The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

[cool hand luke 22:36]

You can't simply assume that everything associated with trying to clean up the planet is some socialist plot to take over the world.

Strawman argument there, I never made such an assertion.

 

[mountainclmbr]

It seems that Kyoto did not take hold in time and the GW pushers got worried. Now they changed it to "climate change" so they can try to control people and the world economy by blaming productive activity if temperature goes up, down, sideways or if a hurricane hits a major city. Probably the biggest hoax in history.

Remember that the world warmed drastically at the end of every ice age. There were only humans present at the end of the last ice age, but not enough to increase CO2.

 

[Wildalaska]

You can't simply assume that everything associated with trying to clean up the planet is some socialist plot to take over the world.

Where do you find that in this excellent and unsually well behaved thread?

WildcuriousAlaska TM

 

[Wildalaska]

Check out this tidbit I found...

http://cip.iic-iac.org/nmp/showUnderwriterNews.asp?newsDate=3/14/2008&newsStory=1

CIP Society Advantage Daily - the news in brief for 3/14/2008


Climate change tops list of risks to insurers

Potential climate change is the greatest strategic risk currently facing the property and casualty insurance industry, according to an Ernst & Young report. Demographic changes and catastrophic events follow closely behind.
For the study, Strategic Business Risk 2008, Ernst & Young and Oxford Analytica interviewed more than 70 industry analysts from around the world to identify the emerging trends and uncertainties driving the performance of the global insurance sector over the next five years.
The Top 10 risks identified were: climate change; demographic shifts in core markets; catastrophic events; emerging markets; regulatory intervention; channel distribution; integration of technology with operations and strategy; securities markets; legal risk; and geopolitical or macroeconomic shocks, a release says.
Many of the risks are interlinked, a company release notes, and raise questions about how these risks will change what companies offer customers, the way that they offer their services and where.
The analysts identified five additional emerging risks (not part of the Top 10) that have the potential to become as significant during the next five years.
These include: over reliance on model-based risk management; threats to industry reputation; losing the war for talent; increasing exposure to global regulatory heterogeneity; and the possible emergence of entirely new risks.

WildhavingtheircakeandeatingittooAlaska TM

 

[Shane Tuttle]

You're confusing the two circumstances. The scientific method is not a court of law.

Nope. I'm not. There's scientific evidence used in the court of law...

I spent $60 at the range on Thursday only to learn that my Kimber doesn't like those Golden Saber rounds very much.

But nice try.

Oh, it wasn't even my best card. How about telling us how many posts you've made in other forums here at TFL? Here's a hint: "There's overwhelming evidence my the vast majority of posts made by Redworm..."

There could always be something in the future discovered that could contradict everything we know about an issue. Until that time we focus on where the evidence points us. When the overwhelming majority of the evidence leads to one set of conclusions we tend to trust that those conclusions are accurate and until they are falsified by new information they are considered scientific fact.

And that proves my point that some people/scientists although want to research their findings are tunnel visioned and arrogant as ever. People once thought the world was flat. I'm willing to bet that you'd agree with the overwhelming opinion back then due to the "vast majority" of people had evidence that pointed as such when in fact there were a few people that doubted it was. Sound familiar?

Common sense is not a scientific analysis. Your common sense equation proves your point but so what? What has that accomplished? Yes, we know gravity exists and will work. Wonderful. And? Does that tell you how gravity works? Does that tell you why gravity is so weak compared to the nuclear forces? Does that tell you what particles are affected by gravity and what particles have an effect on gravity? Does it give you insight on how gravity functions in a singularity? At the subatomic level? At the quantum level? Does dropping a ball in any way glean new information on the universe in which we live?

No, it tells me that you don't necessarily need to dissect every little thing to come up with the same conclusion.

If you don't think that experts in a field are qualified to report on their particular field then there's no where else to go. There is a staggering amount of data and collection methods that tell us with highly reasonable certainty what the climate is supposed to be.
You don't want to trust the science, fine. But this idea that the climate is simply too complex for human minds to understand is laughable. Unfortunately I deal with this attitude in my own field and I've learned that it's nigh impossible to reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.

They can report all they want. But, their findings are just one of many and doesn't necessarily mean they're right. There isn't staggering amount of data of what the climate "should be". Just because the climate isn't at 68-72 degrees year round doesn't mean it isn't normal.

