Global Warming, just a hoax?

[English_Bob]

But I DO care about melodramatic, scaremongering designed to keep people in a climate of fear.

It's a great way to tax people without complaint.

It's also a great way to restrict the economic growth of countries like China and India that might threaten US domination.

AGW has become a religion and dissenters are gagged, ridiculed and treated like criminals.

now who's being a tad melodramatic !!!

Not in the slightest.

Scientists who argue against AGW have their work blocked (see the leaked Anglia University emails), magazines that publish data that runs contrary to AGW rhetoric are removed from the 'acceptable, respected' magazine list.

Look at the language. Any scientist with a different view is labelled a 'skeptic'.

And the word 'denier'? That word is almost only used for Holocaust deniers. But now someone who has research showing ice thickening, glacial advancement, global cooling is called a 'denier'!

Scientists are scared to publish contrary research as funding is cut and they are accused of being on the oil company's pay check.

[Admin_2]

But I DO care about melodramatic, scaremongering designed to keep people in a climate of fear.

It's a great way to tax people without complaint.

It's also a great way to restrict the economic growth of countries like China and India that might threaten US domination.

AGW has become a religion and dissenters are gagged, ridiculed and treated like criminals.

now who's being a tad melodramatic !!!

bit of scaremongering also eh'

Bumpasaurus.

[Admin_2]

But I DO care about melodramatic, scaremongering designed to keep people in a climate of fear.

It's a great way to tax people without complaint.

It's also a great way to restrict the economic growth of countries like China and India that might threaten US domination.

AGW has become a religion and dissenters are gagged, ridiculed and treated like criminals.

now who's being a tad melodramatic !!!

bit of scaremongering also eh'

Always works!

[English_Bob]

It's counter-productive.

The boy who cried 'Wolf!' springs to mind.

Without listening to half a lifetime of 'end-of-the-world' predictions, people might be more inclined to believe a genuine one.

But there seems to be no end of scientists lining up to scream 'Wait! My prediction is worse than the others!'

[Hobbes]

It's counter-productive.

The boy who cried 'Wolf!' springs to mind.

Without listening to half a lifetime of 'end-of-the-world' predictions, people might be more inclined to believe a genuine one.

But there seems to be no end of scientists lining up to scream 'Wait! My prediction is worse than the others!'

You are getting your media and your scientists mixed up here my friend. Media make scaremongering headlines and 'end-of-the-world' predictions because that sells papers (ok, not so much today anymore in the days of the 'terweb).

I said in an earlier post that there were no scientist predicting an 'impending ice-age' in the 70's. It was a media story, pure and simple (but feel free to try to prove me wrong).

In any of the research I have read over the years on the subject, incl. the IPCC reports, the authors do always err on the side of caution. Never have I come across any kind of 'messianic-end-of-world-predictions' in a scientific paper. The language in such publications is usually rather dull and boring but hey, you just keep up the charge against them evil scientists. :roll:

[English_Bob]

Al Gore

Hockey stick

Ice caps free from ice in 50, no 30, make that 5 years' time.

IPCC deliberately changed their first report which stated there was no conclusive proof of man-made Global Warming.

Anglia University.

Errm no global warming? Ok let's call it climate change.

Forgive my cynicism.

[Hobbes]

But I DO care about melodramatic, scaremongering designed to keep people in a climate of fear.

It's a great way to tax people without complaint.

It's also a great way to restrict the economic growth of countries like China and India that might threaten US domination.

AGW has become a religion and dissenters are gagged, ridiculed and treated like criminals.

now who's being a tad melodramatic !!!

Not in the slightest.

Scientists who argue against AGW have their work blocked (see the leaked Anglia University emails), magazines that publish data that runs contrary to AGW rhetoric are removed from the 'acceptable, respected' magazine list.

Look at the language. Any scientist with a different view is labelled a 'skeptic'.

And the word 'denier'? That word is almost only used for Holocaust deniers. But now someone who has research showing ice thickening, glacial advancement, global cooling is called a 'denier'!

Scientists are scared to publish contrary research as funding is cut and they are accused of being on the oil company's pay check.

