Indeed, we do have to deal with the consequences. Which, to date, has been nothing. I have not seen one -actual- piece of evidence that shows CO2 causes the earth to warm. It is -all- conjecture/opinion.

Oh, and you're so afraid of pollution, why aren't you railing against the 4 -very- unclean (due to no regulation) power plants being built in China/Inda every week? No, -WE- have to make our lives turn upside down (bullshit cars, bullshit products, bullshit taxes, bullshit prices) to have a very minimal effect when China/India get to sponsor our carbon neutrality, multiplied by god knows how much.

Do you even know where the money you spend on carbon neutrality goes? I bet you don't even care. I bet you don't even care that "our" industrial society has moved to China.

Pretty much my understanding is that any major study is biased by whomever funds it. Seriously, who is going to fund a multi-hundred thousand dollar study that hurts one's own cause? Who is going to fund a study where there is no (financial/political) interest? Automatic conflict of interest before anyone does anything!

It's hard for me to take statistics seriously when one side of the equation is a dollar sign.

You're not missing anything, the carbon we are releasing right now was liberated before it was sequestered...so...the earth was obviously a bad place then.

We'll survive, whatever happens.

How do you know I'm not a dragon?! You insensitive clod!

Ok, well, don't believe everything you see on TV. The dinosaurs roamed when the earth was hospitable. I've never heard of proof that the period of which you speak was caused by liberated carbon dioxide...if I'm wrong, cite your source.

Ok, so what were the carbon deposits before they were deposits? And how about before that?

Ok, so 'they' said that an increase in CO2 would equal an increase in global temperature, called global warming (Al Gore's famous and patently false hockey stick diagram). Now that we haven't observed an increase in global temperature (we've seen a cooling), 'they' can't now call it 'global cooling' because that would be painfully obvious that they are a bunch of ass-hats. Instead, they call it climate change. So which is it, does CO2 warm or cool? It's agendized propaganda, plain and simple.

How about before the coal and oil was coal and oil? Where was the carbon then? And how about just before then? Keep in mind, there's no proof that oil is dinosaurs.

Liberated CO2 is not a pollutant, or detrimental to our planet. The god damned SUN is the driver of weather on this planet, not CO2.

Anonymous Coward, cite your source. Let us vet it.

I wish people would just stop this bullshit about carbon dioxide induced climate change being something we have to rally against. CO2 is natural, it has existed at much higher quantities, and there's nothing we can do about it. Anyone who thinks that "carbon" is detrimental is a straight up ignorant fool. ALL ANIMALS EXHALE IT ALL DAY LONG. So, -you- are polluting the earth just by living? So is every other animal. Let's go kill every human and animal to save the planet from climate change...which has and will never be proven to be caused by carbon dioxide.

Oh, by the way, as we all learned in grade 4 environmental class: plants consume CO2 and then emit clean oxygen...and they need it to survive, by the way.

Re-wilding elephants and lions in North America...seriously? Oh, and it was anthropogenic climate -change-, too, I suppose. I know, the problem back then was that Al Gore wasn't around yet to pay carbon taxes to (jeezus christ, they didn't even have money yet, that too was a big problem), so, they all died. At least now we can save the planet from...uh...nature.

Someone paid those ass-hats to come up with that? Oh, I think they're going to say we should re-wild the dinosaurs while we're at it...I mean, it was an unnatural event that extincted those guys, too, right?

If they died out because of NATURAL GOD DAMNED CHANGES in the environment, then, they deserve to be extinct on this on this continent.

These scientists, or whomever they are, are like the tooth fairy. If everyone stops believing in them, they'll stop terrorizing the children (even the 40-year-old children).

Let me ask you this:

Why would -any- copy demand a citizen turn off his or her video/audio recording device if they "have nothing to hide"? It's because they don't want their asinine behaviour to be broadcasted on Youtube and entered as evidence in their/your trial. -They- want control of the evidence to ensure your conviction/their exoneration. How many times have we heard "oh, the cameras weren't working" when it benefited law enforcement?
Check out the case of this man convicted and sent to jail for recording police. He was convicted by a jury (idiots, that disgusts me), but the judge stated "In our Republic, the actions of public officials taken in their public capacities are not protected from exposure. Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police."

All officials of all branches of all government must be scrutinized at all times. Without scrutiny we most certainly will fall into tyranny (assuming we already haven't).

Mod parent up. Theaetetus has the right idea. When a cop is performing his or her duty, they are enacting the will of their superiors (-all- the way up the chain)...not their own. They must be held to account when they step outside the law.

I do. 99% of all people have a seriously misguided concept of trust. Companies and citizens alike cannot maintain an allegiance to any person because they must bend to the will of law enforcement (notice I did not say 'law') and judicial commands (yes, it actually says "commands" in a subpoena).

If law enforcement officers successfully beg a judge, they can order any person or company to do anything they want (like spying on you, becoming an agent of the state). It's as simple as that. Do -not- trust anyone. If they have been subverted, you will not know until it is too late...Ladar Levison wanted nothing but to maintain Lavabit -- his own business predicated on security/secrecy (when it came out that he handed over SSL keys to authorities, no matter the reason, his business would crumble). The (federal) state compelled its demise under threat of -perpetual- imprisonment and fine, and so it fell.

Having said all that, even a non-NIST entity cannot be trusted. If a non-NIST crypto protocol contains any weaknesses, whether intentional or not, assuredly the NSA will obtain or discover it.

What does that even mean? Maybe you meant "doesn't give" instead of "cares", or maybe "cares a fuck load"?

Anyway, try reading your crap before posting so at least one other person can understand what you are trying to say.