Man, you're just like The Facts....WHERE DID I SAY I DON'T TRUST SCIENCE?

Laugh all you want, but people of arrogance sometimes laugh at something that's claimed by ones of humble thought. The whole point if this is scientists DO NOT understand our climate to the point of being able to predict the future. Any one that does are the ones that aren't reasonable.

You've done the research yet unless I'm mistaken you stated that you haven't read the report that is considered the authority on the issue, released merely a year ago with the most up to date information. No matter what you say about the research you've done, if you don't know what that report says then you're not getting the full story.

So, did you read that the IPCC concluded that the temperatures of earth has cooled down since 1998 with the exception of 2005?

You can't just point to life that thrives in warm climates and pretend everything is hunky dory. Once again, the issue is not simply about temperature, it's the rapid warming causes instability in the climate. So while there is plenty of life on this planet that would thrive in warmer climates there is also plenty that would go extinct because of it.

I'm using temperature as a sample since it does go hand in hand with climate. And, what pray-tell, would be the sheer numbers of extinct species compared to ones that thrive in a warmer climate? Your statement is quite funny since life in general on this planet thrives FAR more in a warmer climate than a cooler one. Choose your poison. You can't your cake and eat it, too. Climate shifts gradually AND abruptly. If you've claimed to read all the reseach that has been collected over the "millions" of years, you'd see that. And, just because there's one now at the time of CO2 rise doesn't mean squat when other factors are in play on a natural level...

If you did then I'm quite confused. Why get into a discussion only to say you haven't looked at information that you have looked at?

I've never said I haven't looked at the information...

It

's like arguing about gun control and completely refusing to look at the set of statistics that disagrees with your point of view.

I don't need to read statistics to prove that I'm right about owning a firearm...

So, how about heading over to another forum here and strike up a thread talking about your Kimber?

 

[Redworm]

It seems that Kyoto did not take hold in time and the GW pushers got worried. Now they changed it to "climate change" so they can try to control people and the world economy by blaming productive activity if temperature goes up, down, sideways or if a hurricane hits a major city. Probably the biggest hoax in history.

No one "changed it to climate change". The topic has always been climate change with a focus on how climate is affected by global warming. You can't simply call out buzz words and pretend it makes a point.

Remember that the world warmed drastically at the end of every ice age. There were only humans present at the end of the last ice age, but not enough to increase CO2.

Remember that we have solid records for how planet's temperature fluctuates at the end of every ice age, remember that we have solid evidence that tell us how much the planet should be warming, remember that we have solid data telling us that it's warming more than it should be given all previous indications and remember that every known factor is taken into account when trying to figure out why the temperature is changing.

This gross oversimplification of complex issues is not helping.

 

[mountainclmbr]

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/avenues april article - prepared for own distr..pdf