Oh, I think you do exaggerate here quite a bit. There is and has been for quite a while now a scientific consensus regarding the changes to the global climate and our impact driving these. Any research be it pro or contra something goes through a peer review process before being published. This process has proved to be quite robust over the ages but of course it's not perfect. If a study doesn't stand up the scrutiny, well then it may not have been that well researched then quite simply.

There are generally accepted publications for the different branches of science, like PNAS or Nature. They don't loose any 'status' over publishing controversial research, that's just bollocks.

As for the language, what would you have us somebody call that denies the reality of what is....erm, a 'denier' perhaps? :roll:

Dave, why do oil-funded think tanks offer prize moneys for research that dis-proves AGW (money that afaik hasn't been claimed yet)?

The data on which the climate models are based are available and out there. So, where are the models that disprove AGW?

The important point is that nothing was found in the East Anglia e-mails altering the

reality and magnitude of global warming in the instrumental record. The input data for global

temperature analyses are widely available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data

could be made to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians would

certainly have done that – but they have not.

[Hobbes]

Al Gore

Hockey stick

Ice caps free from ice in 50, no 30, make that 5 years' time.

IPCC deliberately changed their first report which stated there was no conclusive proof of man-made Global Warming.

Anglia University.

Errm no global warming? Ok let's call it climate change.

Forgive my cynicism.

Al Gore is a scientist now?? Ok, that one was new to me...but go on.

Where is the paper suggesting the ice caps are free in 5 years? And paper doesn't mean the Daily Mail here...

I posted before the IPCC has toned down language in reports under pressure from the US...

It's East-Anglia University and there is no smoking gun in those emails...trial by media but nothing to do with the science I'm afraid

Can you do any better? Just asking...

[Neo]

Classic misunderstanding of meteorology and climatology. The computer models used for predicting both are almost entirely different. That's because the timescales of comtributing factors for one are entirely different from the timescales for the other. Please don't sh*t stir with yet another thrashed to death ant-GW red herring. Or, on the other hand, my sincere apologies if you actually do believe such things. Handily, if that is indeed the case, allow me to disabuse you of all of your afore admitted afflictions in a single swoop with the following link...

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

According to population scientists the Earth could deal with many more billions than we already have. But feel free to tell us how much crap they are talking too. And, call me crazy, but I personally believe there may be a better solution than the grisly dealths of billions of people. 8)

Your posted explanation....?

MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?

FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.

It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.

Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.

That's it?

That's the explanation? How weak is that?

You post that and expect to be taken seriously?

Handily, if that is indeed the case, allow me to disabuse you of all of your afore admitted afflictions in a single swoop with the following link...

You think that writing 'Myth' and 'Fact' before it makes it any more credible? That was utter guff. I expected better....

actually no, I didn't.

Well I didn't want to get all condescending... but it's clear from your post that you don't understand the difference between the two. Please just google anything about climate modeling and weather modeling and you will see that the two really are completely different (as both my post and my link suggest). If you can't be bothered checking out any facts on the subject then I'll just consider anything you post as a contribution to further global warming.

Oh and climate change is not the same thing as global warming either. Climate change in this comtext is actually a set of consequences of gloabl warming. Again... a bit of research before posting can add much to the credibility of a post.

Once more with humour EB 8)

[English_Bob]

Al Gore is a scientist now?? Ok, that one was new to me...but go on.

Where is the paper suggesting the ice caps are free in 5 years? And paper doesn't mean the Daily Mail here...

I posted before the IPCC has toned down language in reports under pressure from the US...

It's East-Anglia University and there is no smoking gun in those emails...trial by media but nothing to do with the science I'm afraid

Can you do any better? Just asking...

Al Gore was the biggest driving force behind AGW... he is NOT a scientist but he uses scientific studies for his presentations. Studies which are contradictory, melodramatic and incorrect. He didn't make up the 'hockey stick graph' - it was Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University.

You like to sneer at 'The Media'... but 'The Media' gets its information from press releases.... press releases released by.... anyone? That's right, scientists.

