#5 Old Roy. Keep up old man. That was yesterday's news, and was commented upon yesterday.

It must be difficult, being marooned on the Black Isle.

#16. Exactly the answer we'd expect: "Bring back censorship before this forum is no longer looked at by anyone with intelligence." Anybody who disagrees with you should be censored. That's probably why you don't hear more dissenting views on global warming. Media censorship is just as dangerous as government censorship.

#17. Gotta love your comments. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, and somehow you are qualified to state unequivocally: "Man made climate change is real; it threatens us, our way of life and our entire global ecosystem." Sorry, just because you say it doesn't make it so.

#23: I'm with you, Jennifer. They're dim as a Labour politician, and don't last as long as they say they will (probably also like a Labour politician).

Great discussion, guys!

MIKE 30 A very good summation. It is a pity that our media are, if anything, even less to be trusted on this & some other subjects than yours.

There would be nowhere to find these things if Al Gore hadn't invented the internet for us:-)

#34 Nice one mk.

TB likes to talk the talk to further his own damaged legacy, but unfortunately is trying to take the high moral ground without coming up with clear and consise policies.
You're right we need to convince the 6 you refer to, maybe by example is one of the ways we can lead on this issue??

Mike J #31...Brilliant and right on! You may have already read some of these, but if not, you might check out : http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

The history of man includes many periods where the masses believed what ever the Uppy-Ups said, and the Uppy-Ups said you must appease this God or that God with some sort of sacrifice or something. Today's Godless masses (liberals) are being told that THEY are all little Gods... but they have screwed up. They have damaged the environment! Therefore, it's time for them to get on their knees and pray to the almighty Environment God and ask for forgiveness. And...they must sacrifice their strong economy for the errors of their ways. Then, they can use all their free time to run dancing into the fields with arms raised and give thanks the Environment God...and (of course) the Uppy-Ups for their safety. Afterward however, they should hurry and get back in line with their cup.

The briliant Mke J is #30...and he is still right on!

Since they recommend you don't fly for a holiday say to Algarve.
Will the same recommendation apply to tourists flying in to spend money in Scotland?

Comment@5 Old Roy, I'll take that bet.........An Independent Scotland who is against the folly of Trident and already has a Chinese embassy in Edinburgh......would be seen as less of a threat to the Chinese and their trigger happy issues against satellites :)

Basically all the posts on this topic this time are of a similar type to those in the topic from 17th January , and also from the week before.

Until more of you take the time to really...and I mean really... go into this subject by studying in huge detail the scientific evidence, the accurate measurements and the correlations between differing effects and things that might have been the cause of them, the continual repetition of personal opinion by conspiracy theorists, along with the blinkered assurance of the " Live today for tomorrow we all die" brigade , and the nihilism of those that believe that the earth and its climate is somehow immune from any man-made influence, simply reveal that this type of comment column is a p[assive and fruitless exercise.

How any person can seriously conclude that the burning of a huge percentage of the worlds fossil fuel resources within 175 years, the quadrupling the worlds population in less than 150 years, the concreting over of a global area equivalent to the size of many medium sized countries within the last 100 years and the Halving of the area of natural rain forest around the world in the last 50 years can have absolutely no lasting effect is beyond sanity.

The writing is in the hundreds of scientific papers on the subject...many of which can be accessed ...as I have said before...by anyone with the time and internet access.

This is not rocket science here...it is scientific evidence that something measureable has really begun to signal and support those global climate trends that cause concern. In just the same way that switching on your car engine in your garage with the door shut will sooner or later kill anyone that stands around in there...I personally believe that the sensible thing to do in the face of mounting proof of damage is to accelerate research to provide a clear technological alternative , another way of arranging our lifestyles on a global scale, It is

I see where the ice in the northern hemisphere is decreasing however the ice in the souther hemisphere is increasing.
Think about it, more people die from the cold in Scotland than from the heat.

