Name-calling, mesage shooting Alarmists need read no further...

Doomed Planet


Quote:

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” Vaclav Klaus Blue Planet in Green Shackles

https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/06/transcript-ian-plimer-interview

BC: You're a bit of a poster boy for the climate change skeptic movement.

IP: Well, I'm not sceptical about climate change at all. Climate's always changed. They always have, and they always will, and that's in many ways the purpose of the book that if you ignore history you come up with a conclusion which just doesn't fit in with the evidence, and that is that we're suddenly in a period where climates change. We're not. Climates always change, they change much quicker and much greater than anything we measure today.

| May 09, 2009
Article from:  The Australian
Heaven and Earth
By Ian Plimer
Connor Court, 503pp, $39.95
ONE of the peculiar things about being an astronomer is that you receive, from time to time, monographs on topics such as "a new theory of the electric universe", or "Einstein was wrong", or "the moon landings were a hoax".

The writings are always earnest, often involve conspiracy theories and are scientifically worthless.

One such document that arrived last week was Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth. What makes this case unusual is that Plimer is a professor -- of mining geology -- at the University of Adelaide. If the subject were anything less serious than the future habitability of the planet Earth, I wouldn't go to the trouble of writing this review.

Plimer sets out to refute the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 have changed the climate. He states in his acknowledgments that the book evolved from a dinner in London with three young lawyers who believed the consensus. As Plimer writes: "Although these three had more than adequate intellectual material to destroy the popular paradigm, they had neither the scientific knowledge nor the scientific training to pull it apart stitch by stitch. This was done at dinner."

This is a remarkable claim. If Plimer is right and he is able to show that the work of literally thousands of oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, and snow and ice researchers during the past 100 years is fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize. This is the scale of Plimer's claim.

Before reading any further, I examined Plimer's publication list on the University of Adelaide website to see what he has published in refereed journals. There are a scant 17 such papers since 1994, two as first author with the titles "Manganoan garnet rocks associated with the Broken Hill Pb-Zn-Ag orebody" and "Kasolite from the British Empire Mine". Absolutely nothing on climate science.

Now, before I am accused of attacking the man and not the argument, let me point out that scientists regard peer-reviewed journal publications as fundamental for advancing science. They allow ideas to be exchanged, tested, improved on and, quite frequently, discarded. If Plimer can do what he claims, and can prove that human emissions of CO2 have no effect on the climate, then he owes it to the scientific community and, in fact, humanity, to publish his arguments in a refereed journal.

Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.

He recycles a graph, without attribution, from Martin Durkin's Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, neglecting even to make the changes that Durkin made following an outcry over the fact that the past two decades of temperature measurements had been mysteriously deleted.

Plimer claims that scientists such as himself, who do not agree with the consensus, are labelled deniers, "yet their scientific doubts are not addressed". Nothing could be further from the truth. All of Plimer's arguments have been addressed ad nauseam by patient climate scientists on websites or in the literature.

To appreciate the errors in Plimer's book you don't have to be a climate scientist. For example, take the measurement of the global average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is obviously important, so scientists measure it with great care at many locations across the world.

Precision measurements have been made daily since 1958 at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a mountain-top site with a clear airflow unaffected by local pollution. The data is in excellent agreement with ice cores from several sites in Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of scientific papers have been written on the topic, hundreds of scientists are involved from many independent research groups.

Plimer, however, writes that a simple home experiment indoors can show that in a week, CO2 can vary by 75 parts per million by volume, equal to about 40 years' worth of change at the present rate. He thinks this "rings alarm bells" on the veracity of the Mauna Loa data, which shows a smoothly rising concentration.While it is undoubtedly true that if you measure CO2 in your home it could vary by large amounts from day to day -- depending, for example, on whether you have the windows open or closed, or how many people are in the house at the time -- this is not the right way to measure a global average. That's why scientists go to mountain-tops or Antarctica or to the isolated Cape Grimm on the Tasmanian coast rather than measuring CO2 in their living rooms.