I lost count of the times when AGW people say, 'Well if you don't believe The Times." and "It's on the BBC website." They LOVE LOVE LOVE the media when it publishes their side of things but HATE HATE HATE it when anything contradictory is published.

East-Anglia University... yes.. thank you for making that point... Just because the people on your side of the fence say there is no 'smoking gun' doesn't mean people on my side of the fence agree with it... Actually it is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate one of my previous points.

In your post you claim that

There are generally accepted publications for the different branches of science, like PNAS or Nature. They don't loose any 'status' over publishing controversial research, that's just bollocks.

(It's 'lose' by the way... if you want to start being pedantic).

Michael Mann (remember the 'hockey-stick graph'?) wrote

I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

And Phil Jones wrote

The other paper by MM is just garbage. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Now you might not consider that to be in the slightest bit suspicious.... but I do. And if you had something this devious from a scientist on my side of the fence you'd be crowing just as loudly.

'Denier' is a deliberately provocative word with connotations to Nazis and Nazi sympathisers. Even 'sceptic' is difficult - why don't we call AGW scientists 'sceptics' of the natural warming, interglacial period science (which predates AGW by some 6,000 years).

[English_Bob]

Well I didn't want to get all condescending... but it's clear from your post that you don't understand the difference between the two. Please just google anything about climate modeling and weather modeling and you will see that the two really are completely different (as both my post and my link suggest). If you can't be bothered checking out any facts on the subject then I'll just consider anything you post as a contribution to further global warming.

Oh and climate change is not the same thing as global warming either. Climate change in this comtext is actually a set of consequences of gloabl warming. Again... a bit of research before posting can add much to the credibility of a post.

Once more with humour EB 8)

I looked...and I still see people purporting to be able to see 1-2 degree rises in 50 years time. And yet the last ten years has proved all the previous predictions wrong.

Yes... I see... so cooling is an effect of global warming... I read that before when I was reading the attempts to explain the ice sheets thickening in the Antarctic on the other side away from the Wilkin's ice shelf. Sounds pretty vague and unscientific to me. I like my science straightforward... eg "Yes... more ice means it's colder." and "Yes... temperatures haven't really risen for the past few years." and "Yes... it WAS cooler in the middle ages."

Ahhh humour? Like this?

BELOW IS A JOKE! I'M NOT REALLY THAT VAIN, BUT SOME GUYS ACTUALLY WRITE STUFF LIKE THIS...

I try to be more sensitive, honest and caring every day of this BEAUTIFUL life, and learn good things from all of life's wonderful lessons. I am the bee of kindness in a big big universe looking for the flower of gentleness and virginity. I love to sniff flowers, and spend special romantic moments with someone I care deeply about. I am hopefully finding that special someone in my life, a special girl who i can fully trust, cuddle, and feel great with for ever and ever.

I am the most honest, wonderful, kind, generous, loving, sensitive guy ever on this website, and I sincerely hope to receive the respect that I deserve from my online friends. I'm not going to jump you, or expect you to do anything that goes against your traditional Thai values. I respect your right to your virginity and for your family to negotiate sin sot. Friendship is the begining of the greatest love in the world, and I hope to make the greatest of friends and maybe, just maybe, find a real partner if things are right. If you feel that you might be the special someone to enjou this wonderful journey called life with a great guy like me, then don't hold back, contact me now and let the magical adventure of love begin.

...and anyone who puts this kind of BS in their profile is probably an alcoholic lech looking to avoid the costs of shagging bargirls. :-)

Hmmm better leave the humour to others.

[Hobbes]

Al Gore is a scientist now?? Ok, that one was new to me...but go on.

Where is the paper suggesting the ice caps are free in 5 years? And paper doesn't mean the Daily Mail here...

I posted before the IPCC has toned down language in reports under pressure from the US...

It's East-Anglia University and there is no smoking gun in those emails...trial by media but nothing to do with the science I'm afraid

Can you do any better? Just asking...

Al Gore was the biggest driving force behind AGW... he is NOT a scientist but he uses scientific studies for his presentations. Studies which are contradictory, melodramatic and incorrect. He didn't make up the 'hockey stick graph' - it was Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University.