Thanks td for all that stuff about evidence. I assume this means you have actually found some evidence that the world's rivers are rapidly silting up because of global warming as you previously assured us :-)

Rules can add that little piece of nonsense to his list. Presumably, if he thinks people contribute here only because their employers say so he is telling us he is being lucratively funded by the same windfarm consortium that recently gave £250,000 to Bliar.

Money talks and bulls*** walks, the scientists spouting this global warming garbage are living quite nicely thank you on generous government grants. Why should they bite the hand that feeds them?

Neil , Once again you are trying to tell others by the tone of your post that I have claimed an opinion about something untrue . ( BTW. You will seldom find any of my opinions in any posts I ever make.)..I am always very careful not to 'go there'.

What I regularly do, and will continue to do, is attempt to raise the level of a discussion by drawing attention to evidence or scientific papers which reveal current issues around the world which are of concern to scientists. You might find this paper will set out for you the scientific discussion we hinted at last week, and the reality of the concerns about how levels of river silt and global climate may be linked. Things that you - in your evident ignorance - continue to ignore.

http://www.ozestuaries.org/oracle/ozestuaries/indicators/...

You could of course have found this on Google yourself had you bothered. Just another " Inconvenient truth ".... ?

Two questions for Greens.

1. CO2 is bad, right?

Please explain the following.

Estimated annual worldwide natural (non-man made) CO2 emissions are around 180 billion tonnes, +/- 10%. Estimated worldwide man made CO2 emissions are 7.2 billion tonnes. CO2 is CO2, however produced.

Man made CO2 is less than 5% of natural CO2, and lost in the annual ups and downs of natural emissions.

2. If man made CO2 disappeared tomorrow, what difference would it make?

# 47

The point is not really a study of how the CO2 got into the atmosphere, it is far more concerned tthat world wide concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing at ever quickening rates. As you will know CO2 is one of the so called ' greenhouse gases' that forms a blanket around the planet. Scientists have proved that this blanket has a major role to play in the reduction of radiation from outer space. As the blanket has got thicker radiation getting through to the earth's surface has altered and that radiation which used to " bounce" back into space is being blocked along with heat from the surface. A resuklt of this is that at higher levels within the atmosphere tests have shown that the outer atnmosphere is in fact cooling. This cooler level is claimed to be responsible for changing the wavelength of the radiation that is getting through to the surface of the planet. This in itself is claimed to be a further cause of damage the ecology of the planet.

Back to the question about CO2. Because roughly 20 % of the huge areas of rain forest around the world that existed in 1940 has now been cleared, the vegetation no longer exists in the form of trees etc to convert CO2 back to oxygen, and to capture free carbon from the atmosphere and " lock it down" as timber etc. . In other parts of the world development has led to clearing of vegetation and its replacement with concrete. Overall there is now less world vegetation to absorb the CO2, and other types of green house gas at the very moment in history when mankind's activities are releasing ever increasing quantities of these damaging gases.

As the world warms there is a danger that permafrost areas will melt. These tundra zones contain a huge historical store of CO2. It has been suggested that should this meltdown result in the release of yet more CO2 the whole acceleration in atmospheric CO2 might become unstoppable.

The opther worrying

Evenin’ all.

Thanks to #16 teskey, #17toxicfish, #6, #12, #38, #44 rulesbutnotrulers and td #41 and a few others, for trying to stem the tide of paranoia, ignorance and perceived self-interest (not to mention the usual misrepresentations and misquotations from Neil) that (dis)grace these threads.

Mike J #30 seems to have received some adulation from the climate change denial battalion, so lets have a look at what he said:

He starts with a “Thanks to all the educated Scots”. Nothing like a bit of flattery, particularly if laced with nationalism, to get you off on a good footing. Good thinking Mike J! No semi-educated dimwit from the best wee country in the world could fail to swallow what follows, however idiotic it is.

He admits that he was once part of the “great trembling masses” who thought the world was about to turn into a “huge fireball”. Yes. Well, what more can I say. If he admits to being an idiot in his second paragraph then perhaps we should just leave it there. But I struggle on.

