Unfortunately, some misuse science. Some of their intentions, are far from benevolent. They see science as a mechanism for political power and control. There is great danger from those who would use science for political control over us.
How do they do this? They instill, and then continuously magnify, fear. Fear is the most effective instrument of totalitarian control.
Most of these state-funded bodies have grown hugely bigger, richer, and more powerful by jumping on the CO2 Scare bandwagon with alacrity. I suspect they also all produce materials for schools with some of their funds. They no doubt see children as a means of influencing their parents as well as voters of the future. Meanwhile, some climate alarmists have tried to frame, abuse, and attack the tiny Heartland Institute for daring to consider producing some educational materials on climate themselves. The moral and intellectual mess which Peter Gleick has got himself into in this smearing and deceit is tragic for him, and has itself drawn out more reprehensible comments from his 'side' (for examples, see this post by Donna Laframboise ).
The reality is the funding of that institute is minimal in comparison with those who push the establishment's line, while their integrity may well be orders of magnitude greater than that of their critics. I would hazard a guess that the science and reasoning and basic humanity in any climate materials they might produce for schools will be outstanding compared to the alarmist dross currently polluting the minds and spirits of the young.
Josh (Cartoons by Josh) captures a sense of the funding discrepancy with his superb graphic shown above. Ben Pile does the same, also superbly but using prose:
'The environmental movement is as promiscuous with its ‘ethics’ as it is with ‘The Science’. You can make stuff up, apparently, just so long as you do so in order to ‘save the planet’. And this is why sums as paltry and insignificant as $1,000 are so important to their perspective. It is only by amplifying the trivial that the myth of ‘networks’ of ‘well-funded deniers’ can be sustained. It’s only when you lose a sense of proportion that a few million dollars can stop global action on climate change. Trivia, vanity and mythology allows environmentalists to turn ordinary facts of politics – funding, associations of people, and campaigning organisations – into secret conspiracies to explain their own failure to create a popular movement.'
Those wealthy agencies may well turn on a sixpence as and when their political masters change tack. They will continue to do as they are bid. The glossy materials, the fancy websites, the PR machines, the outreach to the young - all of it could look the same from the distance, but, and here is the dream, one day the words will be different, the fearmongering will go, the manipulation, the condescension and the authoritarianism will vanish. Proper science, respect for others - especially for the trust and vulnerability of the young - and a sense of calm perspective about what we know and don't know about the climate system will take their place, along with more respect for the great industrial achievements of the past and for our ability to rise to the challenges of the future.
And all on greatly reduced budgets! There's the rub. And there's the value for money in small outfits like the Heartland Institute. I hope they do proceed with their climate materials for schools - they could scarcely fail to improve on some of the stuff out there, and they might just help with the long climb out of this pit of fear and smear we find ourselves in thanks to the political and financial power of people driven crazy by their phobia concerning CO2.
'The Education Department and the CSIRO push their propaganda and scare our children with apocalyptic, unscientific scenarios. They are even trying to target pre-schoolers. The ABC has accepted grants from the Climate Change Foundation to work the Climate Change message into ‘DirtGirl’, an ABC4Kids TV. Then there are demonstrations of bias like this from a school in Sydney.
They’re trying to train the next generation to “think” their way. We’d be mad to let them get away with it.
Thanks to the Gallileo Movement and donors, 300 FREE copies of Professor Ian Pilmer’s new book ‘How to get expelled from school’, are available to schools in Australia'
They require an official order from the schools, and this may be a problem. If the schools are required to follow the government line on climate scaremongering, then obtaining such a book through official channels is not going to appeal to any head in search of a quiet life, nor is the book likely to be deployed in his or her classrooms. I think they might be more successful in giving the books to teachers, and others in the education system, in their personal capacities. It may be that the overthrow of the scaremongers will begin in staffrooms rather than classrooms.
