Those with a vested interest in the global warming/climate change theory have fingers in many pies, and with bought and paid for journalists, not to mention politicians and bankers, the news will read [be seen or heard] exactly as they want it to be seen or heard.

It makes me laugh that global warming was changed suddenly to climate change because there was evidence to the contrary [colder than usual conditions] and how the global warming theorists tried to attribute that colder than usual weather to warming elsewhere.  So I wonder who'll be left to dupe/rip off when this climate change theory is proven to be tectonic, volcanic, subterranean in origin, not man made... and that sun spots and sloar flares have an influence on the Earth's atmosphere/weather, etc. 

More to the point, will the bastards refund the monies they gained under false pretences?  Frankly, I think not because they'll say that people were total mugs to believe in/subscribe to the theory in the first place, so tough titties, it's your own stupid fault.

I for one do not subscribe to the man-made global warming theory  and never will, but that doesn't mean to say mankind can't clean up its act.  Far from it!  The river not far from here is so polluted with industrial waste you can almost walk across it.

And when will NASA/scientists/space watchers admit that the hole in the ozone layer originated when a Vulcan mothership entered Earth's atmosphere?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

It's really not wise to post in a 91 page thread you haven't read, thinking you know what skeptics say.

Agreed, but it's no just a bunch of eco terrorists, more a bunch of greedy fucks seeking to profit from fear mongering.... greedy fucks putting up the price of fuel and energy to so-say fund cleaner practices..  For mine, if the ***ts gave a shit about the planet and cleaner practices they would have behaved more responsibly decades ago, but alas no, maximum profit was always the goal and always will be, it's just that they're inventing new ways to take from the poor the give to the rich.... aka Robin Hood in reverse.

That's just one small part of the equation... government trying to get its cut of a much larger conspiracy.

The entire issue [actually, non-issue] is profit and greed driven.  Thing is, not all economies have or can sustain exponential growth, and sooner or later there will be nothing left to take and the poor will be driven back to the Stoneage.  Perhaps then the mega-wealthy will dip into their deep pockets and reinvest in humanity, though I seriously doubt it.  No, what will happen is that a new class of poor is created from the middle classes... until they too are driven to extinction... by which time the mega-rich will discover that their wealth and assets are in fact worthless.

No, not stupid, but their greed most certainly will be their undoing... and it's not whether my prediction will come to pass but when.  There are already billionaire sitting on fortunes while economies flounder in uncertainity... and when the lower end of the socio-economic scale has little or nothing left to take, there will be few if any customers purchasing their goods and services.  However, that won't compel them to stat plowing money back into the system.  No, they will just sit on their wealth hoping governments will print more money and bail everyone out, by which time their fortunes will hold little value

Past empires have fallen due to greed, debauchery, corruption, etc, well now it's the economic empire's turn to fall.  The GFC was but a tester of what is to come, and sadly, those economies which sold off their manufacturing industries will be the hardest to fall... the US and Auustralia to be among those hardest hit.

So yeah, it will happen... and decades of greed will be the cause.

Bollocks!!!  They are simply waiting for governments and others to fix broken economies... and when that's done, if it ever is, then they will greedily invest to make more billions.  The richest on this planet are mere parasites and nothing more.... sucking the life's blood from anything and everything to increase their wealth. 

There are a handful of exceptions, but for the most part they're parasites deserving none of your sympathy or anyone elses when they lose millions/billions on the stock market and through bad investments.  Frankly, I'd pass a law in every country so that a billionaire/millionaire be executed once a month until more of them actually invest to strengthen economies for the benefit of all.

Nah, fuck it, let's wipe out the top 1% and redistribute their wealth.

Luckily, free market fairy tales are hopelessly out of fashion. The wealth did not trickle, the "invisible hand" (whatever it was supposed to be) failed as a substitute for rational, knowledge-backed, informed decisions. The result of these experiments were costly, but the people still may salvage their planet before it becomes a barren, toxic wasteland. 

Economic systems relying on constant expansion (or "growth") are clashing with the very laws of physics themselves. 

So there is your choice - to survive, or to grow? Economy as a functional organism, or as a cancerous, ever-growing blob?

Again, BOLLOCKS!!!!   Governments shoulder just a small part of the blame in terms of high unemployment and stagnant economies.

Remember the GFC?  It was the fucken wealthy bankers and entrepeneurs who created that - then they waited for governments to bail them out - and now they're sitting on their wealth waiting for somebody else to create viable economies.  It won't happen, though,.. not when the top !% is sitting on 80% - 90% of the world's wealth.

They're the ones with the means to fix it, yet they sit on fortunes waiting for government miracles.  Well unless they act soon and start reinvesting in manufacturing and employment, their vast fortunes will depreciate dramatically and eventually become little more than electronic figures.... as I said before, the GFC was but a little tester for what is far worse to come.  Think Great Depression... though anyone who remembers it would say it was anything but great... including former rich people who lost everything trying to ride it out on their savings.

When Christ said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, it was mostly lost on the majority and very few actually learned anything from what was said/intended.  It was/is a parable about greed and how many of the wealthy endure a lonely hell here on Earth because of their greed.... and no, it is not a religious reference here, just a statement of fact, how the wealthy try ro buy love/happiness and fail dismally.

Oh, and for anyone who comes to the conclusion I dislike the filthy rich, I have my own saying: It is easier for a 24 wheeler to do a U-turn in a pygmy rat's vagina than it is for a rich man to enter my good books.

I find it amazing that you blame government and think those rich ***ts have done no wrong.  I don't like politicians any more than the next bloke [cos many are rich ***ts anyhow] but I despise meg-wealthy ***ts because most would steal their granny's purse and sell it back emptied, such is their ruthlessness and callous disregard for everone but themselves.... and when I advocate executing a tight arse billionaire once a month for the next couple of years to redistribute their wealth I jest no.

Aw fuck it!  Why stop there?  Multi-millionaires are more plentiful, so let's chuck in a couple of those per month as well.

If you don't like having a few billionaires running the economic show while everyone else gets the shaft, you should be on the free market bandwagon anyway.  Regulatory compliance hits smaller entities hardest.  It's a major competition barrier that keeps the big guys at the top even though their bloated companies are rarely anything resembling efficient operations.  <50 employee companies blow a little over $10k an employee in paperwork(not taxes) for Uncle, >500 employee companies lose under $8k.

Socialists and fascists push things the same direction, fewer, bigger companies, that are easier for government to work with.  The less spurious regulation and litigation there is, the more rich people there will be.

Singapore is stoking a nice 2% unemployment, they never broke 4 during the meltdown.  1/6th of the population has a million plus in assets, excluding housing and goods, and acute poverty is non-existent despite no minimum wage and a minimalist social safety net.  That's what laissez-faire capitalism gets you.  The US is getting used to the idea that 6% unemployment is a good number.

If politicians were true representatives, I'd buy that notion.

Unless that 'tax' amounts to a trading scheme benefiting the traders (and themselves).  Like I said, absent corrupt politicians, we'd have half a chance.

...

...

...

OK, a third of a chance.