Flat?  This is mostly a myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

Indeed, a round earth is essential to Ptolemaic astronomy, a theory which was universally accepted for about 2000 years.  It wasn’t accepted because it seemed like a good idea, it was accepted because it was incredibly accurate—substantially more so than Copernicus’ theory was at the beginning.  How this frequently cited canard says anything bad about science continues to amaze me.  It’s as though you’re saying:

“Well, scientists used to believe a theory which was almost as accurate at making predictions as our current theory, but had the wrong underlying structure.  Our current theory is better.  Therefore, we shouldn’t listen to scientists.”

I don’t quite see the logic.

On a related note, does it bother you to speculate that the worlds’ scientists are in on some huge grant-money-driven conspiracy (an idea which makes every scientist I know double over with laughter) and then ignore the carbon-energy funding connection to the major “climate-skeptic” think-tanks and lobbying organizations?

It is also not true that there’s any lack of data on global warming.  There’s lots of data, and even the super-religious Christy agrees that the data shows man is affecting the climate.  He is just not sure how much.  Or doesn’t want to be sure.

Of course, we could be really sure, if we’d launch the DSCOVR satellite to make real measurements of the Earth’s albedo from space.  The satellite is already built, can provide a real answer on the hottest issue of the day, and other nations have offered to launch it for us since the Bush administration has it socked away in a warehouse.  I can only conclude they don’t want to know.  and they don’t want anyone else to know, either.

Christy has said:

It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.

His main disagreement with the rest of the panel is the question of how much certainty to attach to the predictions.  And here I feel pretty comfortable saying; “OK, here’s a scientist who agrees with the basic premise of his panel but says the expressed degree of certainty is too high.  We can’t afford to ignore the catastrophe that the other scientists predict.”

We should be showing leadership on a very likely threat instead of searching for loopholes with a microscope.  New technology is a good opportunity to get rich anyway. Carbon-burning is old and busted.

CO2 plastic – This sounds like it’s in no way a solution to global warming (in requires premade epoxides, which probably have a high carbon footprint), but it may reduce the cost of my polycarbonate lenses next time I get glasses.