Fred Singer on Global Warming

[WalkerARCHITECTS]

FRED singer is a joke and widely criticized as a big oil puppet.

According to the press, many of his fellow scientists call him a fraud, a charlatan and a showman, but Fred Singer calls himself "a realist." Singer, an 84-year-old Princeton-trained physicist, is the grandfather of the global warming skeptics who dispute the established scientific consensus that global warming is real, that it is caused by the pollution humans are pumping into the atmosphere, and that it will be catastrophic if measures are not taken immediately.

Singer seems to enjoy being provocative. "I hate to tell you this, but polar bears like to eat tiny little seal pups," he told a conference of global warming skeptics recently. Polar Bears are endangered and may soon be extinct as a direct consequence of global warming, which Singer has made considerable amounts of money denying.

Singer does not deny the planet is warming, but says man is not the cause, and argues, against overwhelming scientific evidence, that a warmer planet will actually be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet. Singer's argument has been completely disproved, and remains only as fringe science.

Polar bears, though, are not likely to benefit. They are starving because the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, which is cutting them off from seal populations, and some scientists have suggested they will be extinct in the wild before the end of this century if the warming trend is not reversed.

This from Richard Littlemore:

"In his opening presentation to the Heartland Institute's climate change quibblefest, the ever-unreliable Dr. S. Fred Singer says, "Let's conclude that greenhouse gases are not responsible for global warming."

Oh yes, let's.

Of course, according to form, Singer offers no proof to support this conclusion. He claims in a passing reference that he and a couple of other (more credible) authors have recently published a journal article that categorically dismisses the role of CO2 in global warming. But that article, which Singer has been misrepresenting for months, does no such thing.

Which brings us back to the same problem with always have with Fred Singer: the man is a liar. He takes money from the tobacco industry and the energy industry and then denies it. He makes up "facts" and then tries to blame others for having done so. And when we point out that he is a corporate-funded fraud, he complains that we are avoiding a discussion of science in favor of hurling ad hominem attacks.

Objectively, there is little evidence that Fred Singer is in the science business. He appears to maintain a tiny science sideline on which he can continue to support his main gig, which is consulting for every think tank in America that denies the science of global warming. Fred Singer is an activist, a PR guy who refuses even to acknowledge that's his main job.

As we have said before, you would think that reputable scientists would be embarrassed to be seen with him. But then, we leave it to you to judge the reputation of the other "experts" participating in the climate skeptics conference."

[erjavi]

Yeah, finally the question begins to be interesting, we are entering in totemland.

Hi Herr Springer, my name is javi, erjavi. I saw your message in standardised architecture this morning and, if I understood well (http://www.springer.com/springerwiennewyork/architecture?SGWID=0-40628-0-0-0 ) I ´d like propose you a bet. Please, let me introduce the matter.

Ok, we are in Las Vegas, a dryer city than expands the dessert model exploiting water in the surroundings, and building in a unsustainable way, just for receive 40 millions dreamers each year, maybe looking for a better world.

Casino Royale: Mr. Walker is the croupier, Mr. Matthews is the Director Hall, and the Casino Director Board are http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/sourceevent/index.html , http://globalwarming.einnews.com/?promo=600 , etc, there were scientific web published this morning, Mr. Matthews knows them ( I do not use lady protocol because till now no women wrote on standardised architecture)

My bet is simple Herr Springer. If ice sheet is under 2007 minimum levels this year, you will mention clearly in all your publications a brief note referring this forum with an abstract about standardised architecture. If the ice sheet is equal or bigger respect 2007, the Venice draw is for you. Because due the crisis you have advantage this year Herr Springer, if I win I will obtain too a free trip of one week to Germany, two days in Friburg, two in Munich and three in Berlin. If agree, Mr. Walker will signal us a neutral place for deposit both the Project and your guarantee in Madrid.

