As food-versus-fuel debate gets louder, politicians start to squirmQuoteSenators begin to ponder an ethanol exit plan "The volume on the food-versus-fuel debate is getting louder by the day," said Bill Wicker, spokesman for the majority staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.Recently, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, representing more than 300 food and beverage companies, joined the ethanol backlash. GMA's members include Nestle, Sara Lee , Dean Foods and Procter & Gamble -- all companies facing higher fuel bills to run their manufacturing plants and higher costs for the raw materials used to make their products. The group thinks ethanol is the culprit in rising prices for meat, milk, and eggs and sees a rollback of the ethanol mandate as salve for family food budgets. The industry see stories of global food shortages and price spikes creating a perfect window of opportunity to "change perceptions about the benefits of bio-fuels and the mandate and, ultimately, to build a groundswell in support of freezing or reversing some provisions" funding ethanol production from grain. In the absence of a Washington about-face, Texas is prepared to be a test case in the ethanol war. Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, asked EPA last month to curtail the amount of ethanol from grain that must be blended into gasoline supplies by half. This month EPA announced that it is accepting comments on the request.Texas has to prove that the renewable fuel standard would "severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country, or if EPA determines that there is inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel." EPA has 90 days to decide if it will grant a state waiver.Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison recently introduced a bill, S. 3031, that would freeze federal ethanol production mandates at 2008 levels. Ten other Republican senators, including Republican presidential nominee John McCain, R-Ariz., signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionAs an example of the quality of such a debate, we have this from Klaus:QuoteIt could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propagandaregular readers of this forum will recall that a UK judge, acting as arbiter of truth, held that algore's movie contained a number of claims that were simply untrueWhich insignificant piece of trivia (errors are often easy to find in almost any piece of work without significantly damaging the credibility of the chief conclusions, as in Gore's movie) has nothing whatsoever to do with Klaus's bombastic bullshit.

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionAs an example of the quality of such a debate, we have this from Klaus:QuoteIt could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propagandaregular readers of this forum will recall that a UK judge, acting as arbiter of truth, held that algore's movie contained a number of claims that were simply untrueWhich insignificant piece of trivia (errors are often easy to find in almost any piece of work without significantly damaging the credibility of the chief conclusions, as in Gore's movie) has nothing whatsoever to do with Klaus's bombastic bullshit.The reality is that tt is algore who is spouting bombastic bullshit.The judge, acting as arbiter of truth, held that algore's apocalyptic views are not shared by the majority of scientists

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperTHE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGEfrom the International Climate Science CoalitionQuote“Global warming” is not a global crisisWe, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:Hereby declare:That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.Now, therefore, we recommend –That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.31,000 Scientists sign petition refuting man-made global warming

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperThe judge, acting as arbiter of truth, held that algore's apocalyptic views are not shared by the majority of scientistsHe said no such thing. Has your distortion of the truth no limit ?Does the word INTEGRITY mean anything to you ppauper?

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperThe judge, acting as arbiter of truth, held that algore's apocalyptic views are not shared by the majority of scientistsHe said no such thing. Has your distortion of the truth no limit ?in fact, he did:Mr Justice Burton added: “The armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”QuoteDoes the word INTEGRITY mean anything to you ppauper?it means everything to me, but apparently nothing to you

The Contrarian “Oregon OISM Petition” The UK Telegraph op-ed in ppauper’s post of Fri May 30, 08 03:52 PM is actually referring to the old contrarian OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) petition, not the “Manhattan Declaration”. The OISM petition is stale news; it was thoroughly discredited for a number of reasons. For example, the article that accompanied the petition was "designed to be deceptive…” and was full of "half-truths", according to Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor at the University of Chicago. A review is in Wikipedia, and a thread called “Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey” is on RealClimate. See also my 2005 post in the “Global Warming - Scientific Aspects” thread with references. Bottom Line More irrelevant distraction by contrarians.Refs:Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ch_lang/in My post (Sun Dec 04, 05 11:14 PM), about half-way through the thread: http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm? ... adid=29176 Op-ed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ming.htmlv -----------