His third and fourth paragraphs claim that he’s been “reading” “scientific tracts” written by “climatologists”. Golly!

OK, Mike J, he’s a challenge for you: Name six climatologists who DENY that anthropogenic climate change is a) real, b) damaging and c) potentially catastrophic. Oh, OK, it’s Sunday evening (at least in the best wee country in the world), so, name just three then, so we know who you are talking about. Alright, dammit, name just one climatologist, just one, give us a paper that is peer reviewed, that is respected, that tells is that all this concern is unwarranted. Just one, Mike, please. Just one.

As for your 5 points:
1. You can find the graph of global temperature change on the “climatic research unit” (UK) web-site under “Global temperature record”. You will see that temperature has increased by about 0.6C since about 1950. So, there were other factors responsible for the increase in temperature in the ear

with some catastrophic declines due to environmental, including climatic, changes. The predictions are that we are now on the threshold of vastly greater climatic change than we have experienced in all of that time.

Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. In addition, the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which has been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

It's the way they are clearly trying to terrorise the population that concerns me and the possible collapse of the tourist industry because of it, how many millions of jobs will be lost?
How long before these people decide that the only way to stop this is to exterminate half the worlds population, the ultimate carbon footprint reduction method.
And why would anyone want to holiday in this country when the Algarve has things like sunshine and fun and we have portobello and misery, nothing wrong with portobello but you know what I mean, lol

Don't think too many CO2's will be hanging above the UK after the 99 mph winds this week.

Seems Slioch that you accept uncritically the IPCC political output and its dis-credited so called "peer reviewing". You also seem to accept their flawed "hockey stick" which has been shown to be based wrong data.
The Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) with its Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is often quoted as an authoritative source on climate change. However, many climatologists, including scientists working on the IPCC, disagree strongly with some of the conclusions issued in the SPM. It is evident that the SPM information is often political in content. The widely distributed and referenced SPM was compiled by UN bureaucrats that fails to convey the uncertainty of climate change forecasts of the panel scientists.

Hey Sambo the 99mph winds are caused because of it !

Re the article's comment about being "caught short" running on LPG, you won't be stuck. Your car will automatically revert to your petrol tank if the LPG does run out. You get an additional tank which effectively creates a dual fuel car when you convert to LPG. There's now a good network of garages selling LPG, so it's less likely you'll run short. There's lots of info on this at www.fuelture.co.uk.

Thank you Teskey, td, rulesbutnotrulers, Slioch and a few others for adding some gravitas and not a little dry humour to this obviously polarised debate. I don't think any of us have all the answers or can individually understand the complexity of climate change, natural and man-made. There are an incredible number of natural variables and viewpoints. We can only base our beliefs on a balance of available evidence.

The evidence I have seen makes me believe that humanity has and is causing a dangerous addition to natural climate change. c.10k years of a basic atmospheric equilibrium (Krakatoa and other volcanic bangs excepted) is changing rapidly and I conclude that our industrial heritage and continued reliance on fossil fuels is the cause. Carbon locked up in these fossil fuels over 100s of millions of years is being released in the space of a few centuries. Apart from the scientific evidence (and I acknowledge that some of you don’t believe it -I know, it’s difficult), even that fact alone suggests that it must be having an effect somewhere, some-how, some-when.

In my previous posting this morning (Stirling time) I acknowledged that politicians will take advantage of this situation but so will wind-farmers, supermarkets, economists and god botherers. They always have and always will.

I am genuinely scared that we will not make the necessary move quickly enough to avert the worst consequences of what we, collectively and in ignorance, are causing. Up until now, our impact on our planet’s interconnected ecosystems has only been a game. This time it is serious.

Of course, we can continue to stick our head in the sand and deny anything that may interfere with our cosy lives in our developed societies but my believe is that it will catch up with us - you and me.

