Following the global warming money/ GW links

Why is the Virgin founder offering a $25 million prize for the technological solution to global warming? See the following from Grist.org.

BBC News

Bloomberg, Alex Morales and Elliott Gotkine, 09 Feb 2007
The Independent
An interview with Sir Richard Branson

I've noted from others previously that no one, except for two Russian scientists, want to bet $10,000 that global warming (climate change is the term used by the republicans) is occurring and is being exacerbated by man's activities. See:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/betting.html
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/04/bob-carter-wont-bet-over-global.html
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/09/bet-offers-to-bloggers-denying-global.html

The Pieser report mentioned to discredit the Oreskes artice in Nature was defective methodologically. See Tim Lambert's post (http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/.) Here's the primer on how to talk to a climate change skeptic (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics)

Follow the money of the skeptics.... (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html)

Lastly, Mother Jones' series on anthropogenic global warming (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.htm) should be must reading...

Common sense on global warming

The science behind anthropogenic global warming in ADDITION to natural phenomena is sound and documented. Any appeal to the "flat earth" analogy for arguing that there is not enough scientific data to posit that there is a global warming is a disingenous argument. The scientific methdology has improved over the past few decades and since the 60s the scientific results have mainly supported the global warming thesis.

On the contrary, most of the political editorializing are by the paid GW denialists, at least here in the US political and media arenas. There are no heroic figures in the GW denialist camp. None of them is a Galileo. They are all well-paid and well-fed.

Don't you think, as someone elsewhere noted, that it is immoral and self-destructive to pump out thousands of metric tons of toxic fumes every year in the name of progress?

If it stinks,

If it irritates your skin,

If it pollutes the water,

If it makes it difficult for your children to breathe,

If it causes CANCER,

If it kills you,

Then why continue to pump it out?

As they say, use your [common] senses....