To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24757 ) 5/30/2009 4:53:53 AM From: Maurice Winn 2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917 Wharfie, I learned a couple of decades ago that the Royal Society is superficial and clueless. The topic was lead in petrol for which they concluded there was not evidence of harm but that it was judicious to remove it in due course. Having read the literature myself, I concluded that it was ridiculous to include lead in petrol which BP and others were doing in New Zealand [and in most countries] to raise octane number of petrol. It was clear to me that governments should have been rapidly banning lead in petrol as a neurological poison which was doing harm to brains, particularly developing brains of children, to the tune of 0.25 IQ points. Lead in petrol was one of the great stupidities of the 20th century, but there was much competition. Now, I am sure, the Royal Society is reading the official CO2 doomster literature and pontificating in their normal superficial way, going with the current political flow. Remember these are establishment scientists, not necessarily expert in the field in which they pontificate, nor thoughtful about it even if expert. Many experts seem to be good at learning, but poor at thinking. But thanks for the notice that they are planning to do some propaganda in September. Since CO2 has been increasing for 100 years, there should already be a LOT of evidence of the dreaded thinning shells. If they can't think of where to look, I can suggest they check paua shells, which have been collected by hordes of people. But there are lots of shells which have been collected over the years. I have been to beaches in recent times and have shelled molluscs as recently as a week ago and the shells were NOT in the slightest fragile. But perhaps a snapper would find them easier to crack open than previously. It looks very like an effort to stir up some frenzy on a theoretical problem than that they have measured shells and found them fragile. It looks like a fund-raising effort than solution providing. I have no doubt that they wouldn't be in the slightest interested in even reading part of such a heretical publication as the one you are Denialist about - which you are totally unable to refute in the slightest way other than to say that if it's not in Nature, Science, etc it's not worth considering. As normal, you have no case, reasoning, ideas or information. Mqurice