their power and tax bases? Environmentalism in its practical and
extreme forms serves these purposes, and is an easy sell because of its
emotional appeal. It provides easy pickings for politicians quickly
seduced by power, money and notoriety. And academics and scientists
dog pile on to the AGW band wagon for grant money and jobs.I could be missing something but I never see an explanation of how the
the human caused portion of the atmosphere's 385 ppm CO2 (20 ppm?)
controls our planet's temperature and trumps solar activity, ocean
currents, volcanic eruptions and the jet stream. If their is a consensus
of opinion on AGW, with a substantive relationship between human
caused CO2 and GW, its advocates must be ready, willing and able to
clearly and convincingly explain how our portion of this 385 ppm CO2
controls atmospheric temperature. Why is there so little interest and ability to clearly explain CO2's role in temperature and
debate the issue? My conclusion is much of the science and many of the scientists
we depend on for objectivity have been silenced by politics, disinterested media or financial concerns.
AGW is just another brick the body politic is expected to add to the edifice of environmental
orthodoxy. However, IMHO when AGW's emotionalism and propaganda is stripped away, little remains but the self serving interests of its devotees. 
AGW advocates please demonstrate how this .8 deg C. increase in the past 130 years was caused by the small
fraction of the 385 ppm CO2 humans have contributed to the atmosphere and not something else? 
CO2 continues to increase but temperatures are flat. What does this say about the purported 'green house effect'
of CO2? Graph source NASA
 Chance favors the informed
|
Are there any governments that don't want to increase - 