Unfortunately I have winner cards, all the elements of the eco-equation continues going worst, but think than if I win we both win, and if I loose we both win too, then I´ll understand why European democrats did not publish nothing respect this forum. The panorama will be more clear, at least this year, but please if somebody has good reasons for expand the debate please do not doubt do it, we will win all).

Board directors will transmit Mr. Walker the result so he will give us the final card. Do you accept the bet, Herr Springer?

If I misunderstood your announce then forget my offer and accept my excuses, Herr Springer. I´ll maintain my offer for any mass media during 72 hours since the moment this mail is updated in the web, I must come back to the beach.

Wilkommen

Javi, er javi.

[solidred]

[csintexas]

I don't think scientific objectivity would include supporting the view that the Earth is the center of the universe. If someone is an outright fraud they need to be identified otherwise it confuses the issue and takes away from real science.

Every possible view is not equal in science. Only views that have a basis in reality are equal. As long as he is not denied the ability to speak or conduct science he is being treated fairly. Simply calling him a fraud is just someones opinion which may or may not be true until it is proven.

He is certainly either directly or indirectly calling the global warming community a fraud by denying their scientific findings.

How far would we get in science if every time some wacko came along and made some crazy claim we stopped everything until every single human on the planet agreed he was a wacko?

[WalkerARCHITECTS]

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry. Lies lead global warming skeptics to the land of the fool.

Mr. Singer largely publishes his own views on science which are off the trusted track. It should be pointed out that the primary guru's of the global warming skeptics are in the pocket of fossil fuel special interests.

Fred Singer makes his money by serving the fossil fuel industry, as does very well known author, Patrick J. Michaels. Most of the denial of global warming that shows up here arises from the works created for hire by the fossil fuel special interest groups.

Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.

His views on global warming are often used by those who deny global warming and send our associated polarized newsletters.

Patrick J. Michaels is Editor of the World Climate Report, this is a a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, now that is "an advocacy science consulting firm" that Mr. Michaels founded and runs. This is not good science.

Patrick J. Michaels in my opinion is not an objective researcher doing climate science. However as a pundit of global warming he has driven climate science to look closer, improve their climate models and be better prepared to defend the large body of climate science. As unintentional devil's advocate his opus of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the science, has served to clarify and popularize the issue.

In an affidavit in a Vermont court case, Mr. Michaels described the "mission" of the firm as being to "publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary." In effect, New Hope Environmental Services is a PR firm.

Mr. Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are, but leaked documents, have revealed to the press, that several were power utilities which operate coal power stations. On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker with leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.

Mr. Michaels is not speaking for free or writing for free, he is in the business of being a global warming skeptic just like Fred Singer.

Mr. Michaels is also associated with a number of think tanks and advocacy groups which dispute global warming. He is a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute, a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute and a member of the Advisory Board of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Between December 1998 and September 2001 he was listed as a "Scientific Advisor" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."

Michaels "co-operated with Ross McKitrick on another paper that managed to "prove" that global warming wasn't happening by mixing up degrees with radians]."

In August 2004, Michaels told Business Week "We know how much the planet is going to warm. It is a small amount, and we can't do anything about it."

But Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another scientist to withdraw similar remarks.) But Gleick stood by his statement and others have joined him.

Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists, was quoted by Ross Gelbspan as stating that "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."

And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the observations upon which Patrick Michaels draws his case are not good enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."

In March 2009, Michaels, under the auspices of the Cato Institute, circulated a draft advertisement that stated: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now ... The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior." The ad statements were analyzed and criticized in detail at the RealClimate web site.

In support of the statements, Chip Knappenberger of World Climate Report referred readers to recent testimony by Michaels to the House of Representatives Energy and Environment sub-committee. That too was responded to at length by Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org.

Ptrick J. Michaels is a well eductaed man who makes a good living as a puppet to interests wishing to forestall environmental legislation and spin climate change related debate. His books and speeches have encouraged a large number of persons to deny the science related to global warming. Here is an expose on who is funding Patrick J. Michaels.