But the idea is a good one. Some schools, some heads, may be both willing and able to take a more independent view, at least for some classes who have either gone past relevant exams requiring conformance to the climate neurosis, or who have no intention of taking them. I think as well as books, kits could be provided for physics classes to do their own greenhouse experiments and learn for themselves that the term is a misnomer - thereby undermining one of the emotive catchphrases of the scaremongers (exploiting the widespread experience of hot and unpleasant conditions in real greenhouses). Experiments showing the relatively large energies involved in the phase transitions of water would also be relevant as part of studies into the immense importance of the water cycle in the climate system. What else? New books, pamphlets, posters, DVD, and computer games and exercises - all the sorts of kit, in other words, deployed thanks to state funding by those who wish to scare the young into obedience, can be used by those who wish to liberate the young from such oppression and encourage them to think clearly for themselves. There is great scope for generating enthusiasm, from the grand cosmic scope of the theories of Svensmark and Shaviv, to the great convective systems of the tropics, and the evaporation of a raindrop. Even CO2 will deserve a mention as a minor player in climate but a major one for plants and indeed ourselves. No need to scare 'em at all.
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is.
It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.
The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes.
The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.
The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such.
They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Professor Richard Lindzen introducing a lecture (pdf) he gave in Westminster on 22nd February, 2012, in response to an invitation from the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Act. Video via Climate Realists.
Josh was there and captured insights and visual reminders in his gifted way:
Lindzen even managed to penetrate the smug assurance of someone at that home of sanctimonious superficial climate alarmism, the Independent:
The educational implications of this are clear. Here is perhaps the most distinguished scientifc meteorologist of our age. His message is not the one our schools have been told to put out.
He is a moral and intellectual giant compared to the likes of Al Gore whose shoddy DVD was issued by the last government to all schools in England and Wales, or the likes of Peter Gleick, a vainglorious alarmist now being hoist by his own petard, or, another alarmist en route to a personal fortune, Dave Miliband, a leading member of that government whose Climate Change Act brings such shame and loss to British society.
Lindzen's core message is not new. This is not a sudden revelation. Leading climate scientists were saying it loud and clear to politicians 20 years ago, as the following statement, signed by Lindzen and many others, makes clear:
'February 27, 1992 WASHINGTON, D.C. - As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations. Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880. Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models. Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply. We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.'
When it comes to cleaning the alarmist guff out of school curricula, one excuse that neither the politicians nor their tame educationalists who put those curricula together and forced them on to schools, will not have is 'we didn't know any better'. They will also not have the excuse of 'only now has recent scientific knowledge suggested less cause for alarm'. No, the real knowledge has never provided sufficient cause for alarm. Never. The alarm was and is based on speculation - hollow, flaky, insubstantial and promoted vigorously by grossly irresponsible people for a generation.
Generally, education and climate change is a gloomy overlap, given the apparent dominance of ruthless scaremongering about CO2 in curricula, and the apparent abundance of zealots all too keen to recruit the young for their peculiar cause. A recruitment process that seems to involve scaring them about their future, then rubbishing their heritage of discovery and invention, and finally crippling their spirit of adventure, displacing it with obedience to elites who will tell them what they are permitted to do: eating, working, inventing, travelling, thinking, and even procreating. The old socialist dream, in other words, of Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot, and many other more minor dictators who besmirched the 20th century with their hideous behaviour.
But here are some signs of revolt, or of setbacks for alarmists, or at least of dawning realisation that all is not well with this scheme, or with its so-called scientific 'underpinnings'. In no particular order:
(1) WIthin a month of deciding to support warped science-teaching in schools about climate, the NCSE have 'released' their prize catch of a distinguished climate alarmist from their board of directors, one Peter Gleick, a man driven to malevolent distraction by his vivid fears of armageddon.
(2) Judith Curry, a climate scientist who is not afraid of debate, and who clearly values the integrity and repuation of science in general and her subject in particular, has just started a new thread about teaching climate in schools on her site, and within 24 hours or so it had attracted several hundred comments.
