Sorry, but I read a lot on this topic, and many scientists disagree, many many and more and more, you have to stop reading only main stream media that only repeat the same story again and again. It's like saying ACTA is good because 90%+ of the lawyers in the field say it's good. The fact is that the more you read about this subject on the point of view of different sciences (sun specialists, dendrology, ice carrots, geology and so on), and then you compare it with the computer model of the IPCC (and you know all that changing a single parameter can have tremendous consequences, and that's it is impossible to make a realistic model of the climate), you start to really doubt about the man-made cause of the warming, which occurs, but not of 2°C in the last 70 years as said before. The real scientific approach is to make a real literature review and not say there is a consensus, there was a consensus about Earth being flat once.. we should never stop researching.<br>
<br>And by the way, what do the politicians do with the IPCC global warming assertion? Raise taxes. And create a business market for CO2 emission. And where do the money of these taxes go? Most of it do not go into environmental projects at all (it's like this in Switzerland at least) but fill other budget holes. So even if the idea seems noble, please look closer, please look behind the curtains.<br>
<br>Please read here for more serious scientists who cast doubts on the IPCC story:<br><a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7">http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7</a><br>
<br>And not to mention that it's better to have a warmer climate than a colder climate, we can protect ourselves from heat, not from cold. <br><br>I think many other political do something about environment already, more or less, but almost none of them do something to protect the consummers from all the chemical shit the food industry puts into our plates or around (aspartame and other sweeteners, teflon, bisphenol and many others). This is really where the pirate party could get sympathy, eventually financing further studies on these topics.<br>
<br>Best greetings, Charly<br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Richard Stallman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rms@gnu.org" target="_blank">rms@gnu.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"> Yes, pollution is a bigger problem than climate change.. once you read a<br>
lot about this topic, you notice that human caused global warming is not<br>
really an exact science.. and that many scientists disagree, and that not<br>
every of them are paid by the big oil..<br>
<br>
</div>Very few climate scientists disagree. I think you have been misled<br>
by the denialists. Many of them do not hesitate to make things up.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
and that many people standing<br>
behind a co2 tax are global money makers as well<br>
<br>
</div>That they make money doesn't imply they are wrong.<br>
One thing about a tax is, the money goes to the state,<br>
not to business. No business stands to gain directly<br>
from a CO2 tax. On the other hand, the fossil fuel companies<br>
stand to gain directly from not having a CO2 tax and not<br>
doing anything to reduce our burning of fossil fuel.<br>
<br>
In any case, you are mixing up two different questions.<br>
One question is whether the problem is real.<br>
Another question is how to address it.<br>
<br>
To cite the second question in the discussion of the first is unclear<br>
thinking. You can't make a problem not exist by arguing against a<br>
proposed solution. That's analogous to arguing you don't have a heart<br>
problem because there is something bad about pacemakers. Even if<br>
there IS something bad about pacemakers, that has no effect on whether<br>
you have a heart problem.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
and that they tried to<br>
fake the data and put pressure on the scientists who disagree (minority<br>
report effect)..<br>
<br>
</div>Investigations have found no validity to these accusations.<br>
<br>
Nearly all real climate scientists agree that the observed heating<br>
is mainly caused by human emission of greenhouse gases.<br>
On the other hand, there are some loud people who say no,<br>
most of whom are not climate scientists.<br>
<br>
Suppose there is a chance that the latter are right. Should we take<br>
for granted they are right, and bet our civilization's survival on<br>
that chance? That is imprudent.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Dr Richard Stallman<br>
President, Free Software Foundation<br>
51 Franklin St<br>
Boston MA 02110<br>
USA<br>
<a href="http://www.fsf.org" target="_blank">www.fsf.org</a> <a href="http://www.gnu.org" target="_blank">www.gnu.org</a><br>
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.<br>
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>