Funding

Patrick J. Michaels prominence has also led to new funding from fossil fuel interests. In 1991-92 an anonymous donor made of grant of $50,000 to Michaels for his work on climate change, the Edison Electric Institute paid $25,000 between 1992 and 1995 for a literature review of climate change and updates. Western Fuels Association contributed $63,000 for "research on global climate change" and between 1994 $98,000 from Gesamtverband des Deutschen Stenkohlenbergbaus in Germany. As Michaels corporate funding was taking off, in 1994 he founded and is the sole owner of New Hope Environmental Services, which refers to itself as "an advocacy science consulting firm". Aside from publishing the World Climate Report, the firm boasts that its staff often provide testimony to Congress and commentary on climate issues to media outlets.

Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels.

One substantial benefit in having created New Hope Environmental Services was that corporate funders could route financial support for Michaels work via the firm which was under no obligation to disclose who its clients were. After its was created, further corporate funding was noticeably absent from Michaels university curriculum vitae. He continued to attract public funding for projects, such as $195,000 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for "research on science and policy on global warming." He also gained $98,000 from the Cato Institute to underwrite the the production of The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming, a book he co-authored with Robert C. Balling, Jr.

A furor was raised when it was revealed in 2006 that, at customer expense, Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming. In a nine-page memo, the general manager of the Colorado-based IREA co-operative, Stanley Lewandowski Jr., railed against the the scientific consensus supporting the need to curb greenhouse gases. The memo, which was circulated in mid-July 2006 to more than 900 members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, was leaked to ABC News. "We decided to support Dr. Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.) ... In February of this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." Lewandowski also wrote that IREA had rattled the tin for Michaels amongst other groups and "have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr. Michaels group." The memo also reports on others campaigning against taking action to limit climate change. "The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has been running two ads in ten states that were financed by General Motors and the Ford Motor Company," he wrote.

Asked about his funding on CNN in August 2002 Michaels rejected the suggestion that industry funding influenced his work. "Well, you know, most of my funding, the vast majority, comes from taxpayer-supported entities. I would make the argument that if funding colors research, I should be certainly biased more towards the taxpayers, of which I am one, than towards industry. But the fact of the matter is, numbers are objective," he said.

Working for the Auto Industry

In 2007 Michaels was retained by Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep, Green Mountain Ford Mercury, Joe Tornabene's GMC, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the DaimlerChyrsler Corporation and General Motors Corporation as an "expert witness" in a case where the auto manufacturers and dealers were suing George Crombie, the Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and others in a bid to prevent the state regulating greenhouse gases.

In the process of the discovery of documents and during his deposition Michaels provided details of "New Hope's funding sources and the amount of their funding." However, this information was not publicly available but treated as confidential information. However, in late 2006 Greenpeace filed a motion seeking access to the details of the funders of Michaels firm.

In an affidavit Michaels stated that "as the case moved closer to trial, I learned in conversations with plaintiff's counsel that New Hope's confidential information might not remain confidential if I testified at trial. Consequently, on or around April 7, 2007, I informed plaintiffs counsel that I would not testify at trial. My sole reason in doing so was concern that my trial testimony would result in the loss of confidentiality for the New Hope information."

Michaels affidavit stated that "large companies are understandably adverse to negative publicity. Thus, the global warming controversy has created an environment in which companies who wish to support New Hope's research and advocacy about global warming science are increasingly willing to do so only if their support remains confidential."

Michaels complained that "public disclosure of a company's funding of New Hope and its employees has already caused considerable financial loss to New Hope. For example, in 2006 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity. Also, in 2006, when a $100,000 contract between New Hope and electric utility Intermountain Rural Electric Association to synthesize and research new findings on global warming became public knowledge, a public campaign was initiated to change the composition of the board of directors so that there would be no additional funding. That campaign was successful, as Intermountain has not provided further funding."