(3) The Australian Climate Madness site has in the last couple of days posted several pieces on climate materials aimed at children, and it is not at all pleased with them - here and here and here. Looks like that site may continue to pursue this topic.
(4) Andrew Bolt, and several other commentators in the mass media in Australia, have been impugned in a school geography textbook. He doesn't like that much, and I daresay the others won't either. Hopefully they will, as Bolt has done, make their displeasure widely known.
(5) Andrew Montford is the author of an outstanding book about an interface between climate science and politics, the Hockey Stick Illusion, and a man very concerned and knowledgeable about the activities and effects of key players in the headlong rush underway to make CO2 and 'climate' a dominant factor in policy making. He has just given a talk at one of the UK Met Office sites. This organisation was chosen as a next career choice by a man who played a large part in transforming the World Wildlife Fund into a lobbying body obsessed, even demented by 'climate change'. In some ways, so is the Met Office - to its great demerit since its level of competence in climate forecasting is laughable, yet it has played an important role in making climate alarm respectable, not least through the influence of its former director John Houghton, who saw climate change and man's impact on it in a religous light. Anyway, the meeting took place, and the first reports of it sound favourable.
(6) The Independent newspaper, like some other leftwing mass media in the UK, notably the Guardian and the BBC, has been prominent in campaigning and preaching about the dreadful effect of man-induced CO2 releases into the atmosphere. Their evironmental reporters have been like missionaries seized with fervour as they spread the good words about how salvation will come from reducing something called our 'carbon footprint'. Aided and abetted by rising taxes, reduced standards of living, and greater power to their preferredinstrument of all progress - the government. Well, and this is admittedly small beer, yesterday on their website a writer was allowed to publish a sympathetic report about a public lecture on climate by Richard Lindzen, another man who clearly loves science and the pursuit of truth. The penny seemed to have dropped for this writer that maybe, just maybe, the Great Co2 Scare has been overblown.
(7) The Royal Society's craven dance macabre with government over climate alarmism has been lucidly captured by the above-mentioned Andrew Montford in a short pamphlet which tells how recent leadership there has thrown away the splendid and precious spirit of objectivity and indepence captured so vividly in their original motto, Nullius in Verba (pdf). A previous mini-revolt by a few dozen fellows over the society's stance on climate may well be replicated a fortiori if this fine pamphlet helps foment some more unrest. This matters a lot for schools, since educational materials and their pushers on the climate front have been able to quote the society as an authoritative source in an area of science education that is awfully dependent on reference to authority since actual observations of the climate system show nothing at all unusual going on in what we see or experience.
(8) Another big source of authority for scaring the wits out of children, the IPCC has been exposed as a shoddy organisation by Donna Laframboise, and the next reports due from it are already being attacked in their draft form by knowledgeable commentators - see here or here.
(9) In fact, the speed with which alarmist hyperbole is being jumped upon and exposed in the blogosphere is in general very encouraging, with groups such as the GWPF and SPPI and NIPCC and CO2Science doing sterling service with high quality analyses aimed at policy makers. See here, for example, for an evisceration of the BBC's record (pdf) on climate alarmism, and here. Or visit WUWT for regular features challenging the establishment view - a website by the way which recently went past over 100 milllion visits, by itself a good sign.
(10) New books are coming out that could well be used, or inspire, teachers and pupils to take a more robust line when it comes to dealing with those who would use their pupils as pawns in political schemes. One in particular, Don't Sell Your Coat, is very accessible, being bright, brief, and extremely well-written. It also comes from an an author on the left of the political spectrum, the end at which it would seem that most teachers find themselves to be.
(11) And here's something I've been listening to with great admiration while finishing off this post: Matt Ridley talking to a 'tipping-point' conference recently. Since 'tipping-point' is one of the catch-phrases used to scare the gullible, it is likely that his audience was mostly of true believers in the climate faith, the apocalyptic one (h/t Bishop Hill) . Teachers, I know you are constrained by state-imposed curricula, but could you at least share this in your staffrooms?