Fermion – Nice to have you aboard to help counter the high-spin boson ppauper.--------

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWDFermion – Nice to have you aboard to help counter the high-spin boson ppauper.You're welcome. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the knowledge to contribute to anything like the extent you do so admirably. It's often true, unfortunately, that the more outrageously nonsensical a claim is, the more work that is involved in refuting every ridiculous detail. It's the unhappy complement of Goebbel's dictum that the more outrageous the lie, the more likely it will be believed.

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionIt's often true, unfortunately, that the more outrageously nonsensical a claim is, the more work that is involved in refuting every ridiculous detail. It's the unhappy complement of Goebbel's dictum that the more outrageous the lie, the more likely it will be believed.ah, so that's how algore gets away with it !

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWD The Contrarian “Oregon OISM Petition” The UK Telegraph op-ed in ppauper’s post of Fri May 30, 08 03:52 PM is actually referring to the old contrarian OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) petition, not the “Manhattan Declaration”. did anyone say anything to the contrary ?I thought not.More irrelevant garbage from mrs dash as she attempts to create a smokescreen of deception

Here is the complete essay by Donald A. Brown (Associate Professor of Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law at Penn State University) to which I referred in my post of Wed May 28, 08 06:47 PM. It is long but excellent and deserves consideration. Ref: http://climateethics.org/?p=35#more-35 The Ethical Duty to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty I. Introduction This post examines the ethical duty to act to reduce the threat of climate change even if one assumes there is more scientific uncertainty about the causes and impacts of climate change than those identified by the scientific consensus view as articulated most recently by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).In its fourth assessment in November of 2007, the IPCC made the following key conclusions among many others:* It is very likely that observed increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century have been caused by increases in anthropogenic GHG emissions.* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5 percent.* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.* There is high confidence (greater than 90%) that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.* There is a 66 percent confidence level that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium. (IPCC, 2007)Despite IPCC’s conclusions, a number of scientific “skeptics” have continued to attack this consensus position and others have opposed government action to reduce the threat of climate change based upon the skeptics’ scientific attacks. As we shall see, these attacks on the proposed government action appear to be based on the unstated assumption that nothing should be done about the potential serious threats of climate change until damages that are likely to be caused by human-induced climate change have been proven with high levels of scientific certainty.Yet, even if one assumes that there is considerable scientific uncertainty about timing and magnitude of warming and the nature of human-induced climate change impacts, (and in so doing disagrees with IPCC’s most recent conclusions), ethical issues arise about the duty to take action in the face of uncertainty. The rest of this post explores these ethical duties to reduce the threat of climate change even if one disagrees with the scientific views articulated by the IPCC. II. Ethics and Scientific Uncertainty in Environmental Controversies Climate change scientists around the world have been working to determine the nature of the risk from the climate change threat. From a proposition that a problem like global warming creates a particular threat or risk, one cannot, however, deduce whether that threat is acceptable without first deciding on certain criteria for acceptability. The criteria of acceptability must be understood as an ethical rather than a scientific question. For instance, although science may conclude that a certain increased exposure to solar radiation may increase the risk of skin cancer by one new cancer in every hundred people, science cannot say whether this additional risk is acceptable because science describes facts and cannot generate prescriptive guidance by itself. The scientific understanding of the nature of the threat, of course, is relevant to the ethical question of whether the risk is ethically acceptable, but science alone cannot tell society what it should do about various threats. In environmental controversies such as global warming where there is legitimate scientific concern, important ethical questions arise when scientific uncertainty prevents unambiguous predictions of human health and environmental consequences. This is so because decision-makers cannot duck ethical questions such as how conservative “should” scientific assumptions be in the face of uncertainty or who “should” bear the burden of proof about harm. To ignore these questions is to decide to expose human health and the environment to a legitimate risk, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat could have consequences particularly if waiting until all uncertainties are resolved could increase the harm. Science alone cannot tell us what assumptions or concerns should be considered in making a judgment about potentially dangerous behavior. For this reason, environmental decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty must