Debate Topic: Environmentalism (Little Upsilon)

Ben. The qustions you posed are ones of time perspective.

Yes, we could, theoretically ,cause temporary and minute changes to the climate if we expended sufficient energy to destroy everything we could as you postulated. After a few years, then what? LOL. Nature would roll right along.

The point is that we are a small part of the natural world. Only our egos delude us into believing we have the kind of dominance over nature we believe. That is not to imply that we do not absolutely dominate our environments. We possess the means to feed, shelter, and support ourselves to some degree barring anything but the most cataclysmic of global events.

I did mean fissile. Fusion is our long term future, but fission is our best short term, practical alternative. The eco types are correct that we need to convert from petrol to alternative energy sources for our motor transport. Of course, for economic reasons, not the garbage they spew. Hydrogen as an ETM produced by large scale desalinization and electrolysis of sea water, powered by fission plants provides a truly workable alternative on the scale we need. Fuel Cells are an expensive, but very profitable ponzi scheme. Platinum and Palladium prices will always make them prohibitively costly for most consumers.

Please feel free to continue the discussion.

I'll gladly take you up on that offer.

I should first point out that I agree 110% with nuclear power as being the most sensible form of power generation. (I can imagine Nix shivering in terror while he reads this ). In my opinion, stupid radical evironmentalist whining about the waste produced has handicapped the use of this technology for far too long already.

You seem fond of the hydrogen idea. It really makes me wish I could remember the name of the book that clearly and accurately described how the production of liquid hydrogen (as would probably be used in vehicles) took more energy than you retrieve out of the fuel itself. It essentially said, and proved, that using current production methods (namely electrolysis), the only real advantage of using hydrogen fuel was that it would be a portable alternative to gasoline that was considered "eco-friendly".

I'm rather fond of electric vehicles. Although they aren't really at a practical level currently, I believe advances in nanotechnology will improve battery technology to a feasible level. In my opinion, electricity represents the most universally useful form of energy. It can be produced through so many different methods, and can be readily produced nearly anywhere.

I'd be curious to hear your opinion of electric vehichles, it's bound to be a good one.

Ben

I see you guys are having fun and I will try not to interfere too much, however, few notes:

How much energy would it take to raise the GMT, Global Mean Temperature, by one degree celsius?

How much energy does mankind produce in all its activities? - FarmerBob

What is causing the global warming, where global warming is not the same as global climate change?

The so called greenhouse gases. Human created energy has little to do with it, the Sun will take care of the energy you seem to be lacking in your equitations FarmerBob.

I don't really know who are the radical environmentalists mentioned in some posts, I guess its Greenpeace or similar groups, and not what nix presents here because kicking him around seems somewhat cheap or how shall I say it, but even the radical environmentalists have right to voice their opinions, have right to lobby politicians, have right to impose on people as any other interest group present in democratic society. Sure, its not required to like them, its possible to bash them, but we all realize thats about it right?

Lastly, I see little if nothing wrong with limiting or lowering my consumption in some areas. I really don't see any reason why I should buy bottled water for regular use, or why I should throw away food only because I can afford it and am careless, or why I should have xy light bulbs on at all time around my place only because Im lazy to switch them off and my electricity bill is non-issue.

Yet again, someone might feel differently, someone might feel that the more consumption the better no matter how much of it is a waste, and despite I wont take any steps towards actually restricting someone like that I reserve my right to think of it what I want to think which is that someone like that is an idiot to me.

I would just like to say, I have no disrespect for Nix or anyone else in this thread. I do however consider him fairly radical in his views, but not his actions. I haven't heard anything about him using real life violence to force his views on anyone.

And, Zdenek, I agree that waste isn't something to strive for. In my earlier posts I stressed the importance of "intelligent management of our available resources" and I still feel that way. Waste is just that; Waste. It serves no positive purpose and I somewhat doubt anyone particularily strives to experience a lot of it. That being said, I don't see any value in tearing down industry or shunning technology. I'm assuming you feel the same way.

I'm waiting to see Nix's take on all of this, radical as his opinion may be, I do find it interesting.

Ben

Maybe I did not make it sound like that, but you guys made very good points about tech. Its our only way "out" is what I think.

