Many even mention that, to achieve our “goal” of curing the planet, you'd have to eliminate 90% of the population. Nice.  😐

Interesting, as that was the goal (well, more like 99.9% of the population) of the eco-extremist in Tom Clancy's work of fiction Rainbow Six.  I'm sure that there are people seriously entertaining that idea of population elimination at this very moment.

What's interesting about that is an historian had to come to her rescue to get her pension back.  I wonder if she just didn't argue one the benefits were cut.  Also, it seems that there may even be some widow alive today that the history books have overlooked.  If history lost track of Civil War widows once, it could do so again.

Oh but your source is not a bonified scientist, just a two bit meteorologist who has only cursory knowledge in climatology...... ::)  You know that's what you know who will say. 😀

True, that is likely what he would say.  In doing so he tends to construct the rules of the argument in his favor to help him win....not a convincing way to argue IMO.  But anyway, one thing I don't understand is that I saw on a GW news report footage of people "fleeing" the coast, which I presume was meant to show that as ocean levels rise there's going to be mass migration away from low lying coasts.  Perhaps this is a "warning" that has been published elsewhere as well - it may have originated from Al Gore's movie.  But if we're looking at the melting of glaciers - especially glaciers into oceans which take up 2/3 of the earth's surface - this should happen gradually, not "suddenly".  If you leave an ice cube in an empty cup the whole thing won't all of a sudden turn into water, filling it to a certain level; rather, you'll have gradual dripping and rising level of water at a slow rate.So if this is true, mass migration along low lying coastal areas would seem like a scare tactic than anything else, would it not?  After all, they'd have plenty of warning that there's rising water levels.  It's not as if we're at some tsunami-like situation where towns get wiped out with waves of water.  Am I right on this?On a side note, I thought I heard recently that one of Al Gore's claims in his movie - that water levels would rise by some 40 feet in so many years - was a claim that even IPPC scientists had dismissed as exaggeration because the real rise would be a mere fraction of this (a foot or perhaps a few feet, I think the number was).  Anyone heard this?

I think it's interesting but can see how it could be used for the wrong socio-political purposes.  Perhaps we are supposed to presume a line of poor African Americans see their “American reality” contrasted with that of a beaming white “American reality”, complete with happy family, kids and dog in back, driving along in their car.  “World's Highest Standard of Living” is then contrasted against the realities of poverty, suggested by the people standing in a line.  This is supposed to be irony, or perhaps biting sarcasm.To me it's interesting because of the typical 50s-esque advertising which was awfully optimistic and positive-sounding in those days.  Nowadays this could likely result in criticism of American culture...I could foresee this coming from the "New Left", as Donnie calls it.If someone thinks the criticism of culture or times (via the photograph subject) is merited, however, I would like to know why.  What should the photo have looked like?  Should the people in the ad not have been smiling?  Should they have looked glum and dour?  Then it wouldn't have been a very good ad!  Should it not have said "Highest Standard of Living"?  But this might not have been true - a standard of living is relative to that of other countries, so generally the poor who live in rich nations are "better off" than the poor in poor nations.I guess I would like to hear some criticisms that New Left historians would make about society using the photo.

Here's something interesting:Global warming debunkedThis meteorologist thinks that it will "be a joke" after a few years due to the fact that mankind's activities have so little effect on GW - less than two tenths of a percent in terms of affecting greenhouse gases.  Query: what if it's true that the GW craze is truly a myth which is being used to change the face of socio-politics, economies, and so forth over the course of the next five, ten, twenty years?  Who stands to gain by this?  Who stands to lose?  How would politics and economies change?  Would global power structure shift because of policy changes?

I like the titles you gave the guests and spiders: Wanderers and greek spiders. 😀

Yeah...I'm thinking I did it a year ago or so...or was it during the Great Crash of September '06?