be understood to raise a mixture of ethical and scientific questions. III. Ethics, Climate Change, and Scientific UncertaintyThose relying on the scientific skeptics assertions on climate change often speak as if it is irrational to talk about duties to reduce greenhouse gases until science is capable of proving with high levels of certainty what actual damages will be. The skeptics seem to dismiss the conclusions of the IPCC on the basis that they have not adequately proven that the IPCC’s identified impacts will happen as described. This condemnation comes despite the fact that IPCC only claims that their descriptions of global warming impacts are likely or very likely, that is, not proven, consequences of the continuing human release of greenhouse gases.Of course, there are threshold scientific questions that need to be considered before any human activity can be classified as creating a dangerous threat. That is, not all assertions that a human activity creates a risk are entitled to respect without an adequate scientific grounding. However, the basic physics of why adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet has never been in question. That is the fact that each greenhouse gas will initially create some initial additional warming in the atmosphere (usually referred to as climate forcing) has been understood with precision since the mid-19th Century. However, what has not been known is the actual amount of global warming that will result from the additional quantities of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases given the need to understand complex interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, and other parts of the biosphere that could create positive and negative feedbacks that could increase or decrease global temperatures.Any doubt that the problem of climate change passes a threshold test of whether it causes an enormous threat to human civilization was put to rest by Naomi Oreskes in a 2004 Science article that claimed that of 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, 75 percent of the articles either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. (Oreskes 2004) Oreskes also pointed out in her Science article that in addition to the IPCC all United States scientific institutions with expertise over the subject matter have issued statements supporting the IPCC view including the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. In addition, in preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, national academies of science from around the world issued a declaration that concluded: It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken. The thirteen signatories to this statement were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. (Potsdam, 2007)Even if one disagrees with the Oreske’s classification of the peer reviewed science articles, it cannot be denied that the peer-reviewed climate change science unequivocally supports the conclusion that climate change is an immense threat given the uncontested number of peer-reviewed articles that support IPCC’s conclusions and the fact that the most prestigious scientific organizations with expertise in climate change science have supported the consensus view.Most of the scientific debate in the last thirty years has not been about whether additional concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will tend to warm the planet, but rather what will be the timing and magnitude of this warming. The IPCC has attempted to deal with this uncertainty by putting upper and lower bounds on timing and magnitude of the warming impacts and to identify levels of confidence about these levels.The skeptics often attack the proponents of government action on climate change on scientific grounds accusing the proponents of climate change action base their positions on “bad” science, that is the unproven assumptions, even though IPCC’s conclusions are based upon its review of peer-reviewed climate change science. Yet the skeptics rarely offer scientific proof for their alternative predictions, they usually simply attack the assumptions of the mainstream scientists by offering their own unproven theories about likely timing and magnitude of global warming. By attacking the mainstream scientists’ views of likely impacts, the skeptics are implicitly arguing that only proven “facts” should count in the debate.A common point of attack of the skeptics is the climate change models that are relied upon by IPCC to predict climate futures by mainstream climate scientists. The skeptics often attack the models for their failure to deal with elements of the climate system that could have an impact on the amount of warming experienced. But given the complexity of the climate system, biosphere interactions, and the carbon cycle system, the only way to make predictions about climate futures is to rely upon models. The skeptics often attack the climate models despite the fact that climate models will probably never be able to prove with high degrees of certainty what future global temperatures will actually be. This is the case because the climate models will for the foreseeable future need to simplify a complex and chaotic climate system, rely on speculation about future population, technology, and use of fossil fuels, and make reasonable guesses about human health and environmental impacts of temperature change through the use of environmental impact science, an inherently uncertain science. Therefore, the skeptics’ attack on mainstream climate science on the grounds of its use of unproven assumptions in the climate models hides a very controversial but unstated ethical position, namely that governments should not act until strong scientific proof is in. For this reason, the skeptics’ appear to be opposed to the use of science that