energy research project that will lead to the development of a decentralized, environmentally sound new energy system--one compatible with 21st century needs.

But people need to get behind the idea and put it as priority #1 (along with population reduction).

If you don't like poverty, war, environmental destruction, crime, and the erosion of basic human freedoms, back this idea.

If you want more of the same, if you want the global situation to deteriorate further, ignore it or deny the facts........that is what BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT want you do to.

[thaihome]

OK. Natural human traits. But how does denying manmade climate change get them that?

TH

If they can convince people (in particular, politicians) that climate change research is a hoax and not based on hard science (exactly what they want you to believe), action on a new energy system for the 21st century--one that will liberate us from BIG OIL and free us from BIG GOVERNMENT--will be avoided.

Instead, we will continue to use BIG OIL technology that is outdated and destructive in terms of economies, environments and social structures worldwide.

And that will maintain the global energy status quo. BIG OIL will gain in terms of more profits, power and control.

As I have tried to explain repeatedly, it is possible to engage in a globally shared energy research project that will lead to the development of a decentralized, environmentally sound new energy system--one compatible with 21st century needs.

But people need to get behind the idea and put it as priority #1 (along with population reduction).

If you don't like poverty, war, environmental destruction, crime, and the erosion of basic human freedoms, back this idea.

If you want more of the same, if you want the global situation to deteriorate further, ignore it or deny the facts........that is what BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT want you do to.

Fine words, but I struggle to contain my amusement at your idealism and anti-capitalism beliefs that thinks BIG OIL is some how preventing this from happening.

There is a huge amount spent on researching alternate and renewable energy sources and it continues to grow each year. Blaming humans for the fact the weather changes is not needed. Basic economics and capitalism will drive that by itself.

There are huge economic opportunities for someone that can come up with a viable alternate energy source and there are lots of people trying. But you people don’t really want that. You are looking for some pie-in the sky utopia where energy is free and there is no poverty, war, environmental destruction, crime, and the erosion of basic human freedoms.

That will never happen and you need to come to terms with that fact. Going on and on about BIG OIL is just transferring your frustration with human nature and your life to an nebulous worldwide conspiracy so you don’t have deal with the facts of life and your inadequacies. As Patrick Moore said and I posted earlier, “In the final analysis, eco-extremists project a naive vision of returning to the supposedly utopian existence in the garden of Eden”

Good luck,

TH

[JR Texas]

Your assessment is completely wrong and betrays a mindset totally controlled/confused by BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Following your logic, we would not be flying around in airplanes; the computer would not have been developed; we would not have gone to the moon; we would not have developed the internal combustion engine (or any inventions); we would still believe that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe, etc.

You position is so negative..........so hopeless. I feel sorry for you. You seem to have pushed the "can't button."

Human beings are capable of both great things and terrible things.

We can evolve and have done so in the past.

History tells us that every great innovation was based on something simple that you seem to think is naive: imagination.

Continue to live in the past and support your own exploitation. That is your right.

[thaihome]

Your assessment is completely wrong and betrays a mindset totally controlled/confused by BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Following your logic, we would not be flying around in airplanes; the computer would not have been developed; we would not have gone to the moon; we would not have developed the internal combustion engine (or any inventions); we would still believe that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe, etc.

You position is so negative..........so hopeless. I feel sorry for you. You seem to have pushed the "can't button."

Human beings are capable of both great things and terrible things.

We can evolve and have done so in the past.

History tells us that every great innovation was based on something simple that you seem to think is naive: imagination.

Continue to live in the past and support your own exploitation. That is your right.

As not unexpected, you have chosen to completely misunderstand my post. Your ability to do so is amazing at times.

TH

[JR Texas]

Your assessment is completely wrong and betrays a mindset totally controlled/confused by BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Following your logic, we would not be flying around in airplanes; the computer would not have been developed; we would not have gone to the moon; we would not have developed the internal combustion engine (or any inventions); we would still believe that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe, etc.

You position is so negative..........so hopeless. I feel sorry for you. You seem to have pushed the "can't button."

Human beings are capable of both great things and terrible things.

We can evolve and have done so in the past.

History tells us that every great innovation was based on something simple that you seem to think is naive: imagination.

Continue to live in the past and support your own exploitation. That is your right.

As not unexpected, you have chosen to completely misunderstand my post. Your ability to do so is amazing at times.

TH

Yes, I must be incredibly stupid. So you do not need to respond to anything I post again.

[teatree]

OK. Natural human traits. But how does denying manmade climate change get them that?