Breaking News: News has reached us that Al Gore will receive an honorary doctorate on April 15,
from Lausanne University, Switzerland. The Swiss newspaper Weltwoche wrote an angry protest,
reminding its readers that the same university had awarded an honorary doctorate to Benito Mussolini
in 1937. It writes that the success of both comes from the same type of political agitation and that
Gore, with his fanatical worldwide campaign, has pushed half of mankind into climate hysteria.
Weltwoche also comments, in passing, that both Mussolini and Gore do not practise what they preach.
The other half of mankind, if they cherish their democratic freedoms, should be worried. Be very
worried.
Apocalypse cancelled
I am pleased that Professor Storey is not perpetuating the apocalyptic view of MMGW. This is
unusual, as many MMGW advocates are trying to outdo each other in predicting imminent climate
catastrophes. For instance, Sir David King, the science advisor to the British Government, has said
that, unless we drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, the only habitable place on Earth by
the end of this century will be the Antarctic continent. Not to be outdone, James Lovelock, the author
of The Revenge of Gaia, predicted that the only habitable place by the end of this century would the
Arctic. Our own professor Peter Barrett, of Victoria University, wrote that we only have about ten
years to avoid the destruction of our civilisation by the end of this century (Pacific Ecologist, Issue 11,
2005/6). In 1999, he warned a group of politicians visiting McMurdo Station in the Antarctic that the
Western Antarctic Ice Sheet was on the point of melting, which would cause a 6-metre rise in sea level
(The Press, January 28, 1999). All these apocalyptic predictions have no base in science and are highly
irresponsible. But the human species seems to have a predilection for predicting the end of time. I call
it a ‘longing for Apocalypse.’
The science is not settled
One often hears that the science of global warming has been settled and that the debate is over. I am
pleased therefore, that Professor Storey does not share that opinion. He writes that the climate is “a
complex interactive system” and is “affected by many natural processes and increasingly influenced by
human activities. Consequently, there’s valuable debate (and argument!) and scientific research in
progress.” As I wrote in my February article, thousands of scientists disagree with the catastrophic-
MMGW hypothesis, and hundreds are actively involved in debating the science.
Points of difference
However, there are many scientific points on which Professor Storey and I differ. In this short space I
can only mention a few. By necessity some of these arguments are rather technical.
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
There is major disagreement on the magnitude of the warming effect of CO2. According to many
scientists, its effect is very small and almost impossible to measure. Professor Storey mentions its
‘blanketing effect.’ Yet, this blanket has large holes in it. CO2 can only absorb infrared radiation from
the Earth in specific small windows of the electromagnetic spectrum. Outside these areas, the infrared
radiation escapes into space. Furthermore, theoretical considerations suggest that those spectral
windows can become saturated. This means that at a certain point, any additional carbon dioxide will
have no further warming effect. Theoretical considerations also suggest that the warming effect of a
doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is not more than 0.5 to one degree. That the IPCC predicts higher
future temperatures is entirely based on computer modelling, by factoring in all sorts of positive
feedbacks. The warming predictions of models vary wildly, from 1.4 to 11oC. They are just computer
games.

When politicians fund research where the results will determine if politicians have huge gains in power and control, the results should be considered suspect. The researchers future funding depends on the results going a certain way. That is sure to introduce a bias in results. I also know better than to place blind trust in the UN.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Redworm I looked at the link you posted which supposedly answered my question. Needless to say it was a fluff piece which had absolutely nothing to do with the Kyoto treaty and said treaty's ineffectiveness in solving the Chinese coal mine fire problem.

So let me rephrase the question, would any of the anthropogenic global warming advocates except for Redworm kindly tell me how that treaty will stop the Chinese coal mine fires, the largest single worldwide source of global CO2 pollution?

 

[Wildalaska]

Now I'm not the sharpest pole in the stockade, so I ask some scientific sort to correct.

I was always taught There are three things in this wonderful world, scientific fact, scientific theory and scientific models.

Scientific fact is repeatable. Water melts at 212F. Bacteria cause dysentery. Putting too metals in acid causes electricity.

Scientific theory is based on a series of facts, which, when tied together, leads to a result..ie X happened, Y happened, Z happened therefore The Grimsnak Theorem of Positive Nugatoriness is proven...

As I said before scientific fact and theory are, to coin a phrase TRUE science, ie, they are unaffected by politics....the failure of such a "luminary" as Lysenko to ignore observable facts in support of a political agenda scientific theory is ample illustration of that, as is the silliness of such concepts as "Jewish physics" or "Aryan medicine". Similarly, Von Brauns parabolas are still valid despite his murderous Nazi nature.

Models on the other hand are subject to all sorts of mischief since they are a mix of facts and theories (proven and unproven). When you couple a Model with a healthy dose of "if, ifs" , and political agendas pointing to an conclusion that is WHATEVER THE MODELER SAYS IT IS.....

You get....Global Warming!

Now add the basic flaw in the Climate Change Model which NO DEFENDER of the chicken little theories of GW seem to address, ie....

The Planet is Warming!
Compared to when? the Holocene? the Pleistocene? Yesterday? June 14, BCE 100,342, 226? Three weeks ago?

THE PLANET IS WARMING!!!!!!!!!
So? Isn't warmth more amenable to carbon based lifeforms (now thats a scientific fact that screws up the Model).? Hey maybe the extinct species will reevolve....More importantly, the five remaining Pongerliouex's Frumpy Toads whose last known earthly habitat is in a mud puddle right near the site of a planned factory will begin to thrive, enabling the god dang factory to be built so that the 90% unemployment/welfare roll in this small little anus mundi community can pared!

And there wouldnt be 6 inches of snow on the ground on April 6th would there be?

