Spindoc,
26th catastrophe is an option you support because it suits your argument. Your reliance on a novel even softer 'science' is worrying in terms of the incisive judgement you make claim to possess.

Your rabbit hole (argument) is well trod but leads no where, ultimately because neither side believes the other's sources. There is no mutually trusted arbiter/authority.

The debate has now entered the political field in which case tactics, spoiler 'pseudo science', and emotional manipulation

Dear Examinator,

I really appreciate your recommending the book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability,"
by Tor Hundloe, some time ago.

He tells us in the chapter entitled,
"Vested Political and Economic Interests:
Be Aware,":

"In case we dismiss religious intervention in science
a thing of the past, be aware that on issues which
require radical solutions that are likely to harm
vested economic and political interests, censorship
exists today. In Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public
research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the
organisation's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on
behalf of the ogvernment. And Australia is one of the
standout countries in terms of human development status.
It is not corrupt. Its science is world class. None of
this matters. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse
to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol.
With the release of the Stern Report on climate change,
the Australian Government's position had changed -
yet the Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a
commitment to counter global warming. Little had changed
in near to 400 years when ignorance and vested interests
are confronted by scientific facts!"

It seems as Hundloe affirms, " New ideas, instead of
being welcome for the opportunities they opened up for
the improvement of the human lot, were threats to those who
had become comfortable in their ideologies (religious or
otherwise)."

"While Galileo's and other wonderful discoveries were
being made, not much had been learnt by the political elite
in 2000 years since Socrates' murder by the state."

Foxy,
I agree pollution needs to be minimised. And I’m all for developing alternate energy too.But the AGW platform has something deeply phoney about it. Which makes me suspect many who push it have other less worthy motives- quite apart from their general authoritarian attitude in debates.

If I had a gripe about noisy neighbours –their culpability would not be determined/mitigated by the number of persons in each household.
Surely it would be the volume of noise produced. Yet AGW advocates play per capita games ,and sell the message that those polluters with
burgeoning populations are less culpable (Then they wonder why Copenhagen failed!).

It is especially sinister when you realise that over-population is right up there with pollution as a survival threat ,see below:

“I asked them what they thought the population of China would ultimately peak out at, and they said about 1.6-billion, which of course contradicted what the Party line was, which was 1.2-billion… I then said, what in their opinion was the long-term carrying capacity of China? And they said they thought about 640-million people. So in the opinions of Chinese experts, China may end up with nearly three times as many people as the country can carry, in the long run. And that could spell trouble.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2959674.htm#transcript
Now run the same rule over Bangladesh, India, and a dozen other countries.
And the worst of it is the AGW platform has primed these entities with an easy excuse/out – for we all now know that anything that happens to impact on their carrying capacity will be labelled AGW related, and not their own bad planning.

Oh,almost forgot , talking of things being connected and falling from sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozvjLE2bg7Q&feature=related

Dear Horus,

Thank you for your well reasoned and valid
response.

I fully appreciate your argument.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult
one to solve, for several reasons. First, some
people and governments see pollution as a
regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired
economic development - "Where there's smoke, there's
jobs."

Secondly, control of pollution requires international
coordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides
can end up in other countries' air or food. Thirdly,
the effects of pollution may not show up for many years,
so severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it's taking place. Lastly,
preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and sometimes - when the damage is
irreversible - impossible.

The additional problem, as you point out, is that
although most industrialised nations are now actively
trying to limit the effects of pollution, the populous
less developed societies are more concerned with
economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of
the price they have to pay for it.

In the end however, we'll all end up paying for it
eventually - unless something is done.

Thanks for the link - appreciated it!

Dear Foxy,

I posted this link on another thread - it's about the Canadian tar sands industry and Canada's attitude - you might find it interesting.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?263149

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for that link.

It's extremely frightening and depressing
that such a civilized country like Canda -
is not so civilized afterall.

Your link should help some people understand
what happened at Copenhagen a bit better.
:-)