Incredible as it may seem, this quality of argument is typical of the book. While the text is annotated profusely with footnotes and refers to papers in the top journals, thus giving it the veneer of scholarship, it is often the case that the cited articles do not support the text. Plimer repeatedly veers off to the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment, to advance all manner of absurd ideas

Is that the Ashley article Scrappy?  Already been refuted here sonny along with Ashley the non-climate scientist non publish non peer reviewed critic.

Why not try refuting the actual text of this topic's interview sunshine.

Grendel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 11:12am:

Is that the Ashley article Scrappy?  Already been refuted here sonny along with Ashley the non-climate scientist non publish non peer reviewed critic. Why not try refuting the actual text of this topic's interview sunshine.

Slimer has already been debunked by David Karoly, a fellow Geologist,  Malcolm Walter, planetary scientist, Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science, Prof Ian Enting from University of Melbourne, and there are probably many more academics by now who are disgusted by the nonsense in this book.

Then there's Professor Barry Brook, at Plimer’s own University of Adelaide:  


Quote:

"Ian Plimer… quotes a couple of thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers when mounting specific arguments. What Ian doesn't say is that the vast majority of these authors have considered the totality of evidence on the topic of human-induced global warming and conclude that it is real and a problem,”

Professor Matthew England, director of NSW University, talking about higher CO2 levels in prehistory:


Quote:

“Yes, this did occur at various times, for example 40 million years ago during the Eocene. But does Plimer tell his readers that at this time sea levels were 50 metres higher than today? Certainly humanity did not yet exist and importantly all of our cities, agriculture and infrastructure were millions of years from being built,”

karoly...  puhlease...  what a wanker, propaganda puppet for the Greens AGW push.  Only Gore has less credibility.  same goes for Matthew...  how many more vested interest Alarmists you gonna quote?

Grendel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 6:56pm:

karoly...  puhlease...  what a wanker, propaganda puppet for the Greens AGW push.  Only Gore has less credibility.  same goes for Matthew...  how many more vested interest Alarmists you gonna quote?

Oh you know these people do you ?   ;D

Well it seems like you include virtually every national academy in the world in your list of 'alarmists' and also organisations such as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

I should just leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

Seen and heard Karoly many times thanks.
Only someone living under a rock wouldn't have hear or seen Gore over the decades.  only the completely ignorant wouldn't have rolled their eyes watching An Inconvenient Truth...


Quote:

Plimer knows a thing or two about taking on powerful interests. He is not a man to be dismissed easily; his impressive academic and publishing record attests to that. In addition to his day job at the University of Adelaide's school of environmental sciences, he is emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and the author of seven books and 120 scholarly papers. He is Australia's best-known academic geologist and certainly one of the most outspoken.

Hey Bozo, you must have one impressive CV to dismiss Plimer as if he was an idiot.

Grendel wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2009 at 5:16pm:

Seen and heard Karoly many times thanks. Only someone living under a rock wouldn't have hear or seen Gore over the decades.  only the completely ignorant wouldn't have rolled their eyes watching An Inconvenient Truth... Quote: Plimer knows a thing or two about taking on powerful interests. He is not a man to be dismissed easily; his impressive academic and publishing record attests to that. In addition to his day job at the University of Adelaide's school of environmental sciences, he is emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and the author of seven books and 120 scholarly papers. He is Australia's best-known academic geologist and certainly one of the most outspoken. Hey Bozo, you must have one impressive CV to dismiss Plimer as if he was an idiot.

I never said he was an idiot.  ;D

wow thanks btw... I won a bet on your answer Bozo.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  

I never said you said he WAS an idiot.  Oh dear...  ::)

All this grandstanding about his qualifications is irrelevant anyway.

I'm more concerned about the hundreds of errors and ignorance of basic science that appear in his book. Let's talk about his arguments.

I don't care if he's the King of Nepal. It's what he says that should be central to the argument.

I have a dentist who is totally brilliant, but I wouldn't see him about a broken leg.

