As one who has a degree in Environmental Science I would like to put 'my two bob's worth' of information here -an Aussie term for a small addition).
If all of you look around yourselves at the climate that effects us all and see what transpires daily, over a recent period of time,- and as most here are older-remember what it was decades ago I am sure that we all agree that the climate is more volatile.
The warmer months are getting hotter and the colder months are cooler(on an average). The rapidity of this change over the last 2 decades and the growth of worldwide production of consumer goods causing vast amounts of pollution of all forms suggests a definite link
So it is obvious, to even 'blind freddie', that something has changed, and not for the better.
Storms are more ferocious and have a quicker period of occurrence, Ice shelves are melting- and predictions are that the Arctic Ice pack will/is shrinking to such an extent that the Northwest passage will become a reality in the near future, let alone Island size icebergs regularly breaking off from the Antarctic Ice shelves.
Is it not better to change our usage patterns of fuel sources- most of which are either oil/coal based and pursue renewable forms of energy that are not, of not as, polluting?
No one here has mentioned the effects of our procrastination on the world our children or subsequent generations will inherit- surely it is our responsibility to leave a better world for them to inhabit than to follow indifference and greed and hope that it will miraculously fix itself.
We here at this crucial point in time to act cautiously and reduce the detrimental effects our consumerism has on the environment.
It is rampant consumerism and the inherent usage of fuel sources that is causing the environmental effects we all experience.
Whether you stand on the side of environmental cooling or environmental warming these traits are all an indication that the planet and its biosphere are undergoing abnormal stress that we as individual nations and collectively as the human race are either adding to, of causing-dependant on your individual views.
Lets all pull our heads out of the sand and make the planet better for those who come here next!!

I think that the naysayers would most likely change their minds about whether or not global warming/cooling is actually contributed to, accelerated by, or otherwise caused by humans if they would only watch this ecological disaster movie:

hi blutarski,

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
And while we are playing at numbers, are you aware that the UN-IPCC document was endorsed by only 215 named individuals? Interesting. I'm trying to figure out how that constitutes "global consensus".....

as said before, the IPCC does not perform any scientific research itself. the 2007 report Working Groups consisted of 450 Lead Authors, who got input from 800 Contributing Authors, who are supported by 2500 Experts. all Authors are nominated by member governments and participating organisations (list see my first post), then selected by the IPCC Bureau and approved in the Plenary.
Experts and Contributing Authors collect their reports based on reviewing projects, articles on the subject and suggested papers.
Contributing Authors write the chapters of the Workgroup reports, coordinated by Lead Authors, which then run through a multi-stage review process, where Expert Reviewers (who are members of the participating organisations and/or any voluntary scientist, whose qualification is approved by the a participating organisation) and governments of participating countries (194) can comment on the reports. Review Editors make sure, that all comments will be properly included and taken note of in the following endorsements of 'approval' (of the draft of articles and research), 'adoption' and 'acceptance'. each of which will be reviewed again and commented.

again, 'Authors' here do the summaries of what has been reviewed by them in articles, reports and what has been sent by several thousand contributors voluntarily!

all data, articles and preports used by the Authors for the Workgroup reports are available via the Data Distribution Centre of the IPCC.
naturally, the Workgroup reports won't list all read and reviewed article and researched datasets, however - for the interested - there is no secret made out of it.

if you make note of the participating organisations (as listed only in parts in my post before), you will note that hardly any important scientific organisation of the member countries is left out.
again, the Panel collects data. it doesn't produce them.
your number of 215 probably names the Bureau and Secretary only. The Plenary (Bureau, Work Group Chairmen, members of the participating organisations and governments)sessions, once a year, already counts various times more.
the all unpaid Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Expert Reviewers and Review Editors of each Work Group are not included in that number. and surely not the scientists, who wrote the articles and did the research, which the IPCC-reports are based on.


if you want to play with numbers, you should know what the processes are.
maybe then you will have a better understanding, what 'global consensus' means.

quote:

Originally posted by deepo_HP:
hi blutarski,

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
And while we are playing at numbers, are you aware that the UN-IPCC document was endorsed by only 215 named individuals? Interesting. I'm trying to figure out how that constitutes "global consensus".....