Just seems to me nix is not ready to accept some ideas, and some of us are not ready to accept other ideas, while "all vs nix", no matter if deserved or not, does not seem "right" to me.

Thanks for clarifying that Ben.

@Master: The use of electrolysis to extract H2 from H2O is a zero sum game. That is why Hydrogen is at best an Energy Transfer Medium(ETM). What qualities H2 possesses as an alternative to gasoline are that:
-no new tech is required to produce or maintain H2 engines,
-sufficient power can be generated to provide the horsepower to replace diesel engines used in trucking and heavy equipment(a real problem with fuel cells and electric motors),
-the distribution infrastructure already exists(H2 can be transported by truck just like gas),
-the requirements for existing retailers to distribute H2 is relatively easily implemented,
-H2 is available to all nations without shifting the global power balance (mass production of fuel cells would turn Russia and South Africa into the new OPEC as the nearly sole providers of large quantities of Platinum and Paladium)
-even the worst nut case can't claim we are about to deplete our supply of sea water,
-lastly, of anything we could possibly burn to create heat and mechanical energy, H2 is about the cleanest imagineable.

Electric cars have their uses in certain locales, but do not possess the qualities required to replace the family car. Further, the need for massive amounts of new Electrical Power Generation still exists as well as the need to seriously beef up the grid to distribute it. Batteries are still expensive as Hell, limited in performance, and a real pain in the ass to dispose of.

@Zedenek: Of course, the sun is the only source of energy that seriously influences global climate. Your blind accaptance of the GreenHouse Effect is the problem. It is another hypothesis that has been repeated ad nauseum until it has come to be accepted as scientific fact, when there is hardly any evidence to support it. The exact same mechanics used in GreenHouse were used to explain the global cooling observed in the first 3/4 of the 20th Century. GreenHouse popped up in the late 70's. I posted the NewsWeek article from the 70's decrying the impending eco-disaster of Global Cooling on one of these threads around here.
The bottom line is that Trans-Science(See above posts) governs all of this debate, not hard science. The fact that politics has dominated the "scientific" research of this field for nearly 30 years does nothing to increase the credibility of these hypotheses. You are not old enough to remember when these ideas first got floated, shot down by science, and then migrated into the political and pop culture spheres where they finally gained attention and traction. Hard science doesn't support any of this crap, only trans-science which is political and now, very big business.

Real conservation is about natural spaces untouched by the hand of man. You wasting your time with plastic milk jugs and old newspaper is a waste of resources and overall harmful to the environment. Aluminum and steel remain the only two materials that make sense to recycle as the process requires less net energy then to produce new.
Consumption is neither harmful, nor beneficial to the environment. It just is. People should not be made to feel guilty for just living life. It is the attitude behind the message that is insiduous. Live like a medieval peasant or you are somehow evil. It's reworked Marx or Mao, fundamentally an anti-capitalist sentiment rather than an actual expresssion of workable public and economic policy. Reduced consumption as a macro solution is psychologically appealling as is Sand Pile Theory, and like the latter, reality just hasn't proven to match theory. More fuel efficient cars translate to more miles driven. Energy efficient appliances leads to the purchase of bigger appliances that use as much or more power than those they replace. Etc., Etc.

That is not to say that efficiency is not a good thing, that profligate waste is a positive. The use of energy in wiser ways is always sought because energy costs money and the market always looks to cut costs. The point being that the market is a hell of a lot more successful than arbitrary, corrupt government mandate or pop culture fads fueled by special-interest marketing campaigns.

The ultimately revealing trait of the Environmental Movement is that the solution to virtually every so-called issue is the same: central planning. Yet, they ignore (publicly) the fact that the centrally planned nations of the 20th Century were the worst environmental "offenders" by orders of magnitude. Yet, the siren song is always the same: "Just give us control of your economy, culture, and lives and we will save you."

Please. Communism died in the real world and moved to the Greens. The rank and file are well meaning dopes, but the leadership are just power hungry socialists looking for the same end: their own empowerment and aggrandizement. I ain't buyin' it.

P.S. Nix brought the scorn upon himself.

Well, what to say?

You can argue against and base your imaginary equitations and arguments on informations going against the scientific consensus, but then I have nothing to say to you anymore.

edit: I see you have some kind of obsession with Marx and communism, kinda like the obsession nix seem to have with anti-Gaians ;) Is that some kind of professional deformation? Dont answer it ..

