Remember, one man's oxygen was once another's phlogiston. Einstein was widely criticized before Eddington offered a proof of light being bent during a solar eclipse, thus validating the theory of general relativity. Prior to that, the "consensus" was Newtonian, and alternative theories of gravity were scoffed at. And why are we not criticizing the "scientists" in the so called consensus for their me too me too approach to grants, gladly accepting the "outcome oriented" grants from the likes of Green peace, the Sierra Fund, and others? Look at how much NOAA, NASA NGO's of a wide variety and the IPCC have spent to bolster their position. Why are they anymore trustworthy than say the Koch brothers, or the imaginary 85 people you say "control" capitalism? Why not castigate Michael Mann and his "hockey stick" graph for truncating the tree ring proxies from his calculations from 1966 onwards? Ould the fact that from then on the tree ring data did not jibe with the program? How about the constant "homogenization" of data that is performed with the temps produced by the GHCS sets? Why use on 6 of 66 weather station data sets in the Canadian Arctic when calculating the mean temps in the Arctic? Why include Sierra Club and Greenpeace policy and publicity papers as peer reviewed scientific papers in the citations in the IPCC reports? And why is it the press, governments every where and supporters of AGW constantly ignore Ottmar Edenhofer's (Co-Chair, IPCC Working Committee) comment: "The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."

Sorry, fella, but our health care costs ain't at all cheap. They are just masked from the individual because of our system. Practitioners and unions as well as regional health management are constantly complaining of funding shortfalls even as the budget for health care increases, and then other public services suffer, or taxes go up. DO NOT BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT that our system is either better, or less expensive. neither of those thins is even remotely true.

Seriously, does anyone here think they are actually going to be launching by 2025? They are currently BEGGING to raise $50,000,000 just to "get things rolling". this is sounding a lot more like a pitch for a bad reality show a la Big Brother than it is a real attempt to send an expedition to Mars.