Michaels argued that the Greenpeace motion seeking disclosure should be rejected as it would "result in New Hope losing clients. I am doubtful that New Hope will continue to stay in business as an effective consultancy ... This is precisely why I did not testify at trial. Although this resulted in a short-term loss of income to me, it assured the long-term viability of New Hope. Besides modest speaking fees, New Hope is my sole source of income beyond a negotiated retirement package from the University of Virginia. Thus, the Greenpeace motion, if granted, would imperil my livelihood.

Hew Hope also employs the services of other scientists who receive all or a substantial part of their incomes from New Hope. Their livelihoods are also threatened by the Greenpeace motion." (On its website, New Hope Environmental Services does not list its staff. However, the World Climate Report blog lists its staff, as of May 2009 on a webpage dated March 2005, as comprising Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Robert E. Davis and Paul C. Knappenberger.)

In Michaels place, the auto industry groups hired John R. Christy as their expert witness.

[solidred]

I've heard it's really difficult these days to secure research funding for projects which aim to challenge the consensus on global warming. Maybe only old-style energy companies are the only ones who will, because they have a vested interest in so doing.
Anyway, I appreciate I'm talking from a position of relative ignorance and it's probably really irritating to have someone harp-on about the world being flat etc. etc. It's tedious to feel one has to go over old, basic ground again and again when you're attempting to make genuine progress after years of struggling - seemingly against the grain - to reach this position where finally the world has come to its senses.
However. I'm still not buying it. Which is just an opinion, of course. But I really don't like this converging between scientific hypothesis / theory; cultural belief system; politics and mass-media. I may be 'merely seeing things' if I were to shout 'but the Emperor has no clothes on!' but I maintain that I'd be right to assert the observation if that is, indeed, what I see.

[csintexas]

[erjavi]

Mr. Walker, it looks that I misunderstood the cards of Herr Springer, I am not sure still, but anyway I am going to introduce you some friends than arrived to the table. Well, because they are many people http://www.knowledgedemocracy.nl/templates/mercury.asp?page_id=1474 (men and women, again my annoying mind…) I want just present you Mr. Ms. W.J.Th.M. Martin MA (he is a 00too), Martin Willow for the friends.

Even if the table is full there are empty seats still, so if somebody wants arrived is welcome before tomorrow the clock stops.

Please, let me see my cards again (erjavi talking with 00Me: mm, well like European I begin feel better now, but their game is not so clear, if they are able to comunícate with the media, why wait till the end of August?, maybe they have fear of storm news? But in the other hand they answered my mail asking dealing with expand this forum to the media, so if there are not other more clear card, I´ll go to Leiden, es una jugada ganadora, Netherlands are good navigators, like Venetians).

Well, the game continues; now Mr. Walker and Mr. Willow and friends, I am going to show my joker:

I do not know, it looks than in other occasion I´ll visit Germany, what a pity! Iberia is mailing me, is nice see how popular is this forum in pilot´s world. Eco Charlie calling Worldwide Airlines colleagues, Eco Charlie calling Worldwide Airlines colleagues, do you receive me?

http://www.pilotosdeiberia.com/cosillas/matriculas.htm
http://www.ecocharlie.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Magnificent_Men_in_Their_Flying_Machines (and women see the script)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserkuppe
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8lv9mWTqtE
http://www.icao.int/

Do you feel something different when you fly in high air channels in Arctic, do you feel something different when you fly in Worldwide air channels? We are in a hurry, please tell all the colleagues http://yellowairplane.com/northpole.html! Hora Zulú begins just when this mail is updated to the web, we must meeting for face ice melting. Come on! (Ride of the Walkyries, Deutsches Grammophon), come on! I can not link some video because you know, my communications are…blurred. So I am going to send you a message in cript code with my flight plan:

Pi pip pip WWW DOT SVETLA DOT RU
http://www.lafocagroup.com/

What? If am I finished? No, I´m Spanish, why? What do you say about my English level? How did you knew I was tourist guide? Ok, Ok, but the other players are going to know my jugada.