Alternatively, we can acknowledge that something bad is happening and try to do something about it. Hey, even if it’s not happening on the scale that some of us believe, j

watch the al gore documentary an inconvient truth it really is that good to make you change your mind we are screwing the planet more than we are screwing iraq

#52 Alexander said, “As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming.”

It is true that ice core evidence shows that the initial warming at the end of glacial periods happened before CO2 levels began to increase. After that both CO2 and temperature generally increased very rapidly. It is also true that as the surface of the Earth warms “expels more CO2”. This evidence is consistent with two quite independent factors: 1) that warming (however caused) causes release of CO2 from “sinks” (probably both oceanic and terrestrial) and 2) that increase in atmospheric CO2 causes increased warming via the greenhouse effect. The initial warming at the end of glacial periods is considered to be caused by changes in Earth’s orbit (called Milankovitch cycles). There is nothing new in the argument. It has been explained so many times one wonders how anyone with anyone with any interest in climate science could have missed it.

As for changes in recent CO2 levels: the present rate of change is unprecedented for at least 800,000 years.
In the last 17 years it has increased by 30ppmv, whereas during all of those 800,000 years it never increased by 30ppmv in less than 1000 years. The rate of increase has not been constant over the last 25 years: it is increasing.

As for “proof”. This is climate science, not geometry. Try proving evolution, or even something relatively simple, like the moon causing the tides. Those who claim that global warming is false because it hasn’t been “proved” demonstrate their ignorance of science.

#55 Alexander
The IPCC does not involve itself in peer reviewing: that is the job of the normal scientific community. The IPCC involves itself with previously peer reviewed papers, and your other comments about the IPCC are similarly misinformed. As for the “hockey stick” graph: Since the original Mann paper in 1998, upon which the Hockey stick was based, examinations from many different sources have found similar results. As a result of criticism of the Mann (hockey stick) paper in the 2001 IPCC report, the American National Academy of Science National Research Council conducted an investigation. It was published in June 2006 and runs to 155pages. It says:

“the key conclusions reached by those studies [the hockey stick] (i.e., that hemispheric-scale warmth in recent decades is likely unprecedented over at last the past millennium) have been substantiated by many other studies, and the confidence in those conclusions appears greater, not lesser, after nearly an additional decade of research”(pg. 109 of the report).[quoted from www.Realclimate 22 June 2006].

The NAS/NRC press release states:

“There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are spa

Scottweb and Guga,
You guys have it on the mark...and Bonnie Prince Charlie needs to get a Life, not a Footprint!

...and speaking of CO2, when did this become a problem gas? I seem to remember from High School Science class that CO2 and O2 were exchanged between animals and plants, and each was necessary to the survival of both.
I wonder Who cooked up this Scheme? Did it evolve somehow?

#48 and subsequent commentators on CO2.

Please read what I actually pointed out, and think about its implications. The 7.3 billion tonnes of annual man made CO2 emissions are insignificant, compared to nature's 180 biilion tonnes. Further, since nature's emissions vary, they can easily exceed man's contribution at any time. A statistician would describe them as being "lost in the noise" of nature's variability.

Hence, even if we reduced our own CO2 emissions by 50%, it would have no perceptible effect on nature's total output. Its only, and very perceptible, effect would be to severely damage the economies of industrialised nations. Some, especially in "have not" nations, might feel this would be a good thing, in order to "cut the west down to size." Could this have been behind Kyoto? Some feel it could have been.

Regardless, one thing is clear. The sort of cataclysmic events which some postulate here can never be prevented by puny human efforts of changing light bulbs and buying hybrid cars. That's as helpful as whistling while walking past a graveyard.

Greens, of course, don't want these issues raised. But they should, and must, be raised.

Slioch
I note your naive confidence in the IPCC. As regards "peer revue" the IPCC does not do so itself, but they do SELECT the revuers and those who do not fit with their ideas are excluded. I should further point out that the IPCC website bars the Hoi Poloi from access to the original technical papers.
Here is one assessment of the IPCC, not mine.
Line by line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the theory of human interference with climate has been systematically omitted. In some cases the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed. In other cases the evidence against human interference is simply ignored. Because of these strategic omissions, the SPM voices a degree of certainty that is entirely false.

