I look at the claims of both sides, and I look at sources of those claims and who funds them, and I still find I have more reason to doubt the oil funded claims. I am always interested in the truth, and I am always interested in who profits from bending the truth.

I am sure that you and I will both agree that greed can be a great driving force both for economic development and for technological development. In that case lets, just for the sake of argument, say both the pro and anti sides of the greenhouse gas debate are both equally greedy. Now, if both are equal in this regard, but one (a)offers a continuation of deterioration in the environment while the other (b) offers an improvement of or a slowing down of the deterioration in the environment and a path towards future more sustainable economic economic development, which do you pick? (a) or (b)?

To me, who has no direct share in the profit of either side, the best group to back seems to be (b), since I actually care about the future. What do you say? Ray seems to be picking (a).

Ahh...but you see, Myr, this is a rather different issue than global warming, is it not? I readily accept the need for industry to be more conscious of the environment if for no other reason than to reduce pollution. However, that is unrelated to the issue of human impact on observed global warming.

I remain unconvinced as to the nature and extent of human impact on the observed global warming. As such, I remain unconvinced that measures like Kyoto are in our best interests. To relate this to the topic of the thread, junk science is often used to support various agendas...the global warming proponents do this every bit as much as those who deny the reality fo global warming. I mentioned one such example concerning crocodiles in my first post in this thread.

You have at times displayed something bordering on paranoia with regards to your ideas of perceived secret, malevolent intentions within the Kyoto Protocol. Best interests? The best interests lie in preserving our planet as a suitable habitation for our species and others, and all other decisions, economic or otherwise, must be made within the context of that best interest.

You see, Myr, this is exactly the sort of junk thought we get with junk science. ...preserving our planet as a suitable habitation for our species and others... There is not one single scintilla of evidence to suggest that global warming is going to make our planet unsuitable for us or for most other species. Not a single iota of evidence. Yet...you act as if Kyoto is necessary to save life on Earth as we know it. The observed climate change is within the range documented in the geological record. Life on Earth has managed to survive, even thrive, in the face of those changes. Indeed, in geological terms, our planet is COLDER than has been the norm and one could argue warming is inevitable. You would have us struggle in the face of that inevitablity on the basis of what I think is junk science. It breeds junk policy...such as Kyoto.

I have regularly and repeatedly said I am in favor of greener industry and manufacturing. My motivation is protecting the environment from the negative effects of pollution. I am far more concerned about sulfur and nitrogen emmissions than I am with carbon emmissions. I am worried about chemical pollutants discharged into the watershed. Let the climate change...we can, as we always have, adjust.

By suitablity I do not just mean species survival, I mean social survival.

Is Kyoto necessary to save all life as we know it? I never said that, but you will need future ecological protocol which exceed Kyoto if you don't want society to be in serious trouble. I largely share your worries about the Middle East, and the threat the people there pose to the West and the World in general, but you do not share my views on a far bigger threat.

You are perhaps aware, that our species, or ancestral species, have/has "adjusted" to climate change at times, by almost dying out? You are aware of the many examples of social collapse that history offers to us? As big a fan I am of the study evolution and the study of cultural/biological cycles over time, I am not a fan of global society putting a gun to its head and frantically pulling the trigger, looking for that one chamber that is not empty.

Suppose the very popular "Vibrating Strings Theory" of theoretical physics turns out to be nothing more than junk science? Many physics are intrigued by the "elegance and flexibility" of string theory, but what if five years down the road some brilliant theor. physicist does the math and proves beyond a doubt that string theory, branes, and the 10 or 11 folded dimensions that come with it is all a big phony ball of bunk?

Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario has written a book "The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next." Smolin claims that for the past 30 years or so physicists have been focused on finding a unifying theory to fit the confusing string theory at the expense of all other possibilities. He is quoted as saying "String theory now has such a dominant position in the academy that it is practically career suicide for young theoretical physicists not to join the field."

Should physicists get off the String bandwagon and develop alternative theories which can be tested, or should they continue searching for the answer to the mysterious vibrating strings?

A scientific theory is only junk if it continues to be supported, long after it has been disproven. If string theory is disproved, then so be it. String theory is actually hard to either prove or disprove right now, so any effort that will prove or disprove it, will actually reveal a large about of data about nature.

Not everybody is on the "bandwagon", and many of those who are on it, actually would like real proof of strings.

A few weeks ago (and I wish to god I could find it again) I was reading the statements of some scientist who was recounting his findings about the correlation between the increase in carbon dioxide and the increase in global temperatures. He was explaining how his studies of the geological record indicated that increases in global temperatures has, over the ions, preceded corresponding increases in global CO2 levels.

His conclusion was that it would be more accurate to say that global warming causes increased carbon dioxide, as opposed to the opposite, that increased carbon dioxide contributes to global warming.

Naturally, I'm sure he must have been an oil company flunky.

No, but the messianic high priest of the Church of Global Warming, the Rt. Rev. Al Gore sure as hell preaches global extinction.

Global Warming has become, just the latest of the New Age religions, faith-based and requiring excommunication of non-believers, a.k.a. "global warming deniers".

Recently I was reading about the two mile long ice core samples which were taken from the Antarctic ice sheet at Vostok by the Russian, U.S., and French team from 1992 -1998. The samples showed that the levels of greenhouse gases are higher now than at any other time in the last 420,000 years. These weren't neo-conservative Republican or liberal Democrat ice core samples, they were just plain ordinary independently taken samples.

Previous non-partisan ice core samples (going back approx. 150,000 years ago) revealed 2 ice age cycles. The Vostok ice core revealed 4 ice ages at approximately 100,000 year intervals (called an inter-glacial period) these IGP's last somewhere around 20,000 years before regressing back to the colder ice age climate. Some scientists claim we are currently in about the 18,000th year of the last interglacial warmup period. No doubt 2,000 years from now we'll all be complaining about how cold it's getting and how some weasel named Al Gore agitated all those alarmist pinko environmentalists who went too far when they lobbied congress with their incessant meddling and we ended up reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc..

All four of the 420,000 year ice age cycles appear to have ended up warmer after levels of C02 and methane rose by amounts smaller than the current increase...during the cold phase the CO2 levels were around 180 PPM and during the warmer phase, they went up to 280-300 PPM. Methane in icy times was 320-350 PPB (with a B) and went up to 650-770 PPB during the warmer period. At the time the samples were taken, the methane level was 1,700 PPB.

Something caused such a huge increase (or it seems huge anyway, maybe it's another very long stage we don't know about yet)....of course the Russians and the French (not exactly our allies anyway) could have conspired with the liberals on the U.S. team to falsify their findings. Obviously more ice core samples need to be taken and reinterpreted by a more conservative research group.