as said before, the IPCC does not perform any scientific research itself. the 2007 report Working Groups consisted of 450 Lead Authors, who got input from 800 Contributing Authors, who are supported by 2500 Experts. all Authors are nominated by member governments and participating organisations (list see my first post), then selected by the IPCC Bureau and approved in the Plenary.
Experts and Contributing Authors collect their reports based on reviewing projects, articles on the subject and suggested papers.
Contributing Authors write the chapters of the Workgroup reports, coordinated by Lead Authors, which then run through a multi-stage review process, where Expert Reviewers (who are members of the participating organisations and/or any voluntary scientist, whose qualification is approved by the a participating organisation) and governments of participating countries (194) can comment on the reports. Review Editors make sure, that all comments will be properly included and taken note of in the following endorsements of 'approval' (of the draft of articles and research), 'adoption' and 'acceptance'. each of which will be reviewed again and commented.

again, 'Authors' here do the summaries of what has been reviewed by them in articles, reports and what has been sent by several thousand contributors voluntarily!

all data, articles and preports used by the Authors for the Workgroup reports are available via the Data Distribution Centre of the IPCC.
naturally, the Workgroup reports won't list all read and reviewed article and researched datasets, however - for the interested - there is no secret made out of it.

if you make note of the participating organisations (as listed only in parts in my post before), you will note that hardly any important scientific organisation of the member countries is left out.
again, the Panel collects data. it doesn't produce them.
your number of 215 probably names the Bureau and Secretary only. The Plenary (Bureau, Work Group Chairmen, members of the participating organisations and governments)sessions, once a year, already counts various times more.
the all unpaid Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Expert Reviewers and Review Editors of each Work Group are not included in that number. and surely not the scientists, who wrote the articles and did the research, which the IPCC-reports are based on.


if you want to play with numbers, you should know what the processes are.
maybe then you will have a better understanding, what 'global consensus' means.

..... Thank you for your input, Deepo, but did I or did I not stipulated NAMED endorsers?

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Thank you for your input, Deepo, but did I or did I not stipulated NAMED endorsers?

sorry, if i misunderstood you, but it looked to me, as if you questioned 'global consensus' by the low number of endorsed names?
i thought, i could help you, where to find the thousands other names... i think, they can be requested at the Data Distribution Centre at the IPCC.

if the mentioning of 215 was just a finding of yours, i don't understand your note.

"cigarettes aren't bad for you..."

"nicotine isn't addictive..."

"guns don't kill people - people kill people..."

"there is no link between alcohol consumption and birth defects..."

the list goes on and on - from US auto makers (Pintos and Malibus that burst into flames)and childrens clothing (carcinogenic fire retardant)and toy manufacturers (lead paint) to you name it

corporations will protect their profits at our expense by saying the darndest things


now you have DOW chemical and Exxon saying there is no global climate change - and insurance companies saying...well you saw them get caught in their most recent lies...didn't you?

quote:

Originally posted by deepo_HP:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Thank you for your input, Deepo, but did I or did I not stipulated NAMED endorsers?

sorry, if i misunderstood you, but it looked to me, as if you questioned 'global consensus' by the low number of endorsed names?
i thought, i could help you, where to find the thousands other names... i think, they can be requested at the Data Distribution Centre at the IPCC.

if the mentioning of 215 was just a finding of yours, i don't understand your note.

..... Thank you, deepo. I would in fact be interested to see these other names explicitly listed. All I have seen so far have been claims of thousands, but no verifying list of names.

I had earlier asked HayateAce for a link for the source for his comments about 'myths' and 'facts' about climate change, and he provided this New Statesman article by David Whitehouse, a former BBC Science Correspondent: http://www.newstatesman.com/sc...-warming-temperature

I read this with interest, but I noted that at the top of the page was a link to a response by Mark Lynas, the New Statesman’s environmental correspondent:
http://www.newstatesman.com/en...arming-lynas-climate

I'd recommend anyone interested in the topic to read both articles, and then decide for themselves whether it is Whitehouse or Lynas that is correct. In brief, Lynas says that "...Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average". He later goes on to write "...a mistaken article reached a flawed conclusion. Intentionally or not, readers were misled, and the good name of the New Statesman has been used all over the internet by climate contrarians seeking to support their entrenched positions. This is regrettable. Good journalism should never exclude legitimate voices from a debate of public interest, but it also needs to distinguish between carefully-checked fact and distorted misrepresentations in complex and divisive areas like this."

