Totally agree, however, you don't have to be a climatologist to understand the science of climate, glacier cycles and so on. Even those scientist that agree that there is global warming and that it is in "small part" due to humans agree that even if we stop all carbon admissions, the overall effect would be extremely minimal over the next decades and would not change the normal progression of the climate cycle. Even the Scientist that first made the claim regarding carbon emissions, global warming and the effects of humans on changing the normal cycle; changed his findings to include that there is little the human poplulation can do to change the glacial cycle/weather cycle that has existed since the creation of the planet. Global weather cycles, glacial cycles are inevetible. What we need to concentrate our energy and money on is preparing for these changes and funding research to do so. I urge members to do their own research on the history of glacial cycles, temperatures and weather. I have a minor in Biology and in addition have done extensive research on this subject. I do not deny that the planet is warming but I disagree that there is anything significant that we as a people can do to change the cycle. It will take much much more than reducing current Carbon admissions. We need to spend money on researching ways to deal with the warming and ways to make a significant effect within a period of 100 years on the warming cycle.
Laughs!!!! If you think calling me a socialist is some sort of insult then you obviously do not know that Australia was founded on Socialist principles!!!
I've never seen a single savior of environment who has read the Constitution of the state IT (savior of environment) lives in. What state do you live in? Lets open the Constitution of the state and start reading. What country do you live in? Lets open the Constitution of Australia or the US and search for the words socialism, capitalism, free market, democracy, science" or "scientific. The US was founded as anti- socialism, anti - capitalism, anti -free market, anti-democracy, anti - science", anti -"scientific. Proud to be an American and anti- of all the above. Long live the Constitution.
Your claim without any evidence of why "acidification" was used instead of "neutralization". Really Windy, really? From 2003 "The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters". " Admission of using semantics to influence opinion; evidence that anti-AGW are using semantics to cast doubt on AGW. Where is your evidence that pro-AGW are using semantics. You have nothing but your opinion.
"acidification" ( CONTRARILY TO THE CHEMISTRY DEFINITION OF SUCH) was used instead of "neutralization" (IN COMPLIEINCE WITH THE DEFINITION OF CHEMISTRY) and such a deception is justified in peer reviewed publications of overwhelming majorities of the scientific community because of Buuuush! Buuuush! Buuuush! or because of whatever reason or absence of thereof guardian.co.uk has insunuated in the article about Buuuush’s speaches without submitting any documents to support such insinuations... and if guardian.co.uk ever dared to back up its absence of reason, what lesson should chemistry learn from guardian.co.uk?
Did you not know that invoking the name of Bush is extremely powerful? So powerful in fact that the mere utterance of the word can undo the very laws of nature. If you just mix acids in a bases solution in chemistry in a chemistry lab sure you may get water and salt. But if you say the magic word you get instead get acid powerful enough to destroy all on earth. BUSH acid has a PH of -9000. Dont you know how dangerous that is.