describes potentially dangerous behavior. In taking this position, those opposing action to reduce the threat of climate change are implicitly arguing that the burden of proof should be on those who may be victims of global warming to show that damages to them will actually occur. At the same time, those relying on the skeptic’s arguments to oppose government action appear to be denying that those who are engaged in dangerous behavior have any responsibility to refrain from endangering others.In response to the skeptics’ attack on the science on which proposed global warming policy is based, the mainstream scientists sometimes defend their position on scientific rather than ethical grounds, explaining why their view of the “facts” is scientifically respectable, rather than arguing that ethics demands that highly plausible but unproven consequences should be considered in public policy debates. The public watching this debate between the scientists can be confused by such debates because the actual difference between the contending parties are often different assumptions about when conclusions can be drawn from uncertain science. Unless the contending parties’ assumptions about how science should proceed in controversies where consequences are uncertain are visible to the public, an interested party may not be able to discern what the argument is about or mistakenly assume the argument is only about” good” or “bad” science.From the standpoint of ethics, those who engage in risky behavior are not exonerated because they did not know that their behavior would actually cause damage. Under law that implements this ethical norm, for instance, to be convicted of reckless driving or reckless endangerment, a prosecutor simply has to prove that the defendant acted in a way that he or she should have known to be risky. Many types of risky behavior are criminal because societies believe dangerous behavior is irresponsible and should not be condoned. As a matter of ethics, a relevant question in the face of scientific uncertainty about harmful consequences of human behavior is whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that serious harm to others could result from the behavior. Yet, as we have seen, in the case of climate change, humans have understood the potential threat from climate change for over one hundred years and the scientific support for this concern has been building with increasing speed over the last thirty years. In fact, for more than 18 years, the IPCC, a scientific body created with the strong support of governments around the world to advise them about the conclusions of peer review climate change science, has been telling the world that the great harm from climate change is not only possible but likely with increasing levels of confidence.By the end of the 1980s there was widespread understanding among climate change scientists around the world that there was a great threat posed by rising concentrations of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases event though there were considerable uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts. The climate science that has been accumulating in the last 20 years has been increasing the confidence about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts according to IPCC as wells as reasons for concluding that recent warming is largely human caused not withstanding considerable natural variability in the climate system.For this reason, those emitting high levels of greenhouse gases cannot deny that their emissions create a significant risk to human health and the environment around the world even if one disagrees with the specific predictions about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts now being articulated by the IPCC and the international scientific organizations that support the IPCC conclusions even if one believes that the IPCC’s conclusions have not been proven with sufficient levels of confidence.The argument that high emitting nations need not reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because of scientific uncertainty about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts does not withstand minimum ethical scrutiny because of certain additional facts about climate change including:* The enormous adverse potential impacts on human health and the environment from human induced climate change articulated by the consensus view.* The disproportionate climate change impacts on the poorest people of the world.* The real potential for potentially catastrophic climate surprises much greater than often quoted predictions made by IPCC.* The fact that much of the science of the climate change problem has never or is not now in dispute even if one acknowledges some remaining uncertainty about timing or magnitude of climate change impacts.* The fact that climate change damage is probably already being experienced by some people, plants, animals, and ecosystems around the world in the form of rising seas and increased strength of tropical storms and more frequent and intense droughts and floods.* The strong likelihood that serious and irreversible damage will be experienced before all the uncertainties can be eliminated.* The fact that the longer nations wait to take action, the more difficult it will be to stabilize greenhouse gases at levels which don’t create serious damage.