Of course the 'big-boys' want

Of course the 'big-boys' want carbon trading/tax/exchange, it's just another way for them to make money. Can't put a tax on for breathing air, nor using the sun as an energy source, (remember Exxon tried that in the 70's?) but there's that nasty ol' carbon. The more cabon we humans make the more they can tax it.

Ooops, sorry, I left out the

Ooops, sorry, I left out the 'r' in carbon

Ooops, sorry, I left out the

Ooops, sorry, I left out the 'r' in carbon

The Koch brothers are an

The Koch brothers are an example of our species that is most despicable. Watch the dvd Koch Brothers Exposed. You will be exposed to the disgusting side of human nature of the rich and entitled.

Koch Bros.

The only reason that the Koch Bros. want a carbon tax is because they can pervert it into making money for nothing. Carbon taxes and carbon offsets are the biggest scams in the world today.

Say Koch and they salivate

but nobody seems to notice the hand of Rockefeller.

"former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) launched a new institute with Rockefeller Family Fund backing to promote carbon taxes as a ‘Republican idea.’ Inglis said nothing to suggest that he views carbon taxes as an alternative to EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, or that one of his objectives is to rein in the agency and return control over climate policy to the people’s representatives."
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/07/11/aei-hosts-fifth-secret-meeting-to-promote-carbon-tax/

Rockefeller Bros.Fund bankrolls Bill McKibbon and 350.org, so the false left/right paradigm has blinded all again. A US carbon tax has many friends in high places.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/07/13/george-shultz-endorses-carbon-tax-you-were-surprised/

busy little boys since 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JdhyI8mmqY

The Koch Boys are pikers!

Their role is to give a pittance here and there so you guys can have your 1984-ish minutes of hate. The real money flows in the other direction, so the Globalists can get their global governance thing in through the back door labeled "Sustainability."

"In 2007, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, showed that proponents of man-made global warming enjoyed a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. The alarmists had received a whopping $50 billion — mostly from the federal government — compared to “a paltry $19 million and some change” for the realists. A 2009 study entitled “Climate Money,” by Joanne Nova for the Science & Public Policy Institute, found that the U.S. government had sunk $79 billion into climate-change-related activities (science research, alternative energy technology, foreign aid, etc.) between 1989 and 2009. That total does not include additional massive funding from state governments, foundations, and corporations. Similar levels of funding have been poured into “climate policy” by European Union institutions and the national governments of European nations and Japan. This super-extravagant lavishing of state funding on a new scientific field has created an instant global climate industry that is government-fed and completely political. However, these sums, impressive as they are, represent only the very tip of the mountain of “climate cash” that has the political classes panting and salivating. They smell not only tens of billions of dollars for research and technology, but also hundreds of billions for “climate debt” foreign aid, and trillions to be made in CO2 cap-and-trade schemes."

http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-“climate-science”-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

ummm!

Maybe you should check who bankrolls Inhofe

Are you trying to pretend Imhofe is wrong

about how much taxpayer money has been wasted on Global Warming/Climate Change/ and supporting the lunatic climate modelers?

Of course he gets money from the oil and gas industries. Oklahoma is an oil and gas state. That's his constituency he's defending from well paid crazies. http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/07/for-27-years-nasas-climate-model-warming-predictions-wrong-odds-are-1-in-134-million-of-being-this-w.html

And he is way under average for campaign contributions for Senate seats, which would suggest the voters are content with him.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582

The whole false "CO2 causes climate change" thing was designed to make destructive, expensive nonsense like nuclear and wind look attractive and to knock out what are the cheapest energy sources we have.

But because CO2 doesn't cause climate change, it doesn't matter how much is produced.

Get out & enjoy

Ah Judy, the story never changes. Get out & enjoy this marvelous warm spell (not so great for many people back east and south). Get away from your electronics and take advantage of our natural surroundings before the next ice age. ;-)

David Koch, who partly funds PBS NOVA, makes sure that they don't do much climate change discussion there, but he's getting old and filthy rich, so maybe he's got a few new goals.

Likely he noticed this recent stormy weather that turned off the power for millions over a week, leaving many unusually hot, sweaty folks without lights, etc. But he and his brother's lawns and gardens may also have been sacrificed, and it was unsafe to drive that limo without traffic lights, never mind the private jet runway.

Reminds me of the Florida, Big Sugar bros., one Republican, the other Democrat, both super influential in Congress & the White House. Illegal immigrants and "guest" workers were absolutely needed but thoroughly unwanted (very similar here, but much below the radar).