You've been grandstanding about people and their qualifications since day one Bozo.

But you are right about people believing in something that has at its core an incorrect premise.  When are you going to admit it eh?

Hey Grendel? What's your source for the CO2 levels in the Cambrian anyway?

It wouldn't be your mate Plimer, because he thinks that atmospheric CO2 levels vary by up to 45% at any given time.

I thought it was getting a bit windy with all those tonnes of CO2 rushing in and out of the atmosphere  ;D

No I don't think it was Plimer...  several sources gave variations from 4500-7000ppm  argue it on the appropriate topic.

I'm sure Plimer would know. No No - I'm talking about Plimer so it's on topic.

So how many studies support this figure, and what is it based on?  

Plimer's the man.  You can look up Plimer. He's got lots of references. (pity they're mostly irrelevant)

What's the point of a reference book if you don't use it?

YAWN...  that isn't trying harder now is it.

How about posting your CV against Plimer's?  That ought to be interesting.

Grendel wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 11:09am:

YAWN...  that isn't trying harder now is it. How about posting your CV against Plimer's?  That ought to be interesting.

Hell yeah! Does Plimer have any qualifications on Environmental Science?

Does he have any working knowledge of Climate modelling?

No??????

Just as a reminder, Ian Plimer's reputation is rapidly going down the gurgler:

Kurt Lambeck, earth scientist and president of the Australian Academy of Science, comments on ABC Radio National’s “Ockham’s Razor” about Heaven and Earth.  Audio with transcript. (Short link: bit.ly/klambeckplimer )

   To give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.

   Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.

Climate scientist Barry Brook has a page of notes on Heaven and Earth, including links to other commentaries.  (Short link: tinyurl.com/plimer )

   Ian Plimer’s book is a case study in how not to be objective. Decide on your position from the outset, and then seek out all the facts that apparently support your case, and discard or ignore all of those that contravene it. He quotes a couple of thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers when mounting specific arguments. What Ian doesn’t say is that the vast majority of these authors have considered the totality of evidence on the topic of human-induced global warming and conclude that it is real and a problem.

   [I]t may well be held up as an example for the future. An example of just how deluded and misrepresentative the psuedo-sceptical war against science really was in the first decade of the 21st century.

Mathematician Ian Enting has produced Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’—Checking the Claims, a 31-page document listing the errors and problems in Heaven and Earth. (Short link: bit.ly/entingplimer )

   Overall:

   • it has numerous internal inconsistencies;

   • it often misrepresents the operation of the IPCC and the content of IPCC reports;

   • in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references is often mis-quoted.

   Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations.

Earth scientist Andrew Glikson responds with Plimer wants to talk science? OK, here goes… in Crikey (Short link: bit.ly/gliksonplimer )

   Plimer’s book claims current global warming is a natural event consistent with climate variability through time and attributed primarily to the sun.

   The book negates the well documented consistent relations between climate and carbon gases, which through the Earth’s history resulted in temperature changes in the range of several degrees C , including abrupt climate changes and related mass extinction of species .

Climate scientist David Karoly reviews Heaven and Earth (audio with transcript):

   Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear.

No science in Plimer’s primer by astronomer Michael Ashley in The Australian. (Short link:  bit.ly/ashleyplimer )

   Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.

The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” by computer scientist and climate change commentator Tim Lambert.  (Short link:  bit.ly/tlambertplimer )

   He accepts any factoid that supports his conclusion and rejects any evidence that contradicts his conclusion.

A review by geologist and planetary scientist Malcolm Walter on The Science Show, ABC Radio National.  Audio. (Short link: bit.ly/walterplimer )

   He has done a disservice to science and the community at large.

Mike Pope does a nice job at Online Opinion of debunking Plimer’s central claims in Heaven, Earth and science fiction, concluding:

   To avoid following the polar bear to extinction, homo sapiens would do well to reject the science fiction espoused by Plimer. That may be a bit harsh on science fiction writers whose work is often prescient, even plausible. No such claims can be made for Ian Plimer’s book.

http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

What do you expect they are all on the bandwagon ie the other side of the debate.