You like to sneer at 'The Media'... but 'The Media' gets its information from press releases.... press releases released by.... anyone? That's right, scientists.

I lost count of the times when AGW people say, 'Well if you don't believe The Times." and "It's on the BBC website." They LOVE LOVE LOVE the media when it publishes their side of things but HATE HATE HATE it when anything contradictory is published.

East-Anglia University... yes.. thank you for making that point... Just because the people on your side of the fence say there is no 'smoking gun' doesn't mean people on my side of the fence agree with it... Actually it is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate one of my previous points.

In your post you claim that

There are generally accepted publications for the different branches of science, like PNAS or Nature. They don't loose any 'status' over publishing controversial research, that's just bollocks.

(It's 'lose' by the way... if you want to start being pedantic).

Michael Mann (remember the 'hockey-stick graph'?) wrote

I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

And Phil Jones wrote

The other paper by MM is just garbage. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Now you might not consider that to be in the slightest bit suspicious.... but I do. And if you had something this devious from a scientist on my side of the fence you'd be crowing just as loudly.

'Denier' is a deliberately provocative word with connotations to Nazis and Nazi sympathisers. Even 'sceptic' is difficult - why don't we call AGW scientists 'sceptics' of the natural warming, interglacial period science (which predates AGW by some 6,000 years).

****, you made me chuckle here...Al Gore being the biggest driving force behind AGW.

He made a movie that publicised the issue and it was based on scientific research, so what? Have you read any of the papers by M. Mann and others because I fail to see where they are melodramatic or for that matter contradictory or incorrect. The so-called "hockey stick" is not based on one particular study but has been arrived at by several studies over the years independently. Since the making of Al Gore's documentary the original study has been improved but it is still valid.

Even the US National Academy of Science when asked by Congress to look at the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick, in 2006 said:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world"

As James Hansen in one of my posts above said, the data have been available and yet nobody has come up with an alternative model of temperature reconstruction. Now that should give reason to pause for moment (vain hope I know :roll: ).

I seriously doubt press releases about new research or studies published are as dramatic or sensational as you are trying to portray them. Again feel free to prove me wrong.

Quoting from some correspondence out of context clearly shows those guys are up to no good and guilty of whatever we decide to pin on them afterwards...hang 'em...hang 'em high... :roll:

For starters are M. Mann and P. Jones are the only ones that published research that underpins AGW? Nope.

Therefore does anything they write in some emails change any of the science underpinning AGW? Nope.

As for your specific point, the "Climate Research" Journal is still in existence and scientist are free to publish their papers in there (contrary to your claim "magazines that publish data that runs contrary to AGW rhetoric are removed from the 'acceptable, respected' magazine list"). You can find their latest issue here if you fancy a read. There is however a story that your ripped-out-of-context-quotes try not to tell. I will put these in context though.

In 2003, a paper written by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas.[3] The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium".[4] In reaction half of the journal's editorial board, including chief editor Hans von Storch, resigned in protest of deficiences in the peer-review processes in use at the journal. The paper was sent to four reviewers, none of which recommended rejecting the paper.[5] Von Storch later stated that climate change sceptics "had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common".

Btw, in the scientific community the deniers are refereed to as 'contrarians'. Happy with that then? :wink:

[grezzzy_greer]

Do the contrarians (thanks Hobbes) consider the Goddard Institute for Space Studies to be filled with crackpots?

Do you honestly believe that they are all fudging the data as part of some diabolical plan to rape the world and keep all the money, gold and power?

Have a look at ALL these graphs and upon following the link you will note an odd similarity - they are ALL tilted upward to some degree or other- are we really to believe that this is all part of some global conspiracy?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you like to believe in facts - the graphs are facts - they are not interpretations...they are ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS...

How do you explain the melting of the ice sheets in the Arctic during the northern summer, where whole areas that have not been exposed for many thousands of years were exposed in the melt?

Even if this accelerated warming was totally natural - which more recent studies definitely question - and we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man was not the key to this disaster in the making - would it make you sleep better at night to think that your children could be affected in ways you probably cannot imagine, but if it is all natural, thats OK...like getting killed by falling off a cliff is pretty natural - as opposed to being shot or stabbed - so let them sufer and maybe die... as long as it's natural, we will not try to do anything to prevent it...thats the kind of thinking we seem to be getting from those who dont want to believe the evidence that is appearing and being uncovered, measured, and photographed every day.