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" -- including the press and the public -- who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it. This deliberate distortion can only be explained by the fact that the UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organized by the United Nations Environment Program and supporting the Kyoto Protocol.

Just a small addendum. A few folk (#4 Bite-Back, #9 Harbinger, #15 Boswell) have questioned the loss of ice from Antarctica, with reference to last week’s ITV programmes (UK) about that continent.

The first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet, conducted by the NASA Grace satellite in 2002 and again in 2005, concluded that the Antarctic ice sheet was losing 152 (+ or - 80) cubic kilometres of ice per year between 2002 and 2005.

That is in addition to the 8,000 square kilometres of ice shelf lost from around the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1950’s.

#64
Human emissions of CO2 have increased the atmospheric concentration by about 40% since 1750. CO2 concentrations have been monitored continuously since 1958.
The amount given out naturally is also largely re-absorbed naturally. It is the human component, only some of which is absorbed, that has produced the rise in concentration.

How do they know this isn't just the earth returning to what it was like in the first place?

I remember studying about the dinosaur time periods, how it was sub-tropical even up into the northern parts of North America. There is common and prevalant fossil eveidence of this (plants and animal). Then along came an outside factor of some sort, now felt to have been an asteroid/meteor, that triggered a huge long ice age.

Do we really know all this global warming isn't just the earth finally getting back to "normal". That it is one of those things that as the change progresses, it progresses at an increasingly faster rate?

I get so tired of it always being humankind's fault - like we don't belong here or somthing. I get tired of these scientists and such that seem to want little more than for us to all hate ourselves because we're the cause of every woe.

We haven't been able to evaluate the climate for very long, it is a very new branch of science. I don't think they really have enough of a base of information to make all these claims.

Speaking of saving the planet, what are Al Gore's plans to protect the Earth from asteroid impact? Supernova? Black hole? Antimatter?

I mean, come ON! This is foolishness. Yes it's good to conserve energy when and where we can, but really, does anybody believe humans and humans alone are responsible for climate change? What the heck happened that initiated the ice ages? Humans weren't around then at all, or at least not in any numbers that could possibly have affected anything except some lion's dinner once in awhile.

Viscount: the hidden purpose of the Kyoto agreements was to drain money from developed nations by the super-polluting third world nations who couldn't give a rat's a$$ about the damage they're doing to the environment. It's free money. So they're all for Kyoto while they pump vast amounts of toxic materials into the environment.

#19 Meldrew asks if their are too many people on the planet and the answer is YES, of course.
That is where the main problem lays.
Meanwhile the Roman Catholic Church forbids the faithful to use any practical method of birth control. The "rhythm method" being laughed out as being downright stupid.
The Church of Rome has much to answer for in polluting the world.

69 and 70
Worrying complacency ?

The people of the USA have been kept in the dark about this whole issue for far too long. The USA failed to respond to the fears expressed by most other countries delegates at Kyoto. Only with recent moves by the UN and certain US politicians has the whole issue become taken seriously in North America..

In answer to your clear doubts, it has to be emphasised that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now continuing to increase ever faster beyond the highest points ever seen in Ice core samples that have been extracted from Icecaps at both poles. These indicate that in over 100,000 years this has never happend before.

In view of the doubts that seem to come repeatedly from the USA it may be relevant to ask at which point CO2 levels will start to make human life impossible ? Also, even if this is just the earth readjusting to it's real state ( a very questionable viewpoint indeeed) are the people who doubt the data that scientists are collecting and adding to every day , really ready to go the way of the dinosaurs.? Should we not try everything to ensure that if there is a man made contribution to this ever spiralling level of CO2 and other damaging gases in the atmosphere, we take every step to remove the manmade causes. Don't we owe this - at the very least - to future generations to ensure our survival as a species ?

