Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford University. ... pump(ed) away: “We cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica (ice sheets breaking up), massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. There’s at least a 10 per cent chance of that . . . My God, that’s Russian roulette with a Luger.”

Bang! Just what the Doctor Doom ordered. And no wonder, for Schneider is, like Flannery, just the man for this kind of job, having said in 1996 that scientists were ethically bound to “in effect” tell the truth, but . . .

But? Er, yes. But “on the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings” who wanted to “capture the public’s imagination” on this awful climate change.

“So,” admitted Schneider, ”we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

One day all the cha

One day all the charlatans, scare-mongers and assorted scientists who decided to tell lies for a green cause will be held to account. I suspect that shaming day is coming faster than many realise.

By the way, that global warming guru, Prof. Scneider, 30 years ago was a global cooling guru. He claimed that atmospheric pollution would soon reduce the global T by 3.5 C.

There are nutcases in every profession...people who will say whatever they think will get them ahead. Just look at politics.

That in no way discredits the real scientists who vouch for the facts of global warming. Do I believe every singe word I read on the matter? Of course not. One must always consider the source to determine credibility.

Most great foresights involve the passionate persistence by individual/s about something less than "likely" to happen.

For example:

The insistence by certain people within and without the government that a large scale attack was quite possible...9/11 was a quite unlikely occurrence.

The insistence by Albert Einstein, entirely intuitive, upon a unified theory...a view currently being vindicated to an arguable extent.

I want to know the scientists' feelings; their fears/instincts are rooted in their study. I applaud the guy for admitting they are "human", and somewhat required to use hyperbola to draw attention to an issue.

However,..if they do so for advancement they are liars and scum.

I want to know the scientists' feelings

Too much feelings about the climate. All I am interested in is what scientists can prove or disprove.

Sorry for the misprint. Read: many