[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Global science seems to be in a real rush to reach a conclusion that can't be reached in 100 years. That worries me. Comments like "meteorologists that don't agree should be decertified" worreis me. Comments like "the science is in" worries me. Comments like "holocaust deniers" worries me.

Are they in a rush? Some of these scientists have been doing these studies for 40-50 years (amazing when you consider that). This isn't something that has come mainstream of late.

I completely agree with you about the "threats". That's BS. This is a very important issue and should not be triffled with. No voice should be silenced because of their scientific position.

Whenever those on the majority don't want to even hear dissent you have to wonder where things are heading. If you have that much "right" on your side you should welcome the opportunity to prove it over and over again and not run from it.

Ironic, since this subject matter started out on the fringe as a dissenting voice and required further study and proof to be accepted by that majority of the scientific community. Again, this is not a subject that just developed over night. There is a history behind it, and a substantial amount of abuse was heaped on those who worked hard to prove their theory held water.

Why is it that whenever someone questions this stuff they are lackeys of the oil industry while there is rarely any mention of who funds the other side? Grants are just as dangerous as industry money for swaying opinion, and numerous scientists have pointed this out.

Says the lackey from the oil industry! How are those futures selling today? Just kidding Bingo, we know you're no lackey, except to Bingles.

The only science worthy of listening to is pure science. That where observation, experimentation, and repeatable results define the findings. The science that takes place because someone is paying you to look for a pre-determined finding is junk science and is indeed laughable. That's where we stand today, as certain bodies are PAYING for results that support their position. It puts every scientist under the microscope and calls into account their methods and findings, as well as their motivations and benefactors.

Grants can be dangerous, but only to those who abuse the system. For those who have written a grant proposal in the past they can say just how much work goes into proving the viablity and importance of your study. There is the difference. You are the one selling the importance of your work and findings and doing this work based on research ideas of your own or your research groups'. No one is approaching you and telling you that you need to produce data that supports this finding.

Me? I don't have a clue ... I just read what I can. I'm certainly not pro pollution so there should be some benefits over this hysteria, but you sure hate to see so much money going to something that might slide off the table in a decade.

I'm the same way, but I guess I'm more of a visionary. I can see where a shift from dirty finite fuels to renewable energies will make the world a better (and safer) place. It also allows us to use our remaining pertoleum stores for the hundreds and thousands of other purposes founded in the past 100 years, and not just convert them to gasoline. There are so many things that we take for granted that come from petro-chemicals, and reserving our inventory of oil will sustain these products, and others developing, that much longer. The petro-chemical industry is not going to disappear like some of the fear mongers are suggesting, it is just going to be shifted and used in cleaner and more efficient ways.