Amen brothers and sisters.
I'm just curious as to what the majority views of this forum are.

1. Global Warming and its consequences.
a. AGW is real and will bring disaster.
b. AGW is real but much is over hyped.
c. AGW is not real.

2. Carbon Offsets
a. Offsets are effective.
b. Offsets have negligible effect.

3. Kyoto
a. If the US ratified Kyoto, effects would be highly beneficial.
b. If the US ratified Kyoto, effects would be minimal.

4. Suppression of Science.
a. Advocates face suppression.
b. Skeptics face suppression.
c. Neither
d. Both

5. Inconvenient Truth
a. Mostly accurate.
b. Mostly inaccurate.

Here's how I see it.

1. Global Warming and its consequences.
b. AGW is real but much is over hyped.

2. Carbon Offsets
b. Offsets have negligible effect.

3. Kyoto
b. If the US ratified Kyoto, effects would be minimal.

4. Suppression of Science.
b. Skeptics face suppression.

5. Inconvenient Truth
b. Mostly inaccurate.

1. Global Warming and its consequences.
d. AGW is real though its consequences are not fully understood

2. Carbon Offsets
c. Effective offsets are effective. The challenge is to ensure the ineffective ones are exposed as fraudulent and the effective ones are properly promoted.

3. Kyoto
a. If the US ratified Kyoto, effects would be highly beneficial.

4. Suppression of Science.
e. There are no sceptics left; only deniers. I don't care whether deniers are suppressed or not.

5. Inconvenient Truth
c. Haven't watched it

1. Global Warming and its consequences.

AGW is real but much is over hyped. ie there is some CO2 impact because it's part of the system


2. Carbon Offsets

Double (or triple or more) offsets might be effective but only applied to developed nations.

3. Kyoto
a. If the US ratified Kyoto, effects would be more beneficial but see 2.


4. Suppression of Science.

Both sides are intolerant at times so it depends who you mix with. There are more AGW's so the minority will suffer greater suppression - that's life when you have gangs.


5. Inconvenient Truth

Haven't seen it but I've heard the arguments.

1. b but only some is overhyped and this si a result of the need to be heard above ht enoise from the anti lobby for the past 20 years.

2.b but they dont do anyone any harm either.

3 a if we can get conensus on action

4 suppresion is a rather alarmist term - both sides seem to be embelishing things to bolster their arguments.

5 crap and for people coming fresh to this a very misleading programme

6 not sure

My answers are all the same as Ape Man with some qualification to 4. because most of the deniers aren't scientists.

4. c. Neither - there are a few scientists who think that the consensus is too rigid, but they tend to back the broad theory.

And I'll reiterate 5. No I've not seen it, so all those digs at Gore completely pass me by.