It seems to me that this is the way the debate should be conducted, with the clear presentation of evidence by one party, followed by assessment and critique by another. Rather than arguing about who is on what list, and whether this entitles them to be cited as an expert in the field, we need to look at the evidence for ourselves, or at least look at a range of differing assessments of the evidence by creditable journalists and the like. Merely cherry-picking supporting evidence from the internet leads us nowhere. This is a complex subject, but that should not make it impossible to discuss with clarity if care is taken.

I find it pretty telling that the only "debate" on this issue lies entirely outside of the legitimate scientific community.

One of my courses last semester presented some of the most up to date information on the issue. The professor teaching it had seen his own research affected by it. What is going on is basically incontrovertible if one has even a basic understanding of science and the forces at play.

I'm sorry to say, but anybody debating it at this point is either remaining willfully ignorant or is basing their belief entirely upon what the right wing agenda tells them to believe. There is such a gross misunderstanding (and misrepresentation) of facts on this subject that it is astounding.

But hey, Rush Limbaugh tells us that it's a lie. We should clearly listen to a drug addict that couldn't make it through college instead of the scientific community!

quote:

Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Nobody gives a shiat about ice-thickness if those same glaciers are melting at rates faster than anytime before on their outskirts.

Have you seen glaciers retreating?
I have.
It's scary.

Have you seen the difference of arctic ice-area over the years?
I have.
It's even more scary.


What you propably haven't understood yet is that there is a difference if a climate-change happens over the course of several thousand years (normal) or a couple of hundred years (not normal).

It's not the change that causes concern - it's the rate of change.
And were steering onto a runaway-track if the permafrost starts to melt and frees millions of tons of trapped CO² and methane.

On the one hand, we're killing rain-forest (several thousand square-miles a day) which is eating CO² and producing oxygen.
Oh, BTW: we're burning those trees, putting even more CO² into the atmosphere.

Keeping cows for milk and meat is actually fcuking the atmosphere than driving cars, flying planes and going by ships combined - a whole 18% of all greenhouse-gas emissions in total.

Maybe we should rethink our state of living a little bit.
At present, that very state is neither efficient, nor healthy, nor maintanable.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Thank you, deepo. I would in fact be interested to see these other names explicitly listed. All I have seen so far have been claims of thousands, but no verifying list of names.

the 4th Assessment-Report of the IPCC is edited as any common scientific review or publication. this includes APA-/Harvard-style citing and listing of references and authors.
the report is fully available on the IPCC-site.
IPCC encourages everyone to acquire additional information on all involved personel and sources.

the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) is available at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
as an example of the very correct and usual referencing you can find the 5th Chapter ('Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level') of the report of the Working Group I ('Physical/scientifical Basis') here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/R...R4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf
each chapter of each of the assessments of the three Working Groups and the concluding 'Synthesis Report' has it's own group of Lead Authors, Authors, Contributors and Review Editors and is reviewed by 2400 peers (those who have added or noted comments, are listed in the assessment's appendix).
the reports don't reflect own research of the authors, but a summary and review of actual scientific work. as such, any claims written in the reports need to be referenced for their sources. the list of references is always at the end of a chapter, for this chapter 490 articles have been reviewed, the report of Working Group I has 20 chapters. for the report of Working Group I some 560 authors have reviewed about 6700 articles. the chapters have been edited by 40 Lead Authors, been peer-reviewed by 47000 reviewers and been reedited. the full report of WGI then has been reviewed by Expert Reviewers (nominated by the participating organisations, institutes and 194 governments) and went to three stages of approval by the Plenary during the process.
the same with the reports of WGII, WGIII and the 'Synthesis Report' (however, which is based on the reports of the Working Groups).