* The fact that those who will be most harmed by climate change have rights to be consulted about decisions based upon scientific uncertainty.Given these facts about climate change, it is inconceivable that any ethical system would condone an excuse for non action by high emitters based upon scientific uncertainty for not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is particularly true because if IPCC is wrong it could be wrong in both directions, that is, climate change impacts could be much worse than the impacts identified by IPCC as well as less harmful.Despite high levels of certainty expressed by IPCC about many aspects of climate change, it may take decades to resolve some of the remaining major uncertainties in the climate models and by then it will very likely be too late to avoid additional damage caused by inaction.All major ethical systems would strongly condemn behavior that is much less threatening and dangerous than climate change. That is deontological, utilitarian, justice, ecocentric, biocentric, and relationship based ethics would not condone using scientific uncertainty as justification for not reducing high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. (See Brown, 2002. 141-148.) For this is a problem that if not controlled may cause the death of tens or hundreds of thousands of helpless victims caused by intense storms and heat waves, the death or sickness of millions that may suffer dengue fever or malaria, the destruction of some nations’ ability to grow food or provide drinking water, the devastation of forests and personal property, and the acceleration of elimination of countless species of plants and animals that are already stressed by other human activities. In summary, global warming threatens many of the things that humans hold to be of most value, i.e., life, health, family, the ability to make a living, community, and the natural environment. The ethical duty to avoid risky behavior is proportional to the magnitude of the potential harm. Because climate change is likely to cause death to many, if not millions of people, through heat stroke, vector borne disease, and flooding, annihilate many island nations by rising seas, cause billions of dollars in property damage in intense storms, and destroy the ability of hundreds of millions to feed themselves in hotter drier climates, the duty to refrain from activities which could cause global warming is extraordinarily strong even in the face of scientific uncertainty about consequencesTherefore, the nature of the risk from climate change is enormous and using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for doing nothing is ethically intolerable.The fact that there is wide spread cross-cultural acceptance of the idea that one should not engage in risky behavior that could cause great harm to things which people attach great value to is clear from the acceptance of the “precautionary principle” in a growing number of international treaties including the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN, 1992, Article 3). Under the precautionary principle embedded in the binding climate change convention, nations agreed not to use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not taking cost-effective action. This is an additional ethical reason why scientific uncertainty cannot now be used by nations as an excuse for refusing to make reductions to their fair share of safe global emissions. That is, in addition to the ethical reasons given above, a nation may not break a promise made to other nations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to not use scientific uncertainty as justification for non-action on climate change.References: Brown, Donald, 2002, American Heat, Ethical Problems with the United States Response to Global Warming, Roman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (November 2007), Fourth Assessment Report, Synthesis Report, http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm, (visited May 14, 2008)Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004), Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science 306 (5702)Potsdam Institue.(2007), Joint Science Academies` Statement Of G8+5 Countries On Climate Protection And Energy Efficiency. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/archive/ ... lor-merkel (visited, May 14, 2008)United Nations, (UN) , (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Document, A:AC. 237/18.----------

Worth highlighting the key points from the IPCC 2007 Report on Climate Change:Quote * It is very likely that observed increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century have been caused by increases in anthropogenic GHG emissions.* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5 percent.* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.* There is high confidence (greater than 90%) that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.* There is a 66 percent confidence level that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeWorth highlighting the key points from the IPCC 2007 Report on Climate Change:Quote * The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5 percent.* There is a 66 percent confidence level that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.I wish I could predict anything with such accuracy., I am sure these people must be scooped up by banks to build more accurate risk models...giving them the confidence levels of various losses etc. VaR-2 is comingThe more I study and the more I predict, the more I figure out I not can predict, and the more I understand the uncertainty in the uncertainty is massive, and still I keep predicting...And yes there will be massive climate changes and nature changes from time to time, possibly far outside most tail predictions, some Good some Bad. What a wonderful interesting world, always changing, but not always in small steps My predictions are uncertain and the confidence interval around my uncertainty has great uncertainty. So yes there will be changes also in the future. Time cannot exist without uncertainty. Bless the Weather!

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWD...Here is the complete essay by Donald A. Brown... Oh man. The word count is 3,247. Give me a break.