There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

Sure. A moderate - who writes editorials for right wing newspapers excoriating the great global warming scam, who takes shot after shot at Al Gore, who's hangin' with the folks at Cato, Heartland, and so on... very moderate.

Where would you publish articles when your opinion isn't in harmony with Der Zeitgeist?

There's a chance he might be correct. There's no chance he's in the middle of the pack, scientifically speaking.

Probably not the middle of all scientists. Maybe in the middle of climatologists who haven't sold out there science to the big money.

None of these other explanations have gained much traction - even in journals that regularly publish denialist papers. Everyone and their monkey believes they've found the thing that's actually causing warming, but none of it fits the data as well as CO2 does, not by a long shot.

It appears to be difficult to get published if your opinion doesn't declare an imminent end to the planet.

You keep saying this. What does this matter? The current level of CO2 is not catastrophic. It is the current *rate of emissions* that is the problem. That's a problem for the future, not the past.

So, not a problem. Reasonable measures can be taken to obsolete coal and oil fired power plants and redesign the internal combustion engine. There is no imminent need to destroy the economy, or impose burdensome taxes on the industrialized nations.

Unless you're a freakonomist, then no, I guess not. Mostly because these solutions, while novel, are generally untested, impractical, and in some cases, the cure is worse than the disease. I'm all for studying geoengineering, but these mechanisms are hardly ready to be deployed tomorrow - unless we *really* like gambling with the environment. Besides, they'd all have their costs - who pays for them?

The point being that no one is solving the problem of "global warming", what they are hatching is a scheme to separate people from their money.

Sounds like a great idea to me. Easiest way to solve the problem, and the money gets put in a place where it can be put to good use.

I think it comes down to a simple equation... Me = {Less government, less global government, less regulations, more personal responsibility, lower taxation, more capital investment, free enterprise, more jobs, more freedom} and You = not Me. :lol:

How does forcing people to spend more money on everything, and siphoning off that money into the world bank help the environment (other than causing enough death and destruction to reduce the global population)? Why do we never look at GHG emissions per GDP? If you happen to look at trends, then you'd see that GHG/GDP is dropping for most nations, and that GHG/Capita is also decreasing across all nations.

Graph of GHG/GDP for US, Germany, Japan, China.

I think we are actually moving already in the right direction. So, why do you want to steal our money and put it in the world bank?