(12) Perhaps we are going to see an end to junk like this video clip below, introduced by one Ben Santer, famous for editing draft IPCC reports to suit his, rather than other scientists' more rational, views, and for being tempted to 'beat the crap' out of another scientist who had the temerity to be wiser and more knowledgeable than him. The only possibly encouraging thiing about this video, apart from its dire quality, is that comments on it have been switched off at YouTube, possibly because they were too angry:
And the snows of Kilimanjaro? Well, they got that wrong too - they are not steadily disappearing. And airborne CO2 emits just as much as it absorbs of infra-red - neither it nor methane is a 'trap' keeping that radiation from escaping to space. Once high enough up, they will actually help that escape of energy to take place.
The false image of the earth behaving like a glass house will be laughed at one day in classrooms, as will the idea of CO2 as a pollutant, while the youngsters learn a little of this crazy era of CO2-driven political madness say, c. 1980 to 2020, in which gullible politicians were led to believe they could control the very weather by raising taxes, and when little children were coached as activists to encourage such beliefs. That end date may be on the optimistic side, but I think it is not out of the question.
Andrew Bolt describes a school geography textbook as ‘sludge’. For some reason, best known to the authors, and perhaps not unconnected with the widespread CO2 Alarm virus that is now endemic in left-wing circles in particular, they chose to denigrate him and some other commentators in a somewhat unimpressive coverage of climate politics in their book. I think their approach, while it would not be unexpected in any conversation with agitated climate alarm believers, is wholly out of place in a school textbook. It is due, I suspect, to a corruption of climate science that has been widely propagated by such as the IPCC. I divide my concerns into three headings below, and follow that with some extracts from the offending passages in the book as provided by Australian Climate Madness.
Moral turpitude. The loaded use of words like ‘denial’ and ‘denying’ is a hideous abuse not only of good people who happen to have views contrary to the establishment’s, but also and more importantly to the memory and the message of the Holocaust itself. But further, to take the good intentions of such as the IPCC at face value is to make a profound error. Good intentions seized upon with enthusiasm and faith in the wisdom of ideologically-driven elites in the 20th century led to horrendous tragedies. In the climate area, the most dramatic of late has been in the imposition of bio-fuels – not just adding to energy costs in the rich world, but bringing further, totally avoidable, misery and starvation to the poor one. The longer-term harm will flow from the accretion of power and wealth by new ‘elites’ using CO2 fear-driven legislation and taxes, while the associated suppressed development, known as ‘sustainable development’, will impoverish most people in both rich and poor countries.
Rotten attitude. Aggressive, politically-loaded one-sided misrepresentation of those who are speaking out against the corruption of both science and politics does not reflect what I imagine most parents would want to see in a teacher, or in a textbook. No pupil would realise, from this material, that very distingusihed, very experience scientists have taken issue with climate alarmism, as have many very well-informed, logical, coherent, and civil commentators. The scarcity of admirable role models on the climate alarmist side is quite stark, and is not alluded to. You can hardly look into any area of climate alarmism without finding matters of great concern, often revealing low levels of integrity in science, in politics, or in journalism. Now a teacher of science or of geography might reasonably wish to protect his pupils from this rather confusing turmoil in order to teach them something of his or her subject matter. Instead, in this textbook, we see propaganda – a one-sided denigration by innuendo of good citizens, freely and reasonably deploying their own minds and finding serious grounds for opposing the headlong rush to legislate and spread fear, ostensibly in the cause of CO2 reduction. Downright 'stupitude': The poor quality and global coverage of so much climate data is such that to describe the evidence for global warming as ‘overwhelming’ is not a very intelligent thing to say, especially when the context implies that by ‘global warming’ is meant something quite dramatic and scary. There is indeed some evidence, most notably through estimates of that rather hard to define concept of global mean temperature. This is not actually an observed temperature. Many real observations of temperature show no