Unfortunately that side tends to like attacking people just like you do.

YET PLIMER AND MANY OTHER WELL CREDENTIALED PEOPLE DISSENT FROM THEIR POV.

These are all people you treat with disdain.  I find that pathetic.

Al Gore, who is not even a scientist, was attacked for 14 scientific errors in his book. In most cases they were shown not to be erroneous in the first place.

With Plimer, it's up to 38 pages so far, and counting - and he claims to be a scientist!   ;D  


another view:

Professor Charlie Veron, former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said every original statement Plimer makes in the book on coral and coral reefs is incorrect, and that "[Plimer] serve[s] up diagrams from no acknowledged source, diagrams known to be obsolete and diagrams that combine bits of science with bits of fiction

Gore has 35 errors...  some I cede some I don't.

J-Curve anyone.

puhlease dont give me lists of names I can give you just as many names from the otherside.

why don't you stop wasting time and get a Plimer quote on the CO2 theory and tell us all why it's wrong. Prove it wrong.

Well the fact that you are an advocate of it would be the first clue.

Hysterical, shrill denial, from the loony right.

That is right up your "left????" alley.

Anyone whose degree of self awareness is so low, that after proffering right, and extreme right wing views, as well as the almost compulsory ultra nationalist jargon, for years and years, and yet still contends that they are politically left, certainly has credibility issues, as well as identity issues.

You are an idiot Mozz pls go away.

This isn't politics to people who care.

Not shrill, not extreme right or even rightwing, certainly not looney.

let me guess you haven't read or understood anything.  :D :D :D

Oh and please don't lie about my political beliefs ok.  It's pathetic coming from you.

Oh and Mozz one thing I think you'll find if you open your eyes and switch on your brain and that is that Plimer is disgusted with the politicisation of the subject and the science.

Grendel - you haven't answered my Plimer question yet -


Quote:

Hey Grendel? What's your source for the CO2 levels in the Cambrian?

- and make sure you show the 'Plimer' citation - and less of the 'Plimer' whingeing.  ;D (I just invented a new swear word)

I already answered it ...  so please stop lying for just a minute and try to answer some questions.  painful as they may be to you.

Give up muso, it is like talking to a child.
Just happens to be a very, naughty, petulant child.

Grendel NEVER answers questions, just states that he already has.
He uses the same tactic on any issue which leaves him without facts to back up his position.

Hey Mozz, bugger off...  I answered his question, that makes you stupid and wrong, it also makes him a liar...  which many of us are already aware of.

You obviously didn't notice but there was a caveat put on this topic...  there was also a link to text for what the topic was about...  yet all we've had is the same old ridicule and rubbish from the usual suspects.

Why don't you surprise me and actually read the topic opening text and make a comment on it...  seems Bozo is incapable of it.

Grendel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 6:56pm:

karoly...  puhlease...  what a wanker, propaganda puppet for the Greens AGW push.  Only Gore has less credibility.  same goes for Matthew...  how many more vested interest Alarmists you gonna quote?

You see that's the kind of retort you come up with. There were some perfectly good arguments made by all those people, yet you chose to ignore them and attack the person, not the argument.

For example:

Quote:

Yes, this did occur at various times, for example 40 million years ago during the Eocene. But does Plimer tell his readers that at this time sea levels were 50 metres higher than today? Certainly humanity did not yet exist and importantly all of our cities, agriculture and infrastructure were millions of years from being built

What does it matter what conditions were like on Earth during geological time? There was no human civilization.

Can you imagine if the conditions changed to those of 200 million years ago? Human beings would be unable to breath because of the low oxygen content. During this period, atmospheric oxygen levels dropped to around 12%. The land animals of the day that survived had novel solutions to this. Rather than having a diaphragm to force air in and out of lungs,  Saurischian dinosaurs had lungs attached to a series of thin-walled air sacs that functioned something like bellows to move air through the body.