this takes some time, so one of the main criticisms is, that the assessments are usually outdated when being published.
due to the influence of the participating governments, another criticism is, that the predicitons of the 'Synthesis' are often considered the lowest commomn denominator and understating the risks. so far the actual measured data were indeed found partly worse than being predicted in AR2 and AR3.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: deepo_HP,

quote:

Originally posted by deepo_HP:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Thank you, deepo. I would in fact be interested to see these other names explicitly listed. All I have seen so far have been claims of thousands, but no verifying list of names.

the 4th Assessment-Report of the IPCC is edited as any common scientific review or publication. this includes APA-/Harvard-style citing and listing of references and authors.
the report is fully available on the IPCC-site.
IPCC encourages everyone to acquire additional information on all involved personel and sources.

the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) is available at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
as an example of the very correct and usual referencing you can find the 5th Chapter ('Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level') of the report of the Working Group I ('Physical/scientifical Basis') here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/R...R4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf
each chapter of each of the assessments of the three Working Groups and the concluding 'Synthesis Report' has it's own group of Lead Authors, Authors, Contributors and Review Editors and is reviewed by 2400 peers (those who have added or noted comments, are listed in the assessment's appendix).
the reports don't reflect own research of the authors, but a summary and review of actual scientific work. as such, any claims written in the reports need to be referenced for their sources. the list of references is always at the end of a chapter, for this chapter 490 articles have been reviewed, the report of Working Group I has 20 chapters. for the report of Working Group I some 560 authors have reviewed about 6700 articles. the chapters have been edited by 40 Lead Authors, been peer-reviewed by 47000 reviewers and been reedited. the full report of WGI then has been reviewed by Expert Reviewers (nominated by the participating organisations, institutes and 194 governments) and went to three stages of approval by the Plenary during the process.
the same with the reports of WGII, WGIII and the 'Synthesis Report' (however, which is based on the reports of the Working Groups).

this takes some time, so one of the main criticisms is, that the assessments are usually outdated when being published.
due to the influence of the participating governments, another criticism is, that the predicitons of the 'Synthesis' are often considered the lowest commomn denominator and understating the risks. so far the actual measured data were indeed found partly worse than being predicted in AR2 and AR3.

..... Thanks. I will investigate that.

sorry, i had added a paragraph to my before post, but was a bit slow...
so i have cut it out again and put it here:


i think, there is perhaps a misconception of what the IPCC report is, so i would like to add ...
the IPCC does not decide that there is a consensus and it is also not considered somehow representative for climatologist science (nor does it consider itself as such).
the 3 Working Groups are basically just sighting, collecting and summarising the actual papers, articles and data-sources regarding climate and meteorology. the whole process of nomination, reviewing and approval is meant to assure the most complex gathering of information possible with as less as possible interpretation of the authors.
the resulting overviews reflect by intention more or less the actual knowledge on the subject.

the 'Synthesis Report' evaluates the observations assessed in the 3 other reports and puts them together in a contextual framework.
the 'Synthesis Report' statistically calculates the consensus, as found in the several 10000s of publications reviewed by the Workgroups. the consensus is therefor nothing the Panel decides on, but which it has indeed just found amongst scientists.
the 'Synthesis Report' estimates the uncertainties found in the underlying reports and concludes for corrected predicitions, which were made by reviewed scientists from simulations.

only the advice on governments and guidelines for policymakers is the Panel's own contribution to the 'Assessment Reports'!

perhaps this explains the approach made by the Panel. in my opinion, there is never a guarantee for absolute unbias in science and mistakes will be made. however, the Panel's concept is surprisingly sound for it's task, as
it has shown for example by the acknowledgement of McIntyre's claims.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004: The thing that I notice is you can't win with these global warming people, mostly because it's more politics that science.

that has to be one of the weirdest statements from you yet, since your major flaw in what you have said here so far is that you dont understand even the basics of the science involved, you are also unwilling to look at information from the recognized and respected scientific experts in this field, and seem unable to apply some basic logic and reasoning to work your way through the information available on the topic. you also seem to think that because you cant understand something, that suddenly there is "scientific controversy" in a field that is highly complex.