particularly sustained trend in the 20th century for example, some show cooling, some show periods of warming and cooling, and some show warming. Large areas of the earth’s surface have no surface weather stations in their vicinity. The satellite data available for the past 30 years or so, show no clear warming signals. Even the widely accepted global mean temperatures only show a modest overall rise in the 20th century, and furthermore show no evidence of a rise in the 21st. The case against acute, or even any strong alarm about rising CO2 levels is actually a very strong one, and so far it has been well-supported by Mother Nature herself. So many alarmist predictions capable of being put to the test by contemporary data have failed that test that it is rather stupid to pretend that the arguments are over, and we face disaster if the Jeremiahs are ignored. The scientists who are promote acute alarm about rising levels of CO2 are actually very few – perhaps a few dozen or so in my estimation, with their impact amplified by the leadership of scientific institutions and others. The numbers who promote appeals for a more calm, considered discussion of the science are far greater, probably in the hundreds or even thousands if some petitions are to be taken at face value. Finally, picking on such as Andrew Bolt, a highly articulate, well-informed man with a very sharp wit (not to mention newspaper columns a radio slot, a tv show, and a great many enthusiastic followers) is both inappropriate for a school textbook, and a little, shall we say, ill-advised. I suspect he knows far more about the climate debate that the authors of this sorry book.
Some extracts from the book, with comments.
Extract 1: 'Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the planet is warming, there are still people who deny that is a result of human activity. The most vocal of these deniers are conservative political think tanks and the right-wing radio 'shock jocks'.' This is a straw man, there to allow the authors to vent theirs spleen at what they no doubt sees as 'the enemy'. After a brief CYA sentence including 'there is a range of views', they develop the above theme. Yet what is the reality? The planet has not been warming for the past 15 years or so by the usual measure of estimated global mean temperatures. When it was warming in the late 20th century. it was at a similar rate and magnitude to the warming of the early 20th century - a rise not attributed by anyone to CO2. Furthermore, many distinguished scientists and other sceptics are perfectly willing to entertain the possibility of a human contribution to warming via CO2. They do not dispute that, they merely observe that the expected and the observed effect are both rather small, and not of much, if any, concern. For a recent illustration of such an approach, I would direct my readers to item 1 and item 2 in the Wall Street Journal.
Extract 2 ‘Shaping the nature of the public debate about the issue is an important focus for those groups opposed to any program designed to reduce CO2 emissions. In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that a conservative American think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was offering scientists and economists US$10,000 each to ‘undermine a major climate change report’ from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’
$10,000 dollars will sound like a life-changing amount to a schoolchild, and being paid to ‘undermine’ something does sound very dubious indeed. Yet let us look at some facts:
1.The AEI request was for ‘essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs’. The sender of the request noted ‘Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy.’ Doesn’t sound too sinister to me.
2.$10,000 dollars does not actually buy you a lot of specialist consultancy. Maybe 1 or 2 days of a leading expert’s time, maybe 10 to 20 days of a relative newcomer’s. A decent amount of money to be sure, and I’d guess it is a sum not out of line with what even The Guardian newspaper will pay for a piece by a distinguished commentator. I suspect they might well pay $10,000 for a few thousand words by a specialist commissioned to write for them. [see footnote (1)]
That Guardian article by the way, came complete with this picture of a polar bear. Such bears might well become symbols of the shallow opportunism of some climate alarmists since many bear populations have been growing despite being held up to us, and to children in particular, as already being harmed by the awful warming underway.
Extract 3. ‘Many large fossil fuel-based industries have also tried to discredit the work of scientists. Exxon Mobil, the giant American Oil Company, has, for example, spent millions supporting conservative (right-wing) organizations that cast doubt on the science on which the warnings about a warming climate have been based.’