Life will adapt, yes, but not in the space of a few generations. There are limitations to evolutionary processes.

muso wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 11:20am:

Just as a reminder, Ian Plimer's reputation is rapidly going down the gurgler

Yeah, the loser can only manage to get on the cover of The Spectator nowadays.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/i/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Yes...  unfortunately the great hypocrite Bozo can only come up with stuff like this...


Quote:

You see that's the kind of retort you come up with. There were some perfectly good arguments made by all those people, yet you chose to ignore them and attack the person, not the argument.

POT KETTLE... VERY BLACK!

At least I read and listen to other povs unlike Bozo.
Oh or being totally disingenuous post comical drawings of Trilobites.  :D

Quote:

So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’ What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty. All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves. Plimer doesn’t trust them because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality.

Grendel wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 11:22am:

Quote: So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’

Irrelevant. The crux of this issue is the effects on the human population. We all know that mass extinctions have occurred over geological time. We're talking about the most rapid temperature change and the most rapid CO2 increase since all the time that human beings have existed on this planet.  



Quote:

What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is ........ It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty. All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves. Plimer doesn’t trust them because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality.

[/quote]

If I could post outside a proxy server I'd provide a more detailed rebuttal.

The Roman period was not warmer than today on a global basis.

This video addresses the issue better than I can. This is for the benefit of all those other than the 'faithful denialists'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

I don't know how anybody other than the faithful can accept anything that Plimer writes given that we're up to 30 pages of errors in "Heaven and Earth" and counting.

Check the link in the other thread. Some of the 'errors' (hmmmm - what do you call an error if it's deliberate again?) are so fundamental that it doesn't take a scientist to verify that they are wrong.

This one is not bad on CO2 - for the non faithful only:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=channel

muso wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 4:32pm:

This one is not bad on CO2 - for the non faithful only: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=channel

Sorry, Muso, the (mental) tide turned about two years ago. Antropogenic climate change is what tree hugging was 20 years ago. ANd globa cooling 40 years ago. Nobody is listening any more.


Get rid of the pony tail, the goatie and the hemp jumper and get with the progam.

muso wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 4:32pm:

This one is not bad on CO2 - for the non faithful only: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=channel

Keep peddling what you like but it is quiet irrelevant what you say exept may be for your income.

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 9:18pm:

muso wrote on Jul 10th, 2009 at 4:32pm: This one is not bad on CO2 - for the non faithful only: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=channel Sorry, Muso, the (mental) tide turned about two years ago. Antropogenic climate change is what tree hugging was 20 years ago. ANd globa cooling 40 years ago. Nobody is listening any more. Get rid of the pony tail, the goatie and the hemp jumper and get with the progam.

If you think I'm a hippy, you're way off.  I'm about as conservative as they come. Actually virtually 'everybody' is listening outside of the blogosphere. Every country in the world is taking it seriously, and that includes Stephen Harper's Canada, and even the Czech Republic where smokers are welcome to die early and benefit the rest of the population by taking up fewer resources :)

http://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/default.asp?lang=En&n=9C2CF393-1

Every single scientific institude or academy of national or international standing is behind the moves that are already happening while you bury your head in the sand.

As with most issues, the man on the street is concerned with other more fundamental and personal issues.

So Soren, your ideas are more in the 'way out' or fringe category than mine. How's the pony tail, the goatie and the hemp sweater coming along?

Yes I must have been fooled once again.

I have noticed that everyone is TALKING about it. Looking from where you are sitting, obviously everyone is also implementing serious measures to counter antropogenic climate change. They even have webpages dedicated to climate change. That must cost, what, $40 a month?
From where I am sitting, however, it looks like it's not serious enough for anyone to actually do anything beyond the urgent webpages - other than speak in cliches, with a conderned voice, brow knotted.

It is all pretence to placate the likes of you.

And I am sure you are avery decent and agreeable man and I have no antipathy on a personal level.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.