Scientic Consesus? Oh jeez. Do some more reading of something other than websites. Books might be a start.

Obsession? Hardly. People have names, identities, histories, and stated philosophies. When avowed communists start writing and publishing on environnmental issues and espousing clearly marxist ideology, it is what it is.

You seem to forget that socialism failed miserably both economically and environmentally.

Books

Not that I care to read books about this, but out of curiosity, what kind of books do you have in mind? I will just check their authors and their credibility.

Books or studies published by the so called skeptics who are in minority? I did not say they don't exist I just said their opinion does not represent the scientific consensus. For scientific consensus I don't need to read any books.

btw there are books on Intelligent Design for example, but why would I wanna read them when the theory of evolution is scientific consensus is beyond me.

edit: our president, economist by education, writes books like this. one called "The blue planet" as opposite to "green" planet. needless to say hes for laughs when he presents his skeptical and not really educated views to academics.

Now, for the "imaginary" equations.

Our relatively high global atmospheric temperature near the surface of the Earth, with an average of 14 to 15 degrees C, is caused by heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere, mainly H2O vapor. Without the Earth's atmosphere the surface temperature would be approximately -18 degrees C.

The Earth receives about 1368 W/m2 of radiative heat from the Sun. The total amount of this heat withheld, approximately 11%, in the Earth's lower atmosphere, has traditionally been named the Earth's "Greenhouse Effect". For a cloudless atmosphere this effect is on the average about 146 W/m2 for the Earth, with an uncertainty of ± 5 to 10 W/m2 due to analytic uncertainties and natural climatic variations. All human activities have been claimed to contribute about 1.3% of this (approx. 2 W/m2), while a hypothetic doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would contribute about 2.6% (approx. 4 W/m2) to the present "Greenhouse Effect" (Raval & Ramanathan, 1989; Ramanathan et al., 1989).

150 year long time series of temperature measurements are covering too short of time spans to be useful for climate prediction, in order to be used as "evidence" for anthropogenic heating(or cooling). The global mean temperature has risen and fallen several times over the last 400 years, with no evidence of anthropogenic causes, although strong explosive volcanic eruptions have caused periodically colder climates (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a).

It should also be noted that clouds can reflect up to approx. 50 W/m2 and can absorb up to approx. 30 W/m2 of the solar radiation (Ramanathan et al., 1989), making the Earth's average "Greenhouse Effect" vary naturally within approx. 96 and 176 W/m2. Hence the anticipated anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 heat absorption is much smaller than the natural variation of the Earth's "Greenhouse Effect" (Segalstad & Jaworowski, 1991).

The oceans act as a huge heat energy buffer, the global climate is primarily governed by the enormous amount of heat stored in the oceans (total mass approx. 1.4 x 1024 g), rather than the minute amount of heat withheld in the heat-absorbing part of the atmosphere (total mass approx. 1.4 x 1018 g), a mass difference of one million times (Peixoto & Oort, 1992). Most of the atmospheric heat absorption occurs in water vapor (total mass approx. 1.3 x 1019 g), which is equivalent to a uniform layer of only 2.5 cm of liquid water covering the globe, with a residence time of about 9 days (Peixoto & Oort, 1992).


The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1.6 x 1027 Joule, about 2000 times larger than the total internal energy 9.4 x 1023 Joule of the whole atmosphere. Note that this energy is defined with respect to 0 degrees Kelvin (Peixoto & Oort, 1992).


Furthermore the cryosphere (ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, and glaciers; total mass of the continental ice is approx. 3.3 x 1022 g) plays a central role in the Earth's climate as an effective heat sink for the atmosphere and oceans, with a large latent heat of melting on the order of 9.3 x 1024 Joule, a hypothetic energy equivalent to cooling the entire oceans by about 2 degrees C (5.8 x 1024Joule/degree C). For comparison, the energy needed to warm the entire atmosphere by 1 degree C is only 5.1 x 1021 Joule (Oerlemans & van der Veen, 1984).

The total estimated global energy production of 2005? 5 x 1020 Joule (International Energy Agency, 2006).

An order of magnitude's difference.