Now add Ludditeism, Gaeiaism, Ecoism, Capitalism and Socialism as well as healthy sceptism

and ya get 10 pages of this

And if the seas begin to rise we can make NYC like Venice, good for tourism. And we will all pay for it together collectively just as all humankind has collectively paid for the modifications to their environment based on the planets whims since Uggguugbluggug and his wife Rhonda packed up their village in Ontario as the Ice Sheets approached while Pi Ahn It moved his clans fishing village two miles inland as the Ice Sheets melted and the seas began to lap the shores of some nice warm island in Malaysia.

The downside of GW is that I look absolutely HIDEOUS in a loincloth.

WildmorerollsthanadeliAlaska TM

 

[Redworm]

Nope. I'm not. There's scientific evidence used in the court of law...

Yet court proceedings are not used in scientific research. My statement stands, the scientific method is not a court of law and the standards of what is and is not reasonable evidence are much more strict in science. To think that just because forensic science is presented in court somehow justifies what you said is absurd. Equally absurd is the implication that I would treat a decision on a jury like scientific research.

Oh, it wasn't even my best card. How about telling us how many posts you've made in other forums here at TFL? Here's a hint: "There's overwhelming evidence my the vast majority of posts made by Redworm..."

Yeah, most of them are made here. I read the other forums but I don't post in there. Why? Because I don't know enough about the subject to offer any insightful information or arguments.

Just like the politics don't alter the science, others' impressions of me don't alter my opinions.

And that proves my point that some people/scientists although want to research their findings are tunnel visioned and arrogant as ever. People once thought the world was flat. I'm willing to bet that you'd agree with the overwhelming opinion back then due to the "vast majority" of people had evidence that pointed as such when in fact there were a few people that doubted it was. Sound familiar?

Actually, there was no evidence that the world was flat. It was the use of the scientific method (in a rudimentary form, of course) and the beginning of actually using evidence to examine the world around us that led early scientists to realize the earth was indeed round.

There was never a scientific opinion - nor a shred of empirical evidence - that the world was flat.

No, it tells me that you don't necessarily need to dissect every little thing to come up with the same conclusion.

Only you're not coming to the same conclusion. The conclusion you're coming to is useless. The ball drops. Ok, big deal. It doesn't offer any conclusions about gravity except that it's a force of nature that made the ball drop. Stopping there does not prove your assertion that the theory of gravity has been proven, especially since there are a number of theories that strive to explain gravity.

Again, it's not simply a theory that states "gravity exists", it's a set of theories trying to explain how it works.

They can report all they want. But, their findings are just one of many and doesn't necessarily mean they're right. There isn't staggering amount of data of what the climate "should be". Just because the climate isn't at 68-72 degrees year round doesn't mean it isn't normal.

Their findings are not just "one of many". Their findings are the strongest, most observed, most analyzed and most agreed upon. It's the findings of the skeptics that are mere drops in the bucket of an ocean of opposing evidence.

I'd say the amount of data is quite staggering.

Man, you're just like The Facts....WHERE DID I SAY I DON'T TRUST SCIENCE?

Laugh all you want, but people of arrogance sometimes laugh at something that's claimed by ones of humble thought. The whole point if this is scientists DO NOT understand our climate to the point of being able to predict the future. Any one that does are the ones that aren't reasonable.

You don't seem to want to trust the science that disagrees with you. You have issues with the idea of consensus because of a misunderstood idea on some egg controversy.

Some call it arrogance, some call it confidence. It's all relative. But the point remains that what you consider reasonable in this case is going against the opinions of people who have devoted their entire careers to the scientific method.

So, did you read that the IPCC concluded that the temperatures of earth has cooled down since 1998 with the exception of 2005?

To be clear, the temperature didn't simply spike up in 2005. There was still gradual warming after the quick drop at the turn of the century. The earth was not cooling down with the exception of 2005, it spiked in '98, dropped a slight amount and the continued to increase to the 2005 level at which point it's again dropped a slight amount.

But I do believe that's been mentioned by them before, though not the 4th assessment report.

I'm using temperature as a sample since it does go hand in hand with climate. And, what pray-tell, would be the sheer numbers of extinct species compared to ones that thrive in a warmer climate? Your statement is quite funny since life in general on this planet thrives FAR more in a warmer climate than a cooler one. Choose your poison. You can't your cake and eat it, too. Climate shifts gradually AND abruptly. If you've claimed to read all the reseach that has been collected over the "millions" of years, you'd see that. And, just because there's one now at the time of CO2 rise doesn't mean squat when other factors are in play on a natural level...

