...but some of the things that those who are claiming AGW is a hoax (designed to defraud a gullible public) have been claiming is beginning to sound as if there is some substance to them. For instance, in the early stages of discussion on CO2, it was alot like how it was with CFHCs before it; an attempt to reign-in production at industrial sources (with CO2 admittedly being much more widespread than the few producers and industrial users of ozone depleting chemicals). But if Walmart is going to distribute this software, I have to wonder.

And I also wonder about another aspect of this. The science behind the concern over CO2 and climate change says that there's a chance it could be wrong and indeed other factors currently poorly understood would contribute to the essentially homeostatic conditions such as those in which the Earth has been for such a long time prior to this current observed correlation of CO2 and the fear of eco-disaster. So what if the Gaia concept is strong and overwhelms the relatively small effects of this piddling amount of CO2 that is being caused by human production (despite the gigantic amount it seems like from our human perspective). Let's say we definitively prove that the earth's natural response to increased heat trapping is to increase clouds that are overall clouds are determined to be heat reducers. It does sorta look that way to me. Would Walmart be OK with just dropping its marketing plans to sell every body these software packages at a nice profit? Would these software developers who stand to make big money if their product catches on, are they going to go back to doing something usefull, even if not as lucrative as latching onto what might be just a fad, or a nervous tic,, but will make them very very wealthy?

I don't think so, and neither do I think that an emerging market for Climate Change which is expecting to experience a few dozen trillions of dollars pass through its portals, regardless of who actually gets it or what it does, will be eager to see evidence that argues that climate change is more or less natural and that our efforts to control it by co2 emissions is just not worth it even if it does seem to cool the earth a tiny bit.

I really don't know but my suspicion rises all the time and the global temps don't seem to be.

The technological advancements that have been marshalled by the developement of space is undeniable by anyone who has honestly appraised it. The fact that some very smart people underestimate it or are unaware of it, makes it no less important to consider if we wish to see a planet with 9 billion continue not only in the face of our human caused impacts (I'm a heretic on CO2 warming specifically but not on the overall impacts of human activity, which many will agree are at least as serious as the so-called carbon conundrum) but other impacts as well, ranging from earth's own seismicity and its effects to the recently revealed and sobering realization that civilization-ending catastrophes are just a matter of time when it comes to asteroids, cometary bodies, terrestrial impacts, and gamma ray bursts from far beyone our own solar system. The only fault we are guilty of regarding these at this point is ignorance because we had no idea how long our planet's history is nor the full range of potential "game ending" phenomenon await us. We need to be out there in space to learn more about these potentialities and what we can do about them, but even more, from the practical standpoint, space-based solar-power alone, which should be the first order of the day if we are serious about space, will do for the combined problem of poverty, environmental degradation and emissions more than any other line of research and engineering science that the world is currently exploring and deserves greatly amplified support.

There is starvation and environmental degredation rampant on this planet and yet it's raining soup. Why are you not insisting that we build a bucket?.

Good read here. I've seen some of Grim's posts and I'll keep my eyes open for his book. I'm not sure if I agree entirely, of course, and my own perspective is a little unorthodox but based on myown experiences, but the efforts to move away from an enforcement based policy and towards a public health based policy is all good and goes hand-in-hand with a more objective and less ideological view of drug-use and the problems associated with its use on both macro and micro scales.

I do take issue with any point, which this review suggests the author takes, that suggests that this screwed-up "war on drugs" is more a result of the right or the left politically, as there is plenty of blame for all to go around, and really, the right versus left concept of the political landscape only serves to make the beast all that more intangible at a time when we need to see exactly what it is society is trying to deal with, medically and scientifically.