Any more questions?

And curse you for making me dig this crap up out of books and retyping it here.

No, not really any questions.

Its clear to me that you, our president, and some others choose to believe in (sources of) informations which reassure their opinions or prejudices rather than contradicting them. That is not shocking, its in a way natural, because thats how our brain works.

The difference is that others, me included, choose to believe in what the scientific consensus is, which is coincidently more probable than what the skeptics believe in.

If Im faced with two theories, hypothesis, explanations and one has 10% probability to be true and the other one 90% I choose the later one, because I like to think my faith is rational.

As did a significant portion of the German population when presented with the "scientific" certainity of the genetic superiority of the Aryan race.

Those are the numbers, above. If you don't grasp their meaning and implication, I can explain them to you. No interpretation, no opinion. Just data. So who is reinforcing their predjudices?

Here's your "scientific consenus" circa 1975:

NEWSWEEK, April 28

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

-PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports<!-/Quote-!>

But hey, that was 1975, right? Practically the Dark Ages. Not like today when we know everything there is to know about everything.

Good for you, Z. Just let others do your thinking for you. No harm has ever come from that attitude.

I will continue to use my own brain and education to examine the data and reach my own conclusions, whether they conform to consensus or not.

Sorry FarmerBob. You have already answered my question of what happens if nations become poorer. 'As nations become poorer they become dirtier.' Did'nt see that there.

OK. First off I agree with nuclear power. I would rather 10,000,000 people die from a nuclear catastrophe than the world die from the use of dirty energy.

Second. FarmerBob. You said earlier 'we couldn't effect the global climate if every human in existence dedicated his entire life to the effort.' And now you say 'the energy needed to warm the entire atmosphere by 1 degree C is only 5.1 x 1021 Joule' and that 'The total estimated global energy production of 2005? 5 x 1020 Joule' Does that mean that in 2005, human activity will increase global temp by 1 degree C?

Third. I'm not on about the amount of CO2 the man creates. I'm on about destroying the Earths ability to deal with it.

Since mass consumption of fossil fuels began with the industrial revolution around 1800, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown from an estimated 280 parts per million to around 380 parts per million.

'Today's current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is only around half of what scientists have predicted atmospheric levels should be, based on estimates that humans have contributed 244 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere.

"The other half of the emitted carbon dioxide was the so-called missing sink, which was thought to be taken up by either the oceans or the land plants," Sabine said. (Plants absorb carbon dioxide and use it to produce energy.)'

'Trees play a unique role in the global carbon cycle. They are the largest land-based natural mechanism for removing CO2 from the air. (CO2 is also removed by the oceans and ocean organisms.)

Trees are able to store a large amount of CO2 in their structures. An acre of forest will absorb about 10 times the CO2 amount absorbed by an acre of crop land or grassland. One tree absorbs about 13 pounds of CO2 per year, and each one acre of forest absorbs about 2.8 tons of CO2. However, when trees are burned, the carbon locked in the structure is released into the air in the form of CO2. Today, the shrinking world forests are not able to absorb all the CO2 created by human beings while burning fossil fuels. Everyday over 5500 acres of rain forest are destroyed, and over 50 million acres are destroyed every year. Global CO2 levels rise approximately 0.4 percent each year, to levels not experienced on this planet for millions of years.'

It's not just the oceans that absorb CO2 but also the life in them.

'scientists say the sink effect is now changing ocean chemistry. The resulting change has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain. The impacts on marine life could be severe, scientists say.

"The oceans are performing a great service to humankind by removing this carbon dioxide from the atmosphere," said Christopher Sabine, a geophysicist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle, Washington. "The problem is that this service has potential consequences for the biology and ecosystem structure of the oceans."'


Which in turn will reduce the oceans ability to absord the CO2. Then what happens?


Hi Zde and Ben.
Ben. I set up Mother Natures Army on all worlds to fight those who insult and threaten people who wish to discuss the environment on threads like this one. As I've completed my mission I have decided to disbanded Mother Natures Army on all worlds except LU until the time when someone else starts up with the insults. This means I can no longer access FB. Could you send the message you sent to FB to my main game messaging service?