#50 Slioch: Sheesh, I step out of the room for the evening, and the self-righteous take over! Others have commented and discredited much of your argumens in #50 and onward, but let me just add the one climatologist you asked for:

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

This site gives some information on Dr. Carter, along with several websites for additional reference.

Thanks for the laughs, Slioch! Keep the blinkers on and the keyboard smoking!

The site:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

Hey, just a thought...

Who says that warming things up a bit wouldn't help in many ways? You know, they farmed in Siberia until it became an Arctic wasteland. Can you imagine the millions of acres of farmland opened up with a little warming? And think of the fresh water reserves (one of our REAL problems globally) available once they've been released from the ice at the poles. Back in the 90s a study was released saying that Canada uses only about 10% of its total fresh water reserves, because the rest is held in ice. They could make a fortune piping water to the rest of the world!

We know so little about global climate change. We know even less about what causes it and even less about what the consequences would be. Even if there is global warming--and that's a big IF--that doesn't mean the world is about to end.

(And Martha--#69 and #70--nicely said!)

Mike J.... haven't you been busy ?

If this is the list of everyone of those who you can find who doubt climate change can be proved, then there will be definitely be several hundred more who refuse to go on record supporting either viewpoint.

The simple explanation is that differences exist between proving something scientifically, and interpreting accurate data which shows that there are a series of things happening ...in this case with the atmosphere and climate ....which might lead to some unassailable conclusion as to the causes..

A lot of scientists remain to be convinced. These people have reputations to cling to and will never have gone on public record stating that the present evidence is sufficient proof. They may even have no doubts about evidence to support Global warming theories. Many might say - in private - that they are very concerned.

Reputable scientists work with data / evidence. Sufficient data can sometimes reveal and identify certain thruths. This Global warming subject is far too complex, far too many specialties are involved. This means that few people have the intellect or the opportunity /time to interpret all the evidence. But the warming theories and the Greenhouse gas trends remain to be discounted/disproved.

It would be as useful to prepare a list of all those distinguished scientists and others who have already gone on record stating that they do accept that Global warming is a reality.

But then lists of names , even famous ones are not proof either way....and I suspect you know that. ;-)

td your link, which, if your word is to be taken as worth anything at all, shows, as you & rules claim, global warming causes rivers to silt up.

In facr it did not even contain the words "global warming". Once again you demonstrate why Slioch holds you up as an outstanding example for catastrophic warming enthusiasts while being so wonderfully free of the ravages of accuracy..

#67 Slioch.

Annual man made CO2 emissions are currently around 7.3 billion tonnes. Using your 40% increase , they've gone up by about 3 billion tonnes since 1750.

But that hasn't increased the TOTAL atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 40%, which is what you claim. Natural annual CO2 emissions are around 180 billion tonnes, +/- 10%, so an increase of 3 billion is so piddling as to be barely noticeable.

You claim there's a difference between natural CO2, which you say "is largely re-absorbed naturally,"and
man made CO2, "only some of which is re-absorbed." And the balance of that man made CO2, you say, is producing the problem.

That's scientific nonsense. There is absolutely no difference between natural CO2 and man made CO2. Absolutely none. So the notion that the natural emissions are somehow benign while the man made ones are potentially harmful is ridiculous. It's sort of like claiming that the blood in your toes is different than the blood in your fingers.

So as I said before, cutting back human CO2 emissions has simply no effect on the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration. Its only effect is to boost the "feel good" mentality of Green people, as they cheer the erection of another totally pointless wind farm, the shutdown of another industry, or the imposition of more laws to "save ourselves from ourselves." since they know better than we do what's good for us.

Environmental sensitivity is good, but its practice has been captured by a cult-like mentality which is essentially anti-progress, anti-industry and totally indifferent to economics, unemployment and personal freedom. Green folk wring their hands about the horrors of fossil fuel, but blindly reject totally non polluting nuclear power. They tut-tut about third world poverty, but strenuously object to the use of DDT, which could save the lives of millions of future deaths from malaria. And one could go on and on.