Tea with Richard Branson economist.com/video

[jjtruman]

Once upon a time all scientist were sceptics, so by failing to reject a hypothesis meant that the hypothesis must be true unless peers could prove otherwise. With climate change, we are witnessing a reversal of this age old trusted method of producing science. Now to be a sceptic one is labelled a non believer a heretic to be burned at the stake. I'm not happy with the science of climatology as there is no poof in my eyes that co2 can in anyway affect our climate.

[JigarShahCWR]

The point is not whether global warming is happening or not, just that energy waste is the largest wealth creating opportunity on the planet. It is time to create the financial instruments, contracts, policy, etc necessary to mine the crap out of it.

[eyeswideopennimrod]

I am very dismayed that Richard Branson is either fooled by the human induced global warming scam or is encouraging it as he is making money off it like all the politicians that are using the media to push carbon credits trading. Climate change has happened for millions of years, long long before humans, and will long after we have all died out. Its what the earth does, WAKE UP and do some research

[Mattinmotion]

@eyeswideopennimrod I don't think any scientist is denying that the earth goes through cycles, the problem is that human output is accelerating and amplifying the cycle. At any rate, even if global warming was entirely "natural" (whatever that is) would it not be sensible to try to slow it down anyway?

[eyeswideopennimrod]

@Mattinmotion I think you will find the people in charge of the cap and trade schemes would like us to believe it is all our fault and we need to be taxed hard to put things right, while making huge profits by owning stock in the right companies i.e. eco, renewable energy companies. The fact of the matter is we humans are but a weak annoyance on the earth surface, we have about as much ability to change the weather as a snowballs chance in hell. We need to adapt to it, not try to change it.

[Mattinmotion]

@eyeswideopennimrod Your argument is a non sequiteur. Even if I, for the sake of argument, grant you your premise of an evil money hungry elite, which might well be true though I don't know that, the logical conlusion is not to accept climate change. It seems clear to me that adapting to radical changes in our environment will require just as much resources in terms of taxes and consumption of new technology! For you, political change seems a better goal than climate denial.

[eyeswideopennimrod]

@Mattinmotion We humans do not have the knowledge or the power to change climate, so to tax everyone to change climate is as good as burning our money, but we do have the knowledge and ability to change how and where we live, grow food, build houses and other things to survive a cooling climate (as it has been for 2000 years). If we put all our energy into changing the climate and it doesn't work, we are all screwed. Don't be like the Aztec's by sacrificing the population to the gods