Thinking for me

Yes, spending 1000s of hours, probably 1000s of $ for getting access to sci-journals and acquiring books or visiting conferences, only to become educated enough to have educated opinion instead of layman opinion based on scientific consensus seems like my kind of fun... not.

Nobody on this board is educated enough, not even you FarmerBob, so stop pretending or deluding yourself that you know more than I, or someone else, do.

You've read a book .. well done! It does not change the scientific consensus no matter what you will write here. You choose to believe in what is not scientific consensus, yet you act like you are in possession of the truth. Ok, but as I said in such case I have nothing, but ad-hominem attacks, to say to you.

You know what, if you have bullet-proof data, if you claim that humans have no influence over global warming, go to some climatologist conference or publish it in journals and force the general scientific consensus to admit they are wrong. Thats how science works and science is open to change of mind if there is sufficient evidence.

I mean wtf?

In your interpretation, every national academy of sciences is politically influenced, which of course you dont have any proofs for but whatever, in your interpretations politicians are more influenced by the radical environmentalists who are not all that rich than by the interests groups from industry who are filthy rich. And that makes sense to you. What can anyone say about this? How can anyone refute your arguments? Its impossible.

There you go, Nix. You are finally presenting argument.

To answer your question. No. Those numbers mean we did not produce one-tenth of the energy in an entire year required to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by one degree. That is assuming that the energy was stored for that year and suddenly released as heat into the atmosphere, which is even more ludicrous. Do you understand the math?

Setting aside for a moment, that GreenHouse is a BS notion, here are the guesstimates for global carbon levels, per year:
Plants breathe out about 50bil metric tons a year and absorb around 100bil in photosynthesis.
Soil organisms emit around 50bil, the oceans diffuse 100bil out and approx. 104bil back in.
That's Mother Nature's share of the bill.
Humans? we emit around 6bil burning fossil fuels and 2bil through deforestation.
That's a net guesstimated gain of 3bil per annum.

Got that?

3 billion in a carbon cycle circulating hundreds of billions of tons. Most carbon natural production is heavily dependent on solar activity, and curiously enough, the .2%(not .4%) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels in the last few decades correspond to.....a .2% increase in solar activity over the same time period. CO2 levels were similar 150,000 years ago, not millions.

As for the trees? What have I been saying through this entire thread?

Preserve and expand our natural spaces.

Not because we are experiencing a natural global warming period, but because the natural world is worth protecting for its own sake.

Nix:

'5.1 x 1021 Joule' means 5.1x1021 Joules, or 5,100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules.

'The total estimated global energy production of 2005? 5 x 1020 Joule'

Likewise, 5x1020 Joules, or 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules.

5,100,000,000,000,000,000,000
500,000,000,000,000,000,000

Just to clarify. Carry on.

here, for the 3rd time in this thread, you can start editing and refuting the scam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


go ahead. if you can convince more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, you will convince me.

good luck

Zdenek: That is a completely bullshit response. Do not try to tell me that we do not possess the intelligence or means to fully grasp these issues.

I have a friend that I've known for around 25 years. He was a nuclear physicist and engineer. When I once tried to humbly imply that I was not nearly smart enough to understand some of these complex problems, (we were talking about climate change at the time), he got very angry and told me something that I will always remember. To paraphrase:

"The average high school graduate learns enough math and science to completely understand the basic principles, if not the details, of 99% of all but the most esoteric of current scientific works."

That these issues are just too complex and require too much specialized education for the layman to grasp is just nonsense.

I am a 26 year military professional. Does that mean that you could never comprehend the complexities of military operations? Hardly. I could give you fewer than 2 dozen books to read that would leave with a military education better than most officers in the world possess.

Do not sell yourself short with me. I will kick you squarely in the ass.

but i guess you like this one better, because this one is the correct one right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I dont know if you are smart or not, but unless you have PhD in climatology you are not educated enough to have educated opinion on the issue.

Then you make yourself a slave, Zdenek, and I truly pity you.

Here we go ... that tells me 26 military professional. To do my own thinking, and not to be slave.

Believe it or not, Z. Military professionals are encouraged and trained to be independent thinkers.

A rigid and inflexible mind is predictable.

An innovative and creative mind is dangerous.

Don't buy into the stereotypes.

Ok .. so have we solved anything except increasing personal antipathies?