We have the enormous misfortune in the UK to live in a democracy; how could it not? As more people from, effectively, the past enter the country the progress we've been making will be slowed or reversed.

Western, or probably more specifically north-western europe is that special region in the world where religion is actually dying off. More people in the UK are non-religious than religious. Christians in this country finally have the decency to be ashamed of their faith, and any extravagant public expression of belief is met with contempt from believers and non-believers alike - look at the minor scandal created when Tony Blair admitted to being a catholic, and engaging in such outlandish behaviours as prayer.

Orthodox christians from easten europe, and refugees from even less civilised areas, haven't had the opportunity to develop the same attitude. As they settle in their nasty little insular communities, the danger is that they're in a position to act as voting blocs that damage public policy.

Anyway, I'm sure it's heartening for eric to discover that basically none of us has any idea either.

so... Space is a four dimensional fabric... that is expanding in 3 directions and also in the direction of time.

and any stationary density of matter OR matter moving at speed has the ability to slow or reverse the expansion relative only to itself?

And space went from a singularity and inflated suddenly and continues to expand as though it had limited boundaries in yet still seems to be infinite?

... I think it's the mind boggling mystery of space that interests me to much

First of all, that eye tick is really freakin me out. Mine ticks at times as well and it really bugs the heck out of me. I can't imagine how bad that one must be driving her nuts.

Second, it's really not worth going into all of this guys arguments in a forum like this but I have to pick a few out.

1) "To call it global warming is correct, but almost a misnomer. What we are really doing is adding immense amounts of energy to a system..." Interesting attempt an an explanation here. I think he was attempting to say something along the lines of "... adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that more solar energy is retained by the system." I think it is important not to give approximations or short answers in a discussion like this.

2) 80% reduction in CO2 emissions? Good luck with that. Good of him to start with an easily attainable goal. I don't care that he does mean by 2050. It's not likely to happen without a dramatic new discovery in energy production.

3) I went to the web site he is pimping. Nowhere on it does it explain how we are to achieve these goals in a realistic manner. It has fluff like "More biofeuls, hydropower, solar, and wind" but it also says "eliminate current generation of nuclear plants and do not license new ones." Energy demands in the US and worldwide are steadily increasing. Even with conservation, the rate of increase will only slow not reverse. There isn't enough fresh water on the planet to replace fossil fuels with biofeuls, nor is there enough arable land to grow all these miracle fuels. Hydroelectric power has been under attack for decades because of the damage it does to natural systems and neither solar nor wind are realistically economical or practical to replace a substantial portion of fossil fuels. Demands to "fix the planet now" are all well and good, but you need to provide realistic solutions rather than pie-in-the-sky platitudes.

In my opinion, the best hope for a major shift in the production of energy will be development of a practical cellulosic ethanol production system. Until that happens, we are going to need to invest in energy sources that have at least the potential of meeting our needs.

"ABC News has obtained a videotape that shows clearly what happened when the president . . . blah, blah, rutabaga, rutabaga, humina humina humina."

Jeez, time for a Pulitzer.

upvote for slow-mo reverse.