TH

If they can convince people (in particular, politicians) that climate change research is a hoax and not based on hard science (exactly what they want you to believe), action on a new energy system for the 21st century--one that will liberate us from BIG OIL and free us from BIG GOVERNMENT--will be avoided.

Instead, we will continue to use BIG OIL technology that is outdated and destructive in terms of economies, environments and social structures worldwide.

And that will maintain the global energy status quo. BIG OIL will gain in terms of more profits, power and control.

As I have tried to explain repeatedly, it is possible to engage in a globally shared energy research project that will lead to the development of a decentralized, environmentally sound new energy system--one compatible with 21st century needs.

But people need to get behind the idea and put it as priority #1 (along with population reduction).

If you don't like poverty, war, environmental destruction, crime, and the erosion of basic human freedoms, back this idea.

If you want more of the same, if you want the global situation to deteriorate further, ignore it or deny the facts........that is what BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT want you do to.

How exactly is this going to be achieved when the only solutions being put forward are carbon tax and carbon rationing?

Are you saying higher taxation and rationing is personal freedom?

War is peace

Ignorance is strength

Carbon tax and rationing is freedom

[brahmburgers]

Global temperature averages appear to getting hotter, particularly during the past 10 years. Perhaps not in every locale, but in significant regions, such as the Arctic, it's happening.

To what extent temperature increases are a result of human activity is debatable.

I wouldn't have framed the debate in terms of GW and what extent humans are contributing, though that's important to anyone who cares about life on this planet (noticed I said 'life' and not 'humans' - more on why later).

The overriding issue is pollution and overpopulation of our one species. They go hand in hand. Each new person adds pollution. Obviously a forest-dwelling Papuan will generate a lot less pollution than a New Yorker, but the average pounds per year are daunting. Simply stated, one species is despoiling the planet for near all other species. Some exceptions: dogs, chickens, golf course turf, cockroaches, scum, and black mildew that grows on sides of buildings.

If policies derived from the GW concept affect a lowering of carbon emissions and pollution in general, then I'm for it.

Astronauts looking down at any city on the planet can see a yellowish smudge of haze over each. (BTW, the cute notion that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space is a myth).

I attended the first Earth Day, which was at Washington D.C. on April 21 1970 at the Sylvan theater, which sits just below, and faces the Washington monument. Coretta King, Dick Gregory and a bunch of Senators were there. The Chambers Brothers played "Time Has Come Today" later on. April 21 is my birthday, and also John Muir's (and Queen Elizabeth's) birthday. So what does that mean? Not much, except I've been a tree-hugger from day one, and anything I can do to create a better awareness of the problems of human overpopulation, then I'll do it. Years ago I got my tubes tied. I recommend it for any man who doesn't intend to make any more babies. Same for women who have made that decision.

[thaihome]

Yes, I must be incredibly stupid. So you do not need to respond to anything I post again.

You won’t get rid of me that easy. I do note that now you don’t post many facts, just rhetoric.

Keep it up, you are fun.

TH

[JR Texas]

Global temperature averages appear to getting hotter, particularly during the past 10 years. Perhaps not in every locale, but in significant regions, such as the Arctic, it's happening.

To what extent temperature increases are a result of human activity is debatable.

I wouldn't have framed the debate in terms of GW and what extent humans are contributing, though that's important to anyone who cares about life on this planet (noticed I said 'life' and not 'humans' - more on why later).

The overriding issue is pollution and overpopulation of our one species. They go hand in hand. Each new person adds pollution. Obviously a forest-dwelling Papuan will generate a lot less pollution than a New Yorker, but the average pounds per year are daunting. Simply stated, one species is despoiling the planet for near all other species. Some exceptions: dogs, chickens, golf course turf, cockroaches, scum, and black mildew that grows on sides of buildings.

If policies derived from the GW concept affect a lowering of carbon emissions and pollution in general, then I'm for it.

Astronauts looking down at any city on the planet can see a yellowish smudge of haze over each. (BTW, the cute notion that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space is a myth).

I attended the first Earth Day, which was at Washington D.C. on April 21 1970 at the Sylvan theater, which sits just below, and faces the Washington monument. Coretta King, Dick Gregory and a bunch of Senators were there. The Chambers Brothers played "Time Has Come Today" later on. April 21 is my birthday, and also John Muir's (and Queen Elizabeth's) birthday. So what does that mean? Not much, except I've been a tree-hugger from day one, and anything I can do to create a better awareness of the problems of human overpopulation, then I'll do it. Years ago I got my tubes tied. I recommend it for any man who doesn't intend to make any more babies. Same for women who have made that decision.

