"Weir's reference to a "moral imperative" was in a QUESTION to Mr. Gooch, not a statement."

Did you watch the video? Do you honestly believe Weir wasn't expressing his personal opinion?

The moral imperative here is to seek out the truth first. I believe there's a broad consensus that doesn't trust the IPCC, and since the debate is over that's where that discussion must end.

There's no denying that man pollutes. Fight pollution. There's no denying that man is wasteful. Encourage conservation. There's plausible deniability that we're all doomed. The algore political circus can't be taken seriously. If the IPCC is serious, perhaps they should consider choosing a new, apolitical spokesperson.

And because Weir posited his "moral imperative" indictment in the form of a question rather than a statement it is less wrong?  You go on to speak of "the scientific evidence" but provide no example. You then offer the UN IPCC synthesis report as if this document came from some noble, unbiased, political free organization that is unimpeachable. In doing so you totally disregard the many recent scandals that have come to light surrounding that dubious organization. Have you so quickly forgotten the UN's Iraqi oil-for-food scam?  Or the UN sex crimes in the Congo?  I could add many more examples (and will readily do so if you insist) but shouldn't these two examples suffice to convince even the most "rational" mind this is not an organization to be trusted?

As Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby states, "The UN is a corrupt institution, one that long ago squandered whatever moral legitimacy it had. The UN's founding documents venerate justice and human rights, but for the past 40 years, the organization has been dominated by a bloc of states -- essentially the Afro-Asian Third World -- most of whose governments routinely pervert justice and violate human rights."

So was Weir's "moral imperative" question really a "perfectly approapriate question to ask" based on currently questionable scientific "evidence" of man's supposed perilous impact on the environment coupled with a report from an orgnaization that is thought in most circles to have "squandered whatever moral athourity it had?"

There is no point in responding to your emotionally driven last sentence as by itself it serves to further demolish any notion that your interest in this topic is based in logic or "rational" thought.

As until very recently I have not seen you comment on NB before I am going to assume that you are unaware that this topic has been thoroughly discussed at length for well over two years on this board.  Your lack of scientific proof the earth is in imminent peril due to any human contribution and use of the UN as a credible source to support that claim has been debunked on NB ad nauseam.  Therefore, unless you have something new and relevant to bring to the discussion you will understand if I remain indifferent to any future comments you may have on this subject.

The shill is back again.  Selling his tripe again I see.

Why don't you try reading that report.  In particular, go to the appendices and annexes and learn how many IPCC "scientists" there really are.  There are not "thousands".  Of the roughly 2500 IPCC 4AR contributors, only about 600 are actually scientists of any kind.  And of these 600 or so, a significant number are actually skeptics! 

If only 600 are scientists, then what are the other 1900 contributors?  Politicians, public relations, economists and political activists, that is what.  The IPCC 4AR and its attendant Policymaker's Summary are little more than a political manifesto.  As such, it is to be questioned, even doubted.  At least one leading figure in his field. Dr. Chris Landsea, has resigned from the IPCC because he felt the report was being intentionally distorted to sell a political agenda, the AGW agenda.

Even if the IPCC 4AR is taken at face value, it does not present a picture which is in any way alarming.  It's projections for the next century contradict Al Gore's egregious exaggerations in his propaganda movie.  i.e., it predicts a 12-18 inch increase in sea level over the next century.  Al Gore's movie presents a 20 foot increase scenario, in an obvious attemmpt to frighten people into accepting the massive government intervention he proposes and seeks to profit personally from.

As for you, you are nothing but a B team shill who comes here to smear his intellectual feces on this board and then run and hide.  Stick around, coward. Debate if you dare.  The floor here needs mopping.

"And what if you're wrong, Bill?  Isn't it a moral imperative not to destroy whole economies based on highly questionable science? "

Bullseye.

Totally. Best of Both Worlds, parts 1 & 2, easily the best Trek episodes of all time. That sense of slowly-encroaching doom that they represent. Trek at its most gothic...

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte

The way Al Gore, Heidi Cullen, and the militant global warmists treat those who question their flawed science makes me think of these 3 verses in Revelation ...

Revelation 13:15-17

(15) And he had power to give life unto the image [eikon - the object of worship] of the beast, that the image [eikon - the object of worship] of the beast should both speak [laleo - preach its message], and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed [apokteino - cut off and isolated ... as Heidi Cullen wanted to do to all meteorologists who would not confess global warming as undeniable truth (she said their AMA licenses should be revoked)].

(16) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark [chargama - a stamp, as of approval] in their right hand, or in their foreheads [and that mark, or stamp, is confession of the doctrine of global warming]:

(17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark [charagma - the stamp of approval], or the name of the beast [Albert Arnold Gore Jr.], or the number of his name [Albert-6 Arnold-6 Gore Jr.-6].