The climate is a long term issue - the weather (today hot, raining, tomorrow warm and dry etc) is a very short term item...please don't confuse the two.

The most important aspect of any science is to approach it with an OPEN mind...weigh the evidence - evaluate it scientifically - then draw conclusions if possible. What we see at present is an attempt to STOP scientists from researching this subject - an attempt to prevent the truth from being found....

[English_Bob]

Do the contrarians (thanks Hobbes) consider the Goddard Institute for Space Studies to be filled with crackpots?

Do you honestly believe that they are all fudging the data as part of some diabolical plan to rape the world and keep all the money, gold and power?

Have a look at ALL these graphs and upon following the link you will note an odd similarity - they are ALL tilted upward to some degree or other- are we really to believe that this is all part of some global conspiracy?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you like to believe in facts - the graphs are facts - they are not interpretations...they are ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS...

How do you explain the melting of the ice sheets in the Arctic during the northern summer, where whole areas that have not been exposed for many thousands of years were exposed in the melt?

Even if this accelerated warming was totally natural - which more recent studies definitely question - and we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man was not the key to this disaster in the making - would it make you sleep better at night to think that your children could be affected in ways you probably cannot imagine, but if it is all natural, thats OK...like getting killed by falling off a cliff is pretty natural - as opposed to being shot or stabbed - so let them sufer and maybe die... as long as it's natural, we will not try to do anything to prevent it...thats the kind of thinking we seem to be getting from those who dont want to believe the evidence that is appearing and being uncovered, measured, and photographed every day.

The climate is a long term issue - the weather (today hot, raining, tomorrow warm and dry etc) is a very short term item...please don't confuse the two.

The most important aspect of any science is to approach it with an OPEN mind...weigh the evidence - evaluate it scientifically - then draw conclusions if possible. What we see at present is an attempt to STOP scientists from researching this subject - an attempt to prevent the truth from being found....

That was a really poor answer...

The graphs show measurements from 1880... look at some graphs for the past 500 years... explain the Medieval Warming Period when temperatures were warmer than today. And the graphs don't show the stable period we are currently in, despite more carbon emissions than ever.

Pro-scientists are as greedy as anti-scientists... it's a ******* big money train and they want their share. The past 60 years are littered with scientific scares that turned out to be nothing.

I'm quite sure you would have been spouting, "Scientists aren't going to make up Y2K...' and 'It's quite possible a meteorite will hit Earth... scientists said so.'

I believe the earth is warming - as it has been for 6000 years as part of a natural cycle. The dire predictions have been sounded before for many events that didn't come to pass. The predicted catastrophes won't happen, of that I am sure. There will be a gradual change in the earth... just as has been happening for millennia.

Yes - ice melts - in some areas it thickens. Some glaciers retreat and some advance. The earth's climate is in a constant state of flux - people and animals have moved and adapted throughout history.

If it's natural - then stopping carbon emissions will do nothing.

It will be a huge waste of money and time. Money which could be spent on health care or food production. There are plenty of examples of scientists not calculating the costs vs benefits....

...DDT was the best pesticide for eradicating malarial mosquitos. Environmental scientists said it was dangerous to people and nature (actually you could drink it without harm). They rallied against it and finally its use ceased... malaria had a resurgence and is still going strong today.

your children could be affected in ways you probably cannot imagine, but if it is all natural, thats OK...like getting killed by falling off a cliff is pretty natural - as opposed to being shot or stabbed - so let them sufer and maybe die... as long as it's natural, we will not try to do anything to prevent it.

And here we have it... when discussion fails, turn to vague threats and scaremongering.

1 - I don't have kids

2 - I can imagine a lot... and I don't imagine my (imaginary) kids are going to be affected by any of the ridiculous scenarios you are imagining.

3 - The discussion is not about how to prevent future problems, it's about how best to spend money - population control, food production and clean water are far more urgent than an unlikely 2 degree temperature rise.