The earth is clearly warming no matter what the fruitcakes claim........the scientific evidence is clear on this point.

It is not just the temperature.......it is the overall amount of heat that is being absorbed, but the skeptics don't want people to understand that fact.

The relationship between CO2 increase and human activity and global warming is also crystal clear.

Most of the real scientific information on the subject--including support for what I just said--is presented here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com

These sites are run by actual scientists who are working on the problem of climate change and are presenting their findings in genuine and respected peer review journals.....not BIG OIL funded pseudo-scientists.

Since the actual data does not reflect the views of the opposition, they resort to presenting misleading, non-scientific information. And when presented with "facts," they ignore the facts, or state it is part of a conspiracy, or resort to name calling, etc.

Many of the people the skeptics claim to be specialists are exposed at the following site as pseudo-scientific, BIG OIL funded frauds:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

Fortunately, scientists can detect their deception and manipulation of data immediately.

Some of the idiot claims:

The earth is cooling, especially since 2003..........wrong! The overall heat absorption of the planet is increasing, and so is CO2.

CO2 can't be causing warming because temperature goes up 800 years before CO2 goes up.......partial truth but this simply reflects geological time scales and does not have great bearing on the time humans have been on the planet........especially since we started using fossil fuels.

It also can't account for the huge increase in CO2 in recent history. Where is the associated huge increase in temperature coming before it? It isn't there........why? They can't tell you because they either don't understand the science or can't admit to humans as being the cause of the huge and recent increase in CO2.

I could go on..........but essentially everything they have posted is misleading in some way. Scientists don't present information/data in that way. They don't pick and chose data points........they don't manipulate charts, carefully leaving out something critical.

The skeptics have lost.

On your point about overpopulation and life in general. I am with you. You are totally correct.

You are also correct about this: Even if the scientific consensus turns out to be wrong, acting to correct the climate change problem will only have positive economic, social and environmental results.

Another poster, Bonobo, repeatedly tried to get the skeptics to understand this, to no avail. They are no willing to open their closed minds to any information that challenges their beliefs...........beliefs shaped by BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Again, it is fascinating to watch them exploit themselves.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>I attended the first Earth Day, which was at Washington D.C. on April 21 1970<snip>

I'm afraid that says it all.

[JR Texas]

<snip>I attended the first Earth Day, which was at Washington D.C. on April 21 1970<snip>

I'm afraid that says it all.

Are you actually saying it is wrong to care about the planet, human beings, and life in general? If so, you are a waste of sperm.

Take a look at this and think about who you are, what you are a part of, and what is keeping you alive:

[brahmburgers]

<snip>I attended the first Earth Day, which was at Washington D.C. on April 21 1970<snip>

I'm afraid that says it all.

Your 'says it all' URL redirects to a dictionary page on the word 'indoctrinate'.

Am I indoctrinating anyone by mentioning I attended the first Earth Day event?

What a stretch!

I trust you can come up with better retorts than a link to a word within an on-line dictionary that doesn't appear to remotely relate to what you're taking issue with.

On the other hand, if I could indoctrinate multitudes of mind-numb folks to greater appreciation for the one finite planet we have, and further to practice husbandry for its species and resources, then I'll gladly indoctrinate til I'm blue in the face.

[thaihome]

Are you actually saying it is wrong to care about the planet, human beings, and life in general? If so, you are a waste of sperm.

Take a look at this and think about who you are, what you are a part of, and what is keeping you alive:

When did Jetset say they were anti-Earth or anti-humankind? Refuting the manmade climate change is not saying that at all. See JR, that’s the problem. I’m against pollution just as much as you are. The difference is I see a solution that is pragmatic and cost effective. Pollution is a local problem and has to be solved at the local level. All this carbon trading, carbon footprint shit is not the answer. We are stuck with the carbon molecule for now and it is the basic building block for the entire modern world. The answer is strict pollution control. By pollution, I mean proven harmful chemical discharges that actually hurt people that live nearby. Remove sulfur from power plant exhaust; reduce sulfur levels in gasoline and diesel, stop discharging chemicals into groundwater, rivers, lakes, and the oceans. This doesn’t mean stopping development; it means putting controls in place to make sure companies are responsible for their actions. In addition, there are lot very smart people that are trying to find alternate to carbon based energy, hopefully one of them will find something, but rest assured, it will not be free, and whoever finds it will undoubtedly make a ton of money and will be the next BIG XXXX for some people.