instead you exclusively feed on the marketing trash from the petroleum and coal industry, and refuse to see how their financial manipulation of a few fringe players (who dont even have the right credentials) gives deliberately distorted information.

you dont either seem to get that none of that nonsense is in any way affecting the consensus that exist in the main scientific bodies and organizations that deal with this specific issue (climate science), or that a global organization like the IPCC only tries to collate this information from the main expert bodies available, and then provide some general statements and overviews on the matter so this topic is easier to understand for national governments. and since this affects our long term survival on this planet by altering weather, rainfall, rivers supplying agriculture, population shifts on a global level, is likely to cause wars over natural resources, radically affects animal and plant extinctions etc.., we "the people" hope these governments will then take some action to reduce risk ( but sadly so far all they seem to do is shuffle the desk chairs on the titanic and have lots of talk fests instead).

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004: Did anyone notice that near the end of the article I linked to there was a dude that said basically that even if we are going into a cooling period ( which they finally have to admit now ) that well, global warming will come, you'll see. It's only a matter of time.

There have already been global warming proponents/climate change proponents that say some of the cooling in the last few years is caused by global warming!! That's right, cooling is caused by warming!!

bolloks !!

The overall picture is indisputable, global temperature maps show far more areas are warming than cooling. As warming continues as emissions continue to rise, eventually every part of the world will warm. why dont you try and use some objective scientific information for yourself once in a while, instead of feeding on the misinformation one-liners manufactured by the right loony fringe media. here you can plot your own global graphs based on available nasa data http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

here is a sample one i just entered myself, looking at annual global mean temperature data from 1980 to 2008 (last +/- 30 yrs)

 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-...&radius=1200&pol=reg 

ehum, now notice the significant warming pattern all over the globe, and that the only spot where there is some relative cooling is over a small part of the antarctic ? (btw 0.1 and 0.5 celcius in cooling for the antarctic, whereas the arctic is 4 degrees warmer !!). now the right wing loonies would try and create a headline out of that in the tabloid press saying "antarctic is cooling, global warming disprooven". would it have any credibility in scientific circles, obviously not ! but because your favoured talk show host has a program the marketing droid gave the corny tittle "fair and balanced" to, and "the host" was regurgitating that stuff (himself probably knowing it was untrue, but since "its just doing business" for him and he gets handsomely paid for it, truth and factual accuracy is deliberately not in his discrimination criteria), then people like you who want to solve complex problems with simple one liners that fit their prejudice and preconceived ideas, you grasp onto it believing you have been given "an alternative point of view" and immediately concluding it is a topic where there is "debate". what you fail to understand is that in the scientific field that deals with climate change, there is absolutely no credible stance against the clear evidence of man induced global changes in weather and climate, none, niks, rien, de nada, zip !!

if you want to inform yourself a bit better on this topic, and see why so many of the petroleum and coal industry misinformation campaigns are so silly, have a look at this webpage http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 it provides much of the information in plain english, recognizes some of the area's which might have some uncertainty in some of the detail, and uses a common sense approach BASED ON AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT. its not a bad place to start if you want to be generally informed on some of the issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... So what exactly is your point? Do you think that the AGW movement is funded by bake sales? At the end of the day, it doesn't really make a bit of difference who is on what side of the argument or how much money they push into the pot.

the bake sales is not far off the mark

odd you cant see the proportional differences there. on the one side we have an annual multi trillion dollar industry (coal and petroleum combined) directly buying media access, fringe "scientists", and amoral politicians, to try and maintain the status quo in their huge income, versus what can only be described as individual concerned citizen (who are frustrated by the slow action by their elected governments which are supposed to represent their long term best interests), some non profit organizations, some humanist groups trying to speak for those who have no voice in this matter (be they from poorer 3e world countries with no effective governments, or animal species going extinct etc..). you seem to think "the other side" is funded by a secret cabal of plastic recyclers or hydrogen car manufacturers. news flash: there is no organized funded campaign on the side of people who are concerned about global warming and climate change, and you surely wont find politicians who are paid 500.000 $ per year by "interest groups" like the shonky politician from Oklahoma we discussed earlier

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

the majority of the "scientists" you keep referring to do not have appropriate qualifications in this field to comment, and NONE are recognized experts in the field of climatology. note that inconveniently for you, any "expert" needs to be recognized by his peer group as such, needs to have a publication track record in the right scientific journals, not just bought by an interest group to be a voice piece and then made a pretend expert while not being qualified in the field. its funny to note that out of desperation the fossil fuel industry now set up their own pretend journals because they couldnt get their crap published in the real rigorous journals.