The climate is a long term issue - the weather (today hot, raining, tomorrow warm and dry etc) is a very short term item...please don't confuse the two.

Don't patronise me - I'm well aware of what the dictionary definitions are of weather and climate. I didn't arrive at this contrary position by accident. I studied environmental science and was completely convinced for years... until I started reading other research. I began to question accepted wisdom and look at historical scares... this one is no different except in size.

There are at least three people on here who try to convince me that weather and climate are NOT related... try explaining 'climate' without using the word 'weather'... it's the same thing over a long period of time. Extrapolating graphs and computer models are completely inadequate.

The most important aspect of any science is to approach it with an OPEN mind...weigh the evidence - evaluate it scientifically - then draw conclusions if possible. What we see at present is an attempt to STOP scientists from researching this subject - an attempt to prevent the truth from being found....

Bullshit... Whose truth? Who is trying to stop research? The funding for AGW scientists is the biggest cash cow in history. The minority now are the researchers who discover contrary data and see their efforts smeared as 'oil-funded'.

[LakeGeneve]

Bullshit... Whose truth? Who is trying to stop research? The funding for AGW scientists is the biggest cash cow in history. The minority now are the researchers who discover contrary data and see their efforts smeared as 'oil-funded'.

The bolded statement is patently incorrect as the biggest cash cow in history thus far, and for a while into the future, for scientists has been the military-industrial complex.

The amounts of money poured into ways to kill each other is not only tragically perverse but AGW scientists being funded for the next few hundreds years with gold plated labs could not come close to the amounts of money spent on military related research in the last 50 yrs.

[Stramash]

having just spent over 2 hours driving across Fenwick Moor in the worst blizzard I have ever driven in (normally a 25 minute journey)

bring it on!!! (global warming that is)

[Hobbes]

having just spent over 2 hours driving across Fenwick Moor in the worst blizzard I have ever driven in (normally a 25 minute journey)

bring it on!!! (global warming that is)

Feck off...

:twisted:

[Stramash]

having just spent over 2 hours driving across Fenwick Moor in the worst blizzard I have ever driven in (normally a 25 minute journey)

bring it on!!! (global warming that is)

Feck off...

:twisted:

oooh typical AGW bolshie response there!!

[grezzzy_greer]

OK, fair comment - if EB studied environmental science then who are we to argue?

If I understand correctly, the best thing to do is forget it, and not do anything.

Just want to clear up a couple of points:

I mentioned children, meaning the children we (parents) have now. It is simply totally impossible for anyone who does not have kids to understand how a parent feels - I know this based on the changes in attitude that happened to me when I became a parent, and it is absolutely impossible to understand without having your own kids - you don't have any, so I understand your position on this.

It would be incredibly naive to state that a meteor could not hit earth - of course it is a possibility that such a thing could happen - I dont think anyone would be stupid enough to state with certainty that the earth would not be struck again by a meteor; there are quite a few impact craters on Earth dating from millions of years ago to much more recent (geologically speaking) times. A meteorite however is a different kettle of fish - a meteorITE is a mass of stone or metal that has ALREADY reached the earths surface - OK being pedantic I know, but this is the correct definition.

Y2K was purely a potential problem caused by the operating systems of many computers - the dangers were that it was uncertain what these machines would do when their internal clocks struck the millenial midnight and clicked over to the year "00". There actually were systems that failed - or would have failed if allowed to continue - at that point in time. Making sure that navigation and other control computers in aircraft or ocean-going vessels wouldn't fail was not done for fun, or just to satisfy some crazies who thought that our arbitrary naming of a portion of the sidereal period of our planet would cause global catastrophe - it was done to avoid potentially life threatening circumstances - what if we had done nothing and even ONE aircraft had crashed, killing hundreds, would scientists and engineers have been blamed? You bet we would! So should we have sat back and taken no action to "see what happens" then wring our hands in frustration and anger when something went badly wrong and people paid for the delay with their lives?

I am no longer interested in discussing Global Warming or Climate Change or the destruction of the rainforests or the loss of species, lets wait and see instead.