There are quite a few species living in and near the polar regions that can't adapt to warmer weather. Not all life thrives in warmer climate. There is life in the continental US that couldn't thrive in tropical temperatures.

But choose my poison? Once again, it's not just the temperature that would be affected. It can't just be assumed that life will be happier because it's a couple degrees warmer when those few degrees means significant melting of ice caps which alters the salinity of the ocean waters and affects the currents, the very currents that are paramount to maintaining a stable climate. And that's just one side effect.

I've done my best to read as much of the research as I could get my hands on and comprehend. Again, I'm not a climatologist so quite a bit of it is over my head. But I've tried.

And yes, there are abrupt changes. However there's quite a bit of evidence that tells us how abrupt those changes are and what leads to those changes and even when taking every natural force known to man into account this change is too abrupt and correlates far too well with CO2 levels to be mere coincidence.

I've never said I haven't looked at the information...

Then I simply misunderstood what you were saying. Mea culpa.

But still, reading the IPCC's report - or at least the summary - should be the first step for anyone debating the issue.

I don't need to read statistics to prove that I'm right about owning a firearm...

Of course not but you do need to read the statistics in order to argue that greater gun ownership does not lead to higher crime rates. You do need to cite those statistics if trying to convince someone that their anti-gun position is wrong when they tell you that more guns are dangerous to society.

So, how about heading over to another forum here and strike up a thread talking about your Kimber?

yknow, it's strange

I was all sad the other day when cleaning it because I took off the grips and one of the screw hole thingies came out of the frame and it looked like the threads had been pretty badly stripped but I put it back together and just now took them off again to take a picture to show y'all and it actually stayed where it was supposed to stay

it's kinda hard to see but my digital camera was lost in a tragic boating acci....er, wait

 

[Redworm]

It speaks to an improper financial motive for this Government Scientist.

NASA's grudgingly admitted errors in matters such as declaring 1998 the warmest year on record due to very significant errors in their computer modeling (that had the effect of artificially inflating the amount of temperature increase over time), certainly do "change the science."

Hansen has made a name for himself claiming that he is being censured by the Bush Administration The fact that his charges are made at speaking engagements fully funded by a hard-left extremist opponent of the Bush Administration (Soros) certainly calls Hansen's credibility into serious doubt.

I don't see how. Just because I don't agree with the man's beliefs doesn't mean his funding is in any way improper.

 

[Redworm]

Redworm I looked at the link you posted which supposedly answered my question. Needless to say it was a fluff piece which had absolutely nothing to do with the Kyoto treaty and said treaty's ineffectiveness in solving the Chinese coal mine fire problem.

So let me rephrase the question, would any of the anthropogenic global warming advocates except for Redworm kindly tell me how that treaty will stop the Chinese coal mine fires, the largest single worldwide source of global CO2 pollution?

Both links? Because one of them is the EPA's description of the real largest worldwide source of global CO2 pollution.

I know it had nothing to do with Kyoto, that wasn't the point. The point was that China's coal fires are not the biggest problem.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Redworm,

On those grip bushings I would recommend putting a small amount of Loctite (Blue) on the threads and on the threads of the grip screws. I use a toothpick to dab a small amount on. With the Loctite Blue you can get them off again. The Loctite Red is almost impossible to break loose again so is not usually recommended.

I have never had a grip bushing or grip screw come loose when using Loctite Blue.

 

[Redworm]

The Planet is Warming!
Compared to when? the Holocene? the Pleistocene? Yesterday? June 14, BCE 100,342, 226? Three weeks ago?

The planet is always going through cyclical temperature changes. But if you really want to get specific it's been warming, on average, for as long as we've been recording it and the most recent amount of warming is being exacerbated by our pollution.

THE PLANET IS WARMING!!!!!!!!!
So? Isn't warmth more amenable to carbon based lifeforms (now thats a scientific fact that screws up the Model).?

Not necessarily. And besides, thinking about it purely in terms of temperature is another gross oversimplification. The temperature can have drastic effects on the overall climate from severe weather patterns, sea level changes and ocean salinity which can alter the very currents which help regulate the temperature.