Doesn't matter which arm of the US party system dominates, this can't be resolved without a major shift in thinking. Much of the 99% have figured it out, although not always yet logically.

That means shifting away from limited fossil fuels, instead of rushing to increase exponential extraction.

Harmful by-product sources, pipeline & tanker spills plus other side effects, reduction of easy access to sources, or your favourite CO2 (non) effects, doesn't matter about funky politics or so called solar climate variations, the shift is absolutely necessary. The scope of this problem is much too large to play political games over. How it's done is really a seperate issue, and yes, there will alwys be opportunists of every stripe.

Growth and progress have definable limits, but it ain't part of the current economic package. Rather the opposite, but ignoring such is suicidal.

Judy, you're a bright girl. You've contributed some useful notions of your own (few of your reference tags included). Get out from behind the blinkers and work on a more holistic approach. Perhaps the harshness of your messaging could mellow, because as it is now, it doesn't convince most readers. Just who are you trying to convince, besides yourself?

Oh, Owl...

You are pretty funny since you keep trying to convince us that there is a problem that:
A. humans cause climate change
B. That we can change it back to some imaginary Eden by holding our breath and sacrificing out firstborns.

The Koch Bros are small potatoes in the hierarchy of the Ubermenchen. They are just doing their part by playing climate villains so you guys have somebody to boo at.

BTW...50ppm more CO2 than Bill McKibbon thinks is best for us all has no effect on either storm frequency or severity.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/05/connect-the-dots-severe-weather-increase-prediction-due-to-global-warming-bogus-hansen.html

Given the track record of the Climateers getting caught out
129 times, you should be too embarrassed to post such nonsense about my wearing blinkers when yours seem to be diamond studded and firmly fastened.
http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

The senator from Oklahoma

Whenever you see the name of the senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe (R), you should read no further. The man has been thoroughly discredited on every topic with which he has issue. He believes that humans could not have caused climate change because the climate is controlled by GOD and it is his to do with as He pleases. Thanks Jim and Judy but I will definitely stand on the side of the scientists and their evidence.

Which scientist though

Remember there are the few who have been made to look like a multitude.
The IPCC under the Microscope
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

And an ignored multitude:
http://www.petitionproject.org
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

Of course Senator Inhofe would be reviled by the Global Warming Establishment. He presided over hearings which gave scientists a chance to go on record with information that ran counter to the propaganda we have been subjected to.
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

So, which scientists do you stand with. The ones who get grants and medals or the ones like David Evans who get fed up and blow the whistle.

Dr. Evans was the leading terrestrial carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di5FyndJbz0

It's actually Inhofe

You should at least try to memorize the correct spelling.

It is correctly spelled above your comment..

Sorry about the earlier misspelling, but do you always nitpick when you have nothing real to contribute?

Do watch that video I just posted of Dr. David Evans, or you can read the text of his speech here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

Climate Change at a super rate (relative to history) is real.

If you cannot see that climate change is occurring at an incredible rate (relative to historical science over thousands of years) than you simply have your head in the sand. But carbon tax is not the answer, its actually just another way to feed tax money to the governments, central banks and actual banking families that run the international central banks. Take the time to watch the whole movie Thrive to see, as Ed Deak says, who actually CREATES money and debt. ITS THE TOP BANK FAMILIES IN THE WORLD!!! These people define megalomania and the Koch Brothers, as dangerous as they are to human future, are some of the smaller players at the top. The real answer is developing and distributing renewable energy sources OUTSIDE of the big fossil fuel industries.

Take some time to find out where Inhofe gets his money

Take some time to learn whose pocket he's in...I think he's very comfortably in the thrall of the Koch Brothers.

As for David Evans, you're joking if you think I have any time for a self-described 'rocket scientist' who's really nothing more than an Australian crank and largely unemployed electrical engineer.

As for Inhofe, you really DON'T ant to go there

Jimmy Inhofe accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress: $160,800 from industry PACS. In fact, he received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008 that makes him a top recipient of oil money. Additionally Inhofe received $152,800 in contributions from coal interests during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS.

Is it any wonder he spends his time supporting the polluters?

erratum

That should be: 'As for Inhofe, you really DON'T want to go there.'

Over and over

Ms. Cross, you conveniently neglect the points I made about pipes and tankers, about less supply and difficult access to fossil fuel and other resources, about a resource based economy that knows no limits to growth, and you then simply zeroed in on your favourite piniata of CO2. That's what I meant by narrow.

Reading your posts for over 6 months, they can be summed up as follows.