Some people really have it in for Big Oil in general, and Exxon in particular. Yet these companies are noticeable by their low profile on the sceptic side of the debate, and their prominence on the warming side with their campaigns, investments, and support for the global warming worldview that ‘something must be done’. The recent theft and publication of Heartland Institute documents is informative here I think. This is an example of what the authors refer to as a ‘conservative think tank’. First of all for the insight into the ethics of climate alarmed scientist-activists and their supporters in the mass media, but also for the remarkable absence of millions in funding by Big Oil or other fossil-fuel based industries (how much of modern industry, or indeed living, is not fossil-fuel based, by the way?). For more insight into the far larger sums flowing into the climate alarm industry, see this post by Jo Nova.
Extract 4: 'In Australia,journalists such as the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt, the Sydney Morning Herald's Miranda Devine, the Telegraph's Piers Akerman and the radio 'shock jocks' Alan Jones and Ray Hadley dismiss the science underpinning warnings about global warming.' This, remember, is in a school textbook on geography aimed at 13 and 14 year olds. I am not familiar with the output of all on that list, only some of Bolt's work and a little of Alan Jones'. If it is typical of this lumped together group, then a more accurate focus would be 'scientific speculations underpinning warnings about global warming'. And a more accurate term than 'dismiss' might be 'examine' or even 'draw attention to criticisms of'. 'Dismiss' does imply an attempt to ignore or downplay, but both Bolt and Jones seem to go out of their way to draw attention to them (thank goodness). For example, on 17th March, 2011, Bolt wrote this:
'Once again, Julia Gillard tells an untruth in her speech last night on her carbon dioxide tax:
Ms Gillard said human-induced climate change was real and opinion polls could not change that. ‘’I ask, who would I rather have on my side?’’ she said. ‘’Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt?
Here are just some of the climate scientists who’d object to Gillard including them in her list of supporters:'
[there follows an annotated list of some of the most distinguished scientists who do not take Ms Gillard's alarmist view of the climate system - no dismissal of science there, I'd say]
Or you might prefer to listen to Andrew Bolt interviewing a hapless EU apparatchik called Jill Duggan, who was in Australia to promote the EU's carbon policy without having a clue about what it might achieve.
In all three cases, he seems to me to be taking climate science very seriously indeed. He is far from dismissing it. The TV slot also includes an interview with Prof Lindzen who is a known believer in anthropogenic global warming. He just doesn't think it amounts to much.
Extract 5‘Fortunately, a new generation of world leaders is taking global warming seriously. In the United States of America, President Barack Obama is working to reduce America’s reliance on fossil fuels and is providing leadership in international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.’
This is so misleading. President Obama may be noted for some things, but providing such leadership is demonstrably not one of them. And why the ‘fortunately’ when so much harm is coming from political decisions driven by alarmist posturing?
This is not education, but propaganda. It is pure melodrama, short on facts and long on fancy.
Few “deniers” - an offensive term meant to evoke Holocaust denial - dispute that man’s emissions have a tendency to warm the planet. That is not where the main debate is at.
The dispute is about the extent of any warming, the danger of it, the likelihood of it being overwhelmed by natural influences, the true sensitivity of the climate to our gases, and the cost-benefit of trying to “stop” the warming we’ve seen - which actually halted 15 years ago.
These “deniers” include many reputable scientists, including some of the world’s leading climate scientists. To suggest they’ve been bribed to say what they do is a vile smear. If money does corrupt debate, it should be noted that the vast bulk of money goes to the alarmists.
As for those leaders who “fortunately” take “global warming seriously”, Obama is not doing anything seriously about it and Rudd was dumped after backing off his own plans.
There’s much more to say about this sludge. What is depressing is that it is taught as fact in our schools.
Note. My rough draft of this post went to 15 pages. I have cut out most of the material, and many of the references to save some time and spare the reader from ramblings (found lots of good stuff though). I plan to come back and add links to add back up to some points made above, as well as correct the typos that must be there.
Footnote (1)added 25 Feb 2012. A supporter of the UK's absurd Climate Change Act gets c. $30.000 a day for consulting, and an average of $25,000 for each of 8 speeches last year.
Socialist greenies - you've to hand it to them - they know how to look after themselves!