It's not just about temperature so to claim that warm = good just doesn't cut it.

Hey maybe the extinct species will reevolve....

Ah, now we're on my turf. But unfortunately species can't just reevolve because natural selection would require the exact same circumstances as the previous time a species evolved including the surrounding ecology and even the position of the continents. No velociraptors for us.

And there wouldnt be 6 inches of snow on the ground on April 6th would there be?

The weather of a localized area - especially Alaska, for frak's sake - in one season is not indicative of global climate.

And if the seas begin to rise we can make NYC like Venice, good for tourism. And we will all pay for it together collectively just as all humankind has collectively paid for the modifications to their environment based on the planets whims since Uggguugbluggug and his wife Rhonda packed up their village in Ontario as the Ice Sheets approached while Pi Ahn It moved his clans fishing village two miles inland as the Ice Sheets melted and the seas began to lap the shores of some nice warm island in Malaysia.

I want some of whatever it is you start the day with.

 

[Redworm]

Redworm,

On those grip bushings I would recommend putting a small amount of Loctite (Blue) on the threads and on the threads of the grip screws. I use a toothpick to dab a small amount on. With the Loctite Blue you can get them off again. The Loctite Red is almost impossible to break loose again so is not usually recommended.

I have never had a grip bushing or grip screw come loose when using Loctite Blue.

grip bushing! that's the word I was looking for, thanks

if they pop out again next time (in case I decide to buy some new grips but I'm pretty fond of the rosewood) I'll do that, I have some loctite that I use when wrenching on the cars but basically I was just annoyed with myself that I had stripped the threads just because I wanted to take the thing apart for the sake of taking it apart

I can't think of any other threads I can make in those forums that will actually provide content though I'll be sure to let y'all know once my C&R comes in, I sent the application out just a couple weeks ago.

 

[brickeyee]

Redworm,

Gravity sits outside relativity & special relativity.

The grand unified theory has been sought since Einstein came up with general and special relativity.
What is the propagation speed of gravity?
Is it quantized?
Does the particle called the ‘graviton’ exist?
Has anyone seen one?
Do we have inferred evidence for it like other particles)?
There are gravity ‘waves’, but how do they travel?

This does not mean we do not understand the macroscopic properties of gravity, we do very well.

There are still plenty of major 'holes' in our models.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Wild I think that the right way of looking at weather/climate modeling is to understand that these are dynamic chaotic systems. In chaos theory your common assumptions may be entirely wrong. Chaotic determinism just isn't periodic. As an example in a chaotic system where 2 + 2 = 4 a nearly similar 2.1 + 2 might equal 3.8 and 1.9 + 2 might equal 9,325. Tiny changes in an initial state lead to enormous changes in the result.

I find a great deal of humor in all the dire predictions and all the verbiage produced in making them. But the truth of the matter is that ever since the Arctic Ocean became so landlocked and the Isthmus of Panama closed our climate has been a chaotic system which keeps rebounding from ice ages...regardless of mankind.

Redworm I know you want to chime in so your part of the discussion will be to derive the 2 Feigenbaum constants delta and alpha to their first 300,000 places....and then predict whether it will rain at your house on May 2.

 

[miboso]

Assuming Redworm is right, and the world as we know it ends, so what? What's so important about us that we need to exist as we are? Or even exist at all? Each of us is important to ourselves and to those immediately around us, but overall "you are just a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here."
So, live as you will, but leave me the heck alone!

 

[Redworm]

That might be fine for some folk but most of us want to live. Most of us want to continue the saga of the human race. It's a biological imperative to continue the species so those that are content with letting the world end are the flukes.

My opinions are not that the word is coming to an end.

However we would like to make sure that the world is livable in the future. For example, what's so important about freedom that it needs to exist? Why bother fighting tyranny if it's not likely any of us will be around to suffer it?

Or maybe it's the idea that some of us believe it's as important to ensure future generations have a clean world as well as a free society in which to live. Then again, with the advances in medical technology, better understanding of the human genome, stem cell research and nutrition, my generation might have another century left to live. Maybe more.

 

[miboso]

it's as important to ensure future generations have a clean world as well as a free society in which to live.

And there's the rub. How can we ensure anything and yet have a free society? Especially if we use government for the ensuring. And that is the purpose for the hysteria; to use government to force change.