1. CO2 emmissins have no effect on climate change (I'm still not certain that you believe climate change is happening in any unusual way).

2. There is a major world-wide conspiracy to make us all believe that we can mitigate climate change so as to, I think, pilfer more of our tax money in trying to make this useless effort.

3. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a blinded sheep or financially or otherwise involved in the conspiracy.

4. Throw in a few web posts, some much more questionable than others, and some insults to boot.

Same message and style, stirred and repeated ad nauseum.

I've spent numerous hours examining your reference sites. Unless it's your paid job to promote them, or you are unussually dedicated in your retirement (that's why I suggested getting out and enjoying the weather), you cannot do in-depth analysis of all the posts you provide with every comment. Quick scans yes, real evaluation hardly.

Your next comment and those after, possibly shuffled around, will be the same message. Boring.

G.West...do you really think your parroting insults

from desmogblog can change who Dr. Evans is and what his experience is? As the description of the youtube above says,

"Few would have the credibility of this man on this topic. Dr. Evans was the leading terrestrial carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office."

God know you don't have the credibility. Go back top pointing out spelling errors, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Dark hints about "where the money comes from" are pretty silly since Shell Oil and BP gave the millions needed to establish The Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate Scandals. There is oil money funding the Climate thing, only now it gets kind of "laundered" by being passed through a few foundations before it shows up to support an NGO like the UCS

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/08/masters-of-hypocrisy-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/

Come on,Owl, consistantly trying to divert the other readers

with attacks on me isn't boring and predictable?
I present evidence from people with credential and experience. Then I get attacked. That's pretty predictable!

I am irrelevant. Wanting spurious assumptions about CO2 kept out of the debates about pipelines and tankers is realistic. It confuses the real issue. I see no reason for BC to take any risk so foreign owned companies can supply China with bitumen.

Also, something I noticed in an earlier post of yours.
PBS does cover climate alarmism, but they seldom cover the skeptical side. there doesn't seem to be much muzzling by a Koch after all at PBS. It's all Climateers all the time.

"PBS NewsHour global warming coverage:
IPCC/NOAA Scientists – 18; Skeptic Scientists – 0"

"But if you check out the NewsHour’s archives, not one skeptic scientist ever appeared to debate with any IPCC, NOAA or other scientists who take the side of man-caused global warming, and none have been allowed to be interviewed in singular fashion like Oppenheimer, Trenberth, Karl and others were, when it comes to giving climate assessments. Not one. EVER."

http://junkscience.com/2012/07/13/pbs-newshour-global-warming-coverage-ipccnoaa-scientists-18-skeptic-scientists-0/

past a certain point

bot spam should be dealt with

Disagreement better than ignoring

Hey Judy,

I was referring to PBS science program NOVA, that David Koch supports, not the Newshour, which he has little part in.

You might be interested in the 2 part CBC (radio) "Ideas" program about "King Coal", in which both sides of energy production and emmissions were well represented. I would not agree with every comment, but it was very thoughtful, as are many "Ideas" programs.

My thoughts about CO2 are in my Limbo list, although you well know my leanings. But to say Climate Change is not happening unussually quickly seems contradictory to available evidence, notably the vanishing glaciers around here. Still lots of snow up top, but it is melting quickly and will likely be gone in a couple of months.

It is important to broaden our scope as Climate Change is only one environmental issue/potential problem racing our way, regardless of cause. Likewise human and social issues of accelerated, endless growth pressures, undercutting of evidence based research if it doesn't suit the powers that be, as well as a growing democratic deficit in this nation.

I do not simply try to distract from the CO2 issue, however it is resolved, rather, we have other even more pressing problems to deal with. Perhaps, the intense concentration on the CO2 thing is itself a distraction from those other issues.

Although we all need downtime distractions, personal and social health time, I truly get frustrated with those who spend all their time in sports, gaming and celebrity culture without even dipping their toes into some of these issues. Example - a militarized, big bucks, paranoid overkill Olympics.

Then again if it's too uncomfortable, these folks won't return until things affect them personally, when it's ussually too late.

At least, despite some of our diverse opinions, the issues are discussed, not ignored. However, too much vehemence can end the discourse, as is obvious in the US, and is becoming more pronounced here. Let's not go further in that direction.

Although it's more a meteorology than climatology problem this year, the flooding and slides in our coastal province, in some parts of Europe and Asia, and especially the heat and drought in much of N. America, will surely raise many of our coming food prices. If it similarily repeats or intensifies in the coming years, then it becomes a significant climate issue.