Svetla(na)
http://bds2008.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/26/41/54/PDF/abstract.pdf
http://radio-arte.com/2009/02/14/el-silencio-no-existe-los-animales-tambien-abren-sus-oidos/ paisajes sonoros
http://acusticaweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=275&Itemid=1
http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/big-ideas/arctic-seals/
http://www.arcodiv.org/overview.html

[erjavi]

Sorry Dear,

how it can happened to me? You know, when I saw Willow I thought in the movie and then I think in a man, and after I saw Martin, and you know here in Spain many people changes the order by companies list alphabetical order. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhh NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I promise a world news launched a través tuya, I promise, even if other players arrive to the table with a better jugada.

¿Qué estupidos somos los hombres, verdad?

Javier

[solidred]

Chris, I've heard that tagging any research proposal in the UK with some environmentalish words is the most sure-fire way to secure funding there is these days. A great deal of academic research is funded by industry and oil, gas whatever apart, most big business has realised since a few years ago that to be associated with an environmentally responsible agenda is... very good for business and to be associated with research going against this public zeitgeist is... very bad for business indeed.
I'm no authority on this matter and of course you know this but, from what I've read so far, there is a vast amount of data out there and very complex ways of combining this data to create models of environmental 'what if' scenarios. The levels of complexity involved has many similarities to the use of statistics. Consequently, there has been a deliberate exaggeration of the certainty of their findings. To be so sure one is unequivocally right in such a complex scenario is either desperate or naive. It's not a simple equation we're talking about here. Some might argue that it's simply too dangerous to stall repair / damage limitation measures until such times the proof is conclusive. That's fair enough but at that point it leaves the realms of scientific technique and should stop relying upon the objective authority of scientific technique and scientific proof.

[csintexas]

I suppose it is somewhat good business image these days. But global warming is not a new phenomena and before it became good business it had to reach a certain level of critical acceptance. Ten or even five years ago it was hardly thought about and major energy companies where spending money to combat the idea.

The science itself admits to uncertainty. There is generally some uncertainty in all modern science because we have gone beyond the basics and have to deal with chaotic and complex systems. This is why a little trust has to be practiced. The world is to complex for any one person to completely understand.

The only reason the issue left the realms of science is because a lot of people are driven by primal motivations. Many people are afraid of anything which changes the systems they currently live in.

I have my own faults but fear of the change is not one of them. I am a procrastinator. I often get in trouble not paying bills. Not because I don't have money but just because I don't get around to it. (seriously it is true)
Of course with auto pay I have somewhat circumvented this little mental tick but I still have to live with it even though I realize it and know it to be irrational.

[solidred]

Yeah, I mean with the environmental agenda we have a rare instance of a bunch of people with non-self-interested motives struggling for decades against complete public and political and certainly commercial disinterest, suddenly taking global centre stage. The problem with this is that this is more than a transformation of acceptance: the principles and the motives for the continuation of this agenda have now radically changed. I can't help but think that, even if this transformation is dubious on many fronts, it does at least put a vast number of people's minds onto a focus on their environment; nature; consideration of holistic consequences and, in part, a little distracted from obsessive consumerism.
But this is precisely the problem. This is me thinking 'aha! This environment thing can be used in the service of my personal agenda!' This is me and millions of others and governments and businesses and ad infinitum. Which isn't anything much to do with environmental science. That particular dog is now having its tail wagged by giants who have their own motives and I'm heartily sick of those giants preaching to me about how damn virtuous they've suddenly become and I despair of a general public lapping all the flak up to the extent that to equivocate over the nature of certainty in this regard becomes some dumb 'good versus evil' battle... To suggest in public that global warming by artificially exhausted carbon dioxide is, in fact, not a definitive, foregone, self-evident conclusion is a lot like standing in Chartres Cathedral c. 1350 and shouting 'God doesn't Exist'. And for people like us accustomed to free speech this is deeply scary.

