Oh boy, see, now you're just trying to sweet talk me. Rising sea levels that will wipe out New York and Boston and LA and San Francisco? Perhaps I SHOULD throw caution to the wind! lol Also, what on earth else could you be doing that is more important that reading my posts on the OT board! Hooey! I can't believe you.

Here's a link to the MIT article.

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...

I'd argue the point that it's an overwhelming majority of scientists as I've pointed out before, the scientitsts that actually deal with sources of climate change, rather than observing and dealing with the results of climate change are quite few. So saying a scientist that deals with migration of sea life due to rises in water temperatures is qualified to determine the source of that temperature rise, is like saying that physical therapist who helps you to work through the aftermath of hip surgery is qualified to operate on the joint. Even then, there are many, who like Bellamy, have been shunned for not towing the party line, so a true accounting of who believes and who doesn't is difficult to make.

Nonetheless, the point of an accurate accounting of fact versus theory, is that people may focus on the wrong measures, eg. carbon offsets that are geared toward enriching opportunists in the name of creating climate change awareness and guilt, when it may well be something completely different that needs to be done. People once argued that the world was flat and they had all kinds of "science" and many revered scientists who supported the idea to back it up, and they argued that the earth was the center of the universe, when we've all clearly come to know that Pittsburgh is the center of the universe. Falsehoods and half-truths disguised as hard and true facts don't serve us well, IMO.