Don't want to hear more about solar activity, as that too goes into the Limbo list. This year's crop damage is evidence based, not speculation. Leave that to the global casino stock market, in which crop futures' speculators have lost big time this year.

I never go to desmogblog - whatever that is

I do my own research - all the information about Inhofe is freely available on US Government websites.

You might care to check some of them yourself.

The endless strawman argument

Owl, the climate changes, always has, always will....and humans have nothing to do with it. The chart accompanying the article below shows CO2 to have been under 315 ppm in the 1930s, a time of heat, drought and stormy weather....to say nothing of the dust storms that carried Prairie topsoil away.
"Newly found weather records show 1930′s as being far worse than the present for extreme weather. The Heat Was On—Before Urbanization and Greenhouse Gases"
Http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/14/newly-found-weather-records-show-1930s-as-being-far-worse-than-the-present-for-extreme-weather/

G.West,just another irrelevant ad hominem and nothing real. Inhof chairs the committee. He could paint his nerdlies orange and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the testimony of over 1000 scientists his committee recorded.

Crop damage by weather events is not proof that CO2 has anything to do with it. Correlation is not causation
Here's another example of "faith-based science"
http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/16/swiss-weather-expert-tendency-for-storms-has-increased-even-if-this-cannot-be-confirmed-statististcally/

More shenanigans:
How USHCN (US Historical Climate Network) Hides The Decline In US Temperatures

'Watch those older temps plummet inside Tom Karl & James Hansen's computer games, which are used to influence critical US govt policy decisions. They cool 1930s by 1.3 degrees, & then claim that past decade has been warmest by a few tenths of a degree. Enron accountants would be proud of such fine data presentation'

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/how-ushcn-hides-the-decline-in-us-temperatures/

Time to move on

Judy, we know that climate change has been going on before we were here, let alone long before we could possibly have had any impact on it.

Both planetary iceball and no ice at all. The age of giant lizards was not just ended by a meteor impact, climate change was a factor. Many species and biomes were degraded and extinguished due to climate change over eons.

Petra was abandoned during the warmer than today, dry height of Mediterranean antiquity, while the barbarians invaded Roman Italy at its decline during poor Asian climate events. Evidence shows that our prairies were once much drier before Europeans' arrival than it is today. The French Revolution was surely much sparked by climatic related food shortages, regardless of Louis XVI's inept political and economic rule. And so on.

It's time to move on. Whatever you, I and other commenters post here is very unlikely to much change the directions of our decision makers, as much as I wish petitions and flash-mobs might do so on some issues. Not ready to give up, but... perhaps a few things like Northern Gateway and such. Had a few says on given issues that may have an influence, but overkill only produces negative results.

Time to move on to other cracks in the bigger dystopian picture.

According to you Owl,

"climate change is happening unusually quickly."

I showed evidence that it isn't, so now, after a display of your knowledge of historical events, you want to "move on".

Where?

I don't see you moving to the logical place, which is CO2 has no effect on climate.

Saying that it does has allowed a pretty dystopian discriminatory energy policy to be foisted on us. It has also been the excuse for electricity providers in the US,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and the EU to go ahead installing the smart meter/smart grid using Blitzkreig tactics.

So, where are you going to move to, to escape the electromagnetic radiation?

"What is now termed Electro-Hypersensitivty (EHS), and is recognized in Sweden as a documented debilitating illness, can actually be called poisoning, as humans and all other living organisms are being damaged by these meters’ moment-to-moment RF pulsing rates. For more than 30 years, distinguished professor Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, has been a highly visible and ardent advocate for those who have been harmed by this technology. His scientific research is ground-breaking. In Sweden, more than 248,000 people are ill from EHS. Most laws are completely outdated to address this crisis. In the US and Canada, many poisoned customers cannot op-out. Or, if this is available to them, customers are charged high op-out fees as well as monthly fees. It is a win-win situation financially for the various utility companies, while customers are being harmed daily. The corporate bottom line takes precedence over health and safety."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31891

I just want to thank all you Carbon Crazies for the opportunity you have given us all to be guinea pigs in an
uncontrolled experiment in electro-magneticaly induced DNA damage.

Power or greed motivated tech is problematic

Judy, I'm with you on the EMR and smart meters, don't like them at all, anymore than GM adulterated foods, especially unlabelled, or nano tech substances in cosmetics and other products, anti-bacterials (actually antibiotics) in so many toiletries and those often toxic pharmaceuticals prescribed by our family doctors, all this just for starters. CO2 emissions is only one of the many issues.

Various technologies can be beneficial to us, although many are surely harmful. The problem is with monetary greed, far too influential lobbying and questionable regulatory regimes.