[solidred]

[erjavi]

Hi Ms Bond, yesterday, afterwards make the ridiculous, I saw how when one tries stimulate debate in a wrong way results send oneself to opposite direction. Crazy. When I saw Ms, coming from an univeristy, I taught it meant Master, nowdays everybody has a Master in Spain, an add read quick for computer problems, imagine the cocktail.

Ok, few hours before the end of the bet, somebody knows where the rest of Worldwide democracy is? Times expires.

When I was student at university there was only one achademic book I was not able finish rea don standard times, and in fact I never finished read, the Sabine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Holland_Sabine , A history of Political Theory (1937). Extraordinary dense book. I did not knew he was philosoper just till now, looking the reference. He was a demócrata, alter an exhaustive study of Western political tradition, finally he declared non personal beliefs, and gives some little opportunity to economic causation due the spirit of the epoque probably, but without allineate with this.

The religious aspects were deeply treated but years alter I discovered other book that was an hilo conductor for understand what I read (Europa se había hecho un lío), Stanley Windass, http://www.librarything.com/author/windassstanley .

Independently of this fact treated by Sabine the social implications of his work was so impressive than was for me impossible get a global perspective of European politics history. So a person with different thinking can introduce into the religious roots of politics without personal implications, and even declare after with extraordinary humility he is ignorant, without any intention of try convince others, just exposing a vast compendium of human experiences a long the History. Admirable, incredible. He has not fear of dialogue, his liberty was over debates. If he changed personal positions it ocurred just because he wanted to do, independently of his social contemporary situation.

That´s why I think with or without elite powers, with or without lazyness class media than delegate their liberty in such groups for comfort, with or without climate change, with or without new challenges in technology transition, or any other you/me we can imagine, nobody is never occupy the space of human free thinking. And that´s is why the World is full of philosopers, although other daily expressions are used, like routine, stress, standardisation, etc. Human being is radically free, the only new is unexpected and new climate change data. In this sense, all World news about intentions in 2020 or 2050 are simple out of reality, other % sudden decrease i.e. of ice like experienced in 2000-2009 and what not is going done today voluntarily is going to be forced by nature, pacifically and looking for consensus of course. And all the time employed in try solve that objective new Challenger with past formulas will be simply useless. Nobody choosed the year or birth or the present environmental situation of the Earth, which is in a big part accumulated. But repeat the History like the Il Gatopardo novel, “change a little bit the things for keep the rest equal”, requires this time cooperation because climate is global, is not like just deal with persons. Loose this perspective implies loose human landscapes of expressions, although not human landscapes of liberty.

For the momento, USA democracy capital is Eugene, Oregon, (Tockeville did not noticed it) and European democracy capital is Leyden, Netherlands, in this case supported directly by EU (Sabine did not noticed it). And the rest? Like yesterday now I can not see videos, but there is one of RTVE with the song All Together Now, the Server do not let me refer it.

Respect Springer Group just say my excuses, I misunderstood your announce because happened just when I was asking for expand dialog to the media in the European context, and then I interpretated with error your publicity, than in any other momento probably I would refer in the forum. Sorry for inappropriate expressions.

Footnote: Of course I´ll visit Deutschland soon, I want visit old and new places.

[csintexas]

I don't think that science asks us to believes that the current theories on global warming without question. We have been questioning it for a long time and we now have a consensus that it is largely correct. Having a little trust is not the same as blind obedience.

Even though the science may be correct this does not in itself require us to act in some particular way. For example: While I accept that that the science is probably correct, I don't think we can change the outcome.

Virtue is generally considered a good thing and we have had people promoting vitreous behavior probably since the beginning of civilization. I don't see that battling evil is a bad thing.

The fact that someone may benefit from some change does not in itself mean that the change is bad or that their motives are selfish.

To me you just keep trying to justify your irrational fear that this is some sort of plot to deprive you of what?

What is your fear? Are you afraid that you will not be able to have all the stuff you have always dreamed about having?