What is happening in Maptaphut is classic example of how the antidevelopment movement has taken over the environmental movement. Here you have group made up of local people that successfully sues to hold up 76 projects saying there was no independent review as is required in the 2007 Constitution. They are correct, the independent body was never setup, and they win an injunction and start negotiations with the government and industry to setup the review organization to make sure the projects are going to include international standards or pollution controls. But, in the meantime, another group, backed by Greenpeace and others, comes in and announces they are going to sue and stop every single construction project in Thailand. Every road, every bridge, every industrial project, everything, in the name of global warming. These people are fanatics, and just want to stop development with no thought to the consequences of the people they purport to want to help.

The answer is not stopping development or putting in place systems that do nothing to stop local pollution and only cost huge amounts of money. The answer is local activism to make sure that companies that are building industrial plants are required to put in place strict pollution controls so the local environment is not ruined and people and industry can live together.

TH

[JR Texas]

Are you actually saying it is wrong to care about the planet, human beings, and life in general? If so, you are a waste of sperm.

Take a look at this and think about who you are, what you are a part of, and what is keeping you alive:

When did Jetset say they were anti-Earth or anti-humankind? Refuting the manmade climate change is not saying that at all. See JR, that’s the problem. I’m against pollution just as much as you are. The difference is I see a solution that is pragmatic and cost effective. Pollution is a local problem and has to be solved at the local level. All this carbon trading, carbon footprint shit is not the answer. We are stuck with the carbon molecule for now and it is the basic building block for the entire modern world. The answer is strict pollution control. By pollution, I mean proven harmful chemical discharges that actually hurt people that live nearby. Remove sulfur from power plant exhaust; reduce sulfur levels in gasoline and diesel, stop discharging chemicals into groundwater, rivers, lakes, and the oceans. This doesn’t mean stopping development; it means putting controls in place to make sure companies are responsible for their actions. In addition, there are lot very smart people that are trying to find alternate to carbon based energy, hopefully one of them will find something, but rest assured, it will not be free, and whoever finds it will undoubtedly make a ton of money and will be the next BIG XXXX for some people.

What is happening in Maptaphut is classic example of how the antidevelopment movement has taken over the environmental movement. Here you have group made up of local people that successfully sues to hold up 76 projects saying there was no independent review as is required in the 2007 Constitution. They are correct, the independent body was never setup, and they win an injunction and start negotiations with the government and industry to setup the review organization to make sure the projects are going to include international standards or pollution controls. But, in the meantime, another group, backed by Greenpeace and others, comes in and announces they are going to sue and stop every single construction project in Thailand. Every road, every bridge, every industrial project, everything, in the name of global warming. These people are fanatics, and just want to stop development with no thought to the consequences of the people they purport to want to help.

The answer is not stopping development or putting in place systems that do nothing to stop local pollution and only cost huge amounts of money. The answer is local activism to make sure that companies that are building industrial plants are required to put in place strict pollution controls so the local environment is not ruined and people and industry can live together.

TH

Climate change is a global problem.

Taking positive action on climate change is not equivalent to an anti-development posture.

The exact opposite is the case........it is pro-development.

Nobody is talking about stopping development (except the skeptics who want people to believe that is the case).

Without clean energy in place, more pollution, warming, and climate change will occur because the increase in human beings and need for development will make that a certainty.

Clean energy will allow development to continue to incrase the quality of life of growing numbers of human beings while reversing climate change.

Our present Stone Age Technology is extraordinarily expensive........there are direct and indirect expenses, but the skeptics refuse to acknowledge this.

The clean energy systems will be less expensive in the long run because they will stop things like BIG OIL WARS.

They will also lead to a much cleaner environment.

And if decentralized, they will free us from BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT.

Where in the world do you get your ideas? Let me guess: BIG OIL funded websites.

[RickBradford]

Stepping aside from all the name-calling and polarised debate, a big scandal has broken in the UK for which there are only two probable explanations.

Briefly, thousands of e-mails and files from the Hadley Climate Research Unit have allegedly been hacked, which were then posted all over the Internet. (There are hundreds of bloggers commenting on this, I linked to the most neutral I could find).

The explanations are:

1. 'Warmist' climate scientists all over the world have been deliberately manipulating data over a long period of time to support their alarmist agenda

- or -

2. Climate change skeptics have created these e-mails as a hoax, in a cynical attempt to discredit the 'warmist' version of events.

Either way, it shows how low and irrational this debate has become, to the detriment of all.

Edited November 20, 2009 by RickBradford