..... Don't be ridiculous, Grifter. What you are claiming is utter foolishness, unless you perhaps define "peer group" as only those individuals who believe in AGW. Go to the report and review the credentials of the participating scientists, then come back and tell me that you cannot find any "recognized experts".

your trying to make apple juice out of oranges, and dont understand the basic concepts or processes involved

in modern science any measurements one makes, including the specific tools (incl having to name model and brand of equipment even) and methods used (? is it an accepted and proven methodology to investigate what you are looking at for ex.), let alone a theory that is based on a number of observations, is subjected to close scrutiny by the other scientists qualified in that same field. anybody who wants to publish anything in that field will then submit their study and the arguments they make based on factual information, to the main scientific journals in that field. the editorial board will then look at how scientifically sound the methods are and if the new information presented is based on sound reasoning and methods, and is in context of other relevant scientific information available so far. in any given scientific field there is a large number of these "peer reviewed" journals, and their quality and standing in the community is based on how rigorous their screening criteria and standards are (they are rated on a scale of 1 to 5 usually)

once it has passed those initial hurdles (and none of that climate change denier crap ever has in respected journals, for obvious reasons)and it is actually published in those specialist journals, then 1000's of other scientists educated in that specific discipline will read it and form an opinion on how rigorous the study was, how valid the methods and conclusions drawn are. if there is ANY criticism that can be raised, trust me it will. nothing worse then a bunch of highly educated and very critical scientists in a very specialized field as your critic because they constantly try and outdo each other with new discoveries or theories. the most published amongst them become considered experts in the field, and will have a clear track record in their own work. hence the editorial boards on these journals need to be rather rigorous and thorough, because they will get broadsided "by their peers" if anything to obviously wrong actually makes it to publication level.

now what you are failing to understand, or ignoring deliberately, is that none of the fossil fuel industry funded promotional crap you have been so blindly quoting ever makes it past that scientific screening process in the last 15 or 20 years because it is so far out on the fringe of what could be considered sound science. out of desperation the fossil fuel industry has now been setting up a few "journals" of its own, where they and their cronies decide what they like or not, in a pretense to be scientific.it is also why you are so out of date with the climate-change-denier nonsense you are trying to quote, because in the relevant scientific discipline that deals with climate science there is no "debate", the consensus on the seriousness and accuracy of the observed changes is to overwhelming in the last 20 years since this has become a major issue in the relevant scientific fields, and hence the rising amount of concern when it it is still not being addressed effectively despite the overwhelming sound evidence. there is also a point of no return in these linear changes in temperature we mostly see now so far, where once we have disrupted subcomponents of this global total systems so significantly that they start to fail or collapse, that we then enter a point of no return (as we are about to do now, unless massive changes are made immediately) where whole parts of the system fail. once we enter stages of exponential change rather then linear effects, your sitting on a runaway train with no sollid predictions on what the next point of equilibrium in the total system might be (which is likely to be a world very hostile to human survival)

and just in case you still believe peer reviewed material in scientific journals of appropriate standing is a bunch of friends getting together over drinks and decide which way is north, any good dictionary or encyclopaedia will clarify the matter for you

quote:

"peer review n : a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field"

and no, that doesnt mean turning up with a cheerleader squad of large boobed weather chicks, accountants, or frog marched retirement home folks with alzheimers

the funny thing is, in a sad kinda way, that it is exactly people like you who will later say "why didnt they do something" when the risks involved became clear, and you wont be there to help fix the mess either. if you'd not be willing to take the same odds on trying to cross a busy road as a pedestrian while blindfold, why think it is normal to gamble away the future of the whole planet with the same odds ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grifter2u,