How many climate scientists did it take to change a light bulb? NONE. But they did have consensus that it would change.
Why wasn’t Climate Change ever regarded as the number one issue of prime importance to everyone since we were told climate change was to have been immanent death for the planet, as in SAVE THE PLANET?
Why did we enjoy condemning our kids to their graves with CO2 death warrants and CO2 death threats? This is liberal love?
Was it necessary to threaten my kids with death by CO2 just to get them to turn the lights out more often?
Why were there thousands of more “consensus” scientists than protesters?
Why did CO2 levels rise despite our contributing less with the world economic downturn?
Wouldn’t the plants have shown effects long before the climate would shown effects?
Why did the leftwing hope for the CO2 misery to really have happened and the rightwing discounted it as corrupt exaggerated and politicized science?
Why were scientists not called what they were, fallible and mortal human beings and lab coat consultants?
Didn’t scientists pollute the world in the first place with their chemicals?
Why didn’t the countless thousands of consensus scientists march in the streets if this was certain death we were facing?
Since Climate Change denied ancient climate, did the doomers therefore deny evolution too? Who’s the knuckle dragging neocon now?
Why didn’t the people know that the UN’s scientific warning, predicted the effects of CO2 were to have been anything from “nothing at all” to “unstoppable warming” (death)?
Will history view climate scientists as being to science what witch burners and The Crusades and abusive priests were to religion?
History has already shown that Climate Change was to the Democrats what the Iraq War was to the neocons, lies, and fear and politics.

Interesting choice of words scattered throughout this article which masquerades as being based on fact.

dogma - intellectually bereft - facile distortion of reality - and of course ideological.

The use of the last word (ideological) is common usage by right-wing ideological hacks such as Rheese, who both explicitly and implicitly pretend that their "world"-view is not based on any kind of ideological bias. Or put in another way only they see "reality true".

Meanwhile for a well researched collection of essays and comments on the negative effects of genetically modified "food" - and of the toxic politics involved in the promotion of such, why not check out:

http://gmo.mercola.com

i can only..agree...ho-hum

the article seems scitophrenic..
even contradictory...

quote..one parragrap<<..Mark Lynas..writes..highlighting the need to deal with..the issue of man-made globe warming claiming..

"the climate denial*..crowd...>>..not him?..lol<<.had been reduced to..an embarrassing rump..lurking in the darker corners..of the internet"..is described as.."a campaigner>>

then

<<who has been..a member of action groups..
on..GM foods..and..*climate*..change"...!

Mr Lynas said*.."the environmental lobby..was losing the battle for public opinion..on climate change...because it*..had*made too many apocalyptic prophecies..and exaggerated claims".>>>..ie he has

<<Really?>>

END QUOTE...
then max..goes off..on his adgenda/..tangent..re..

quote..<<..Another long time environmental/campaigner..who saw the error*..of his ways,..Stewart Brand an American activist and former editor of Whole Earth Catalog,.said:

"I would like to see..an environmental movement that says,..it turns out our fears..about genetically engineered food crops..were exaggerated..and we are glad about that...

It is a humble and modest stance to take to..the real world.">>

end quote

it seems they are
but somehow..the first quote..INVERTS the assertion

in other words,..there seems some spin

and i cant be botherd reading anymore..
to find out what..the spin leads to

yes they lied...about many things
and still are[gm...hasnt increased..crop yeild

but has made..many round-up..resitant.."weeds"...
that monsattano..can sue*..you...for.."letting"..grow..

still are...cli-MATE/change..is about getting..
*a nice big*..new*tax*..[by taxpayers and govt subsidy]

then allowing the money men..
to get at..the new cash-cow..[fullstop]

however much they spin it
they been caught...lying...too many times

mainly via spin merchants...serving..the company-line
in lue of...real..new*s

Meanwhile Monsanto is in financial strife because its products are failing. This is because the biological world is dynamic, and evolves resistance and new strains, whereas every GM organism is static, and a new artificial gene has to be introduced - always losing the evolutionary arms race.

For some time GM products have not been yielding the results claimed for them, and now the fundamental folly of the GM strategy is starting to show.

This article's claims for GMO are nonsense.

I agree to disagree with a lot of the so-called great intentions that people give the planet that they live on and only take action when there's a dollar in the field of play. GM food is fine as long as the original gene pool of the first species are banked in order to have a contingency plan if something went terrible wrong.

Nuclear Power can be the only way to go as far as commonsense goes and all know ( along with other tec,s) this reality must be put in place as soon as possible.

But of course, man-kind is a bit slow at times, and has great difficulty in dealing with the most simplest of understandings that any 10 year old can work out.

Yes, some Environmental groups will have to bite their tongues a bit in the coming years, with the full understanding that the extremist attitude on climate change cant hold. The wheels of the global money-making as to continue and it would be foolish to think we all can go back to the dark-ages.

A nice global balance will do just nicely.

Thats what we should be aiming for.

BLUE.

I used to subscribe to the Co-Evolution Quarterly and purchased The Whole Earth Catalog too. Great stuff altogether.

There are many books and essays etc which describe the origins and cultural consequences of the now dominant technocratic world-view.
As usual I still think that one of the best was The Pentagon of Power by Lewis Mumford in which he discusses the origins of the pattern-organizing myth that now patterns every aspect of the world - what he called the Invisible Mega-Machine.

A myth that is so invisible and hence so "natural" to us that we do not (cannot) understand its trance like power. And yet this seeming "naturalness" is not natural at all. It is a cultural construct, as this essay points out.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/asana_of_science/index.html

Of course science and technology are very useful in helping humankind survive and prosper. But as the above essay points out the ideology of scientism has become the way in which we relate to everything. As such is profoundly anti-human because it denies and suppresses most of what we are at the depth level of our being.

Plus an appreciation of The Pentagon of Power at:

http://hugeasscity.com/2008/5/21/blame-lewis-mumford

http://radicalarchives.org/2010/09/06/dw-against-the-megamachine

The second reference is from an author who pays homage to what Lewis Mumford was telling us