The Credibility of Climate Science, Cont. - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

The entire modern scientific enterprise, [Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and public policy at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs] argues, requires the lay public to place faith in strangers, to have confidence in the experts who understand specialized knowledge that untrained citizens do not share. The public must also believe that those experts — the scientific priesthood — are not conspiring to dupe them.

Hilary Benn webchat 3rd March from number10.gov.uk | Climate Realists

James Goff: Will you admit that the anthropogenic global warming theory is a fraudulent scam to make money and impose new laws? Climategate, Glaciergate, Africagate, Amazongate? What’s next, Defragate? The so-called science is flawed and does not stand up to scrutiny, as demonstrated time and time again. If you sincerely believe in this, then have a televised debate with Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, Richard North or James Delingpole, I’m sure all would happily oblige.

Hilary replies: Crumbs James. I disagree. I am not a scientist but I have read what the consensus of scientific opinion is, and in the light of what they say and of the evidence it seems to me that we have an obligation to act.

Top 5 Ways to Mess With Earth's Day : Discovery News

2. Global Warming: Yep, you heard right. It's one more way our civilization is changing the planet -- by making our day longer.

GE’s Immelt Says U.S. Needs Strong Actions on Energy (Update1) - BusinessWeek

“The way this has been characterized as based on a polar bear on an iceberg, that didn’t resonate with the American people,” Rogers told reporters today at the energy conference. “The focus should be on stimulating the economy, creating jobs and improving our energy security, and lastly cleaning our air up, including reducing our carbon footprint.”
...
“What’s best for society?” Immelt said. “Electricity bills are going to be higher in Europe than they are in the U.S., but more jobs are being created.”

If we're trying to create more jobs, regardless of cost, why don't we require that all digging be done with teaspoons?