Several European nations, Sweden included, try to follow the "Precautionary Principle" whereas we are officially guided by a very questionable "Risk Assessment" process.

A few of us can follow Ed D's lead and try to become more self sufficient, mostly off the grid where possible, but that's beyond many people's abilities, let alone awareness.

EMR is a huge problem, but then try to convince heavy smart phone users of that, as well as the many other negatives of this technology. For every one who may consider a change, 100 become hooked on these. Too cool.

A new BC govternment of nearly any stripe is unlikely to stop the smart meter installments and ripping them out only gets one fines or jail time.

How to best raise a basic awareness throughout the population is key, but too much detail can become counterproductive, except for the most curious and motivated. 30 second sound bites don't cut it, but neither does 2 hours of talking heads.

Since there are so many real problems.

why not drop the phony one instead of sliding into the list? "CO2 emissions is only one of the many issues."

No, it isn't:
"Poll finds only 5% of Gen Xers are 'alarmed' and 18% 'concerned' about climate change
Two-thirds, or 66%, of those surveyed last year said they aren't sure global warming is happening and 10% said they don't believe it's occurring.

According to the report cited in this US Today article, "Generation X is the most scientifically literate and best educated generation in American history." Could that be the reason they don't buy the junk science of "man-made" global warming?"
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/07/poll-finds-only-5-of-gen-xers-are.html

a-yup

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint

It is a waste of time to respond to people who don't understand

It is a waste of time to respond to people who don't understand science and who prefer the musings of amateur cranks to empirical evidence.

In fact, there is a very long list of facts, research and evidence which clearly show that global warming is taking place AND that the proximate cause of this trend is human activity.

There IS evidence that climate responds to a variety of mechanisms in the historical context - the current measurable and observable change is no different except in the sense that the primary force involved in the process is human activity.

It is hardly surprising that some (a tiny proportion) scientists - like some politicians - would disagree with the data and the evidence; that has ALWAYS been the case.

What you don't seem to understand is the false consensus

that has been generated. The Climate Crazies are the MINORITY....a really, really tiny minority.

"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)"
read the rest at
www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Sorry

I'm not interested in responding to someone who is into name calling and re-posting material that has been debunked a thousand times over.

Instead of trying to understand the science, global warming critics do little more than make a lot of noise by constantly repeating each others' misinformation in an ever widening cacophony of noise.

The facts are clear to anyone with an open mind and the ability to understand what 'science' is all about.

As I said initially, this is a waste of my time and I'll spend no more of it on you.

If you had any scientific credibility you'd post your own words - not simply parrot what someone else has said repeatedly.

Who debunked what?

I do understand |"the science". There isn't any to point to CO2 being capable of doing anything to influence either weather or climate, or it would have been produced instead of phony outrage.

I, on the other hand, have reason to be outraged at the incredible waste during the last 20 years, since a new study indicates that the majority of climate researchers involved with the major land and ocean temperature datasets are not to be believed. The global warming science facts are that reported "global warming" is fake and the IPCC promulgates this misinformation without any due diligence or fact checking.
"Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C]."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/new-paper-blames-about-half-of-global-warming-on-weather-station-data-homgenization/

I don't imagine anyone will be held accountable just as, except in Iceland, no banksters have been charged either, for their outrages.

Maybe the term "Climate Crazies" isn't appropriate, given that the fiddling with the temperature data was deliberate and seemingly ubiquitous.

West:

you do understand that they are paid by the link? Engaging a bot is feeding a troll, they aren't registering a thing you say, each post by you is a time signal to insert another few spams in the stream. If the janitor won't sweep it up, all you can do is step around it.

kind of like this

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/seo-spammers-vs-the-white-hat-army/22700/

but in the case of Heartland ticks, a little more pernicious.

WTF does Search Engine Optimization

have to do with anything here?

Hak, you seem to have a real genius for irrelevancies.

Hakuin

I've often suspected that was the case.

Cheers

Judy, you clearly don't know much about science. I have proof.

1)The companies that receive gov't subsidies can influence things like public perception and policy responses. They don't influence the underlying science because almost none of them are paying any scientists to gather data. That's from the same report you sited.

2)Out of the 31,000 scientists that signed the OISM petition, 10 MILLION(by OISM standards) other scientists that reside in the States that DIDN'T sign it. That's 0.3% of American "scientists" signed out of 10 million. 0.4% of hydrologists, 2.4% of meteorologists, 1.2% of ocean scientists... Too bad the petition didn't include farmers!