Aside from what the other poster said about tech-transfer (most of which is true), the biology research in the university labs usually stops at the point of a likely cure that works in animal model systems.
At that point is where all the patent stuff happens and the pharm companies take over. There is still more to do. The human drug trials. There are usually 3 stages to those trials and they are extremely costly to do. You have a large number of patients (if you get to the stage 3 trials) which must each see a doctor ($$$) probably a nurse or two ($$) and usually get some type of blood tests, etc, run ($$$). Those drug trials usually take months to years to complete, requiring multiple trips to the physician/nurse/testing ($$$$$$$$$$$). Plus, since they are doing experimental stuff, the insurance for the doctors isn't going to be cheap, even compared to a normal practice ($$$$).
Although most of the 'research' may be done by the research labs in universities, the pharm companies have a large investment in the clinical trials (which often don't work out). That's one of the reasons they try to recoup so much money with jacked up drug prices. Their other big expense is their fleet of drug reps who make weekly or bi-weekly circuits around to tell your local doctor about their new wonder drug. Check how many drug reps companies have out there (and what they are paid) and you will find where a HUGE amount of pharm money really goes.
If you want to study migratory patterns of Caribou or the depletion of the salmon population, you apply for a grant from the Department of Agriculture, or the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Department of Commerce. You don't go to the NIH.
There are lots and lots of funding agencies that do 'biology' research other than the NIH. I've been on grants studying radiation biology from the Department of Energy. I've been supported by grants from rotory clubs. All of that has nothing to do with the $28 Billion last year that the NIH alone spent.
Apparently you don't know what the NIH is. The National Institutes of Health are:
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
National Eye Institute (NEI)
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
Gee, what do all those things have in common? They seem to be about basic biology and human HEALTH. None of them seem directly related to Caribou. Maybe because that's not where Caribou researchers typically get their research money, but someone studying cancer might.
You pointed to a 'major' pharm company spending 7 billion. There aren't that many major players, and most of their R&D money are spent on drug trials. That's an expensive part of the research process, but it's the end stage. Most of that money isn't spent discovering a cure, but making sure the possible cure doesn't kill you in other ways. That's not drug discovery, that's human drug toxicity testing. The universities around the country are where most of the real research happens.
Another tinfoil hat conspiracy guy eh? Here's some news for you. Much/most of the biology research done in the U.S. is paid for by the National Institutes of Health. That's the government, not drug companies. To the tune of $28 billion or so last year alone. That's your tax dollars at work.
Most done by labs at Universities like mine. If I find a cure for a disease, I'd get famous in my field. Not only that, but it would pretty much ensure that I will have all the future funding for my research that I could want.
Even besides all that, there are plenty of folks in my lab, in my department, and collegues at other Universities I collaborate with who know what I'm working on and how things are going. Hiding something major like a cure for a major disease just isn't going to happen. There is zero in it for me to hide my research, even if it were possible.
Now the drug companies would be the ones to actually produce the drug for sale. They might charge you an arm and a leg for the pill, but it wouldn't be hidden from you.
That is all. We now return you to your regular worries about the aliens reading your brainwaves. And look out for the black helicoptors!
Well, you better inform the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc, folks quick. I'm sure that they will be interested to hear that the projects that they have been working on successfully for years and years are all doomed. Oh wait, they are going along great. New things like OpenSSH etc are coming out from those groups regularly. I guess they aren't doomed after all.
And yes, I'm sure you can point a few individual projects that went by the wayside, but many GPL projects have died as well.
There is plenty of motivation to keep working on opensource projects even if there are better closed source alternatives, as I'm sure the rest of your GPL buddies can attest. This is no less true on the BSD side of things.
FYI, I've developed tons of GPL derived code without giving the code back to the project. It's false the GPL requires it. The GPL only requires it if you DISTRIBUTE the software. 90% of software development is in house. This is why most businesses don't usually give a damn about GPL vs BSD--because they don't intend to sell their core business techniques to their competitors.
That's pretty much a given. I don't see anywhere in the discussion where folks were talking about stuff used just in-house. Everyone who knows the licenses knows that part. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Either share or don't, but get off the BSD-licensed fence. As far as I'm concerned, only dead software (of the "maybe someone else will do something with it" type) is appropriate for BSD licensing.
No thanks, I don't have to get off the 'fence'. I'll use the BSD license if I feel like it. That's the nice thing about the BSDers, they don't like to put restrictions on other folks or tell them what they have to do like you GPL fanatics. I dont' really care what the BSD license is good for 'as far as your concerned'. I get to use it where *I* see it's appropriate.
Microsoft taking the BSD TCP stack 'worked' because MS needed something compatible. Had they been in the position in 1993 that they are now, they would have probably made incompatible changes to the BSD stack and refused to release any of those changes back to the community.
(BTW: has MS contributed anything back to the BSD community?)
Once again, most BSDers (those who understand the license, duh) didn't expect MS to contribute anything back. It would be 'nice' if they did, but certainly nothing was ever expected. It was a 'good thing' that they were using a nice stable stack. That's enough reward for most BSD folks. It's the GPL folks that somehow think of this as an 'abuse' of the BSD code. It's not. It's the way it was ment to be. Contributions back are nice, but not expected, and definitely not forced.
With Kerberos, they made incompatible changes and didn't want to feed their changes back to the OS community.
Onced again, the same applies. It's the BSD license. Stop expecting that everyone needs to contribute back. That's GPL thinking. Please think that all you want about GPL code, but don't force that thinking on stuff that was ment to be BSD code.
The BSD community seems to expect that big companies that take their code will somehow just want to feed changes back to them -- so they're a bit put out when companies like SUN use their code, but refuse to even give them specs on their hardware much less hardware to develop more code on.
You must be talking to some minority of the BSD community. Most think contributions back are 'nice', but not expected. It's a bonus.
Part of the problem with BSD-licensed code is that companies that use it, even if they want to contribute their changes back have to presume that their competition will take the contributed changes and close-source them. It's a zero-sum game. In other words, BSD interacts with human greed in a way that discourages code feedback. The GPL, on the other hand, requires code feedback, so companies often feel safer contributing their changes back into the loop.
Part of the problem with GPL-licensed code is that companies that use it, even if they don't want to, must contribute all their changes back because of the license. With the BSD license they can easily pick and chose, freely donating back changes that they don't think will give their competition and advantage, while holding back the bits that will directly help their competitors. There is no requirement to give every pice of code back, so companies often feel safer contributing their changes back that help the code in general, but not their competition specifically.
The Open BSD code is out there in the public, just as GPL code. If anyone wants to maintain that public code, they can. Someone making a copy of the BSD code and adding in magic-x ingrediant and selling that in no way takes away the open public BSD version of it. Folks can still maintain the public code just as they would GPL code. WTF is difficult to understand about that? They *can't* close the public version. It's always going to be out there. The public version can be maintained. If it's a project people care enough about, they will maintain the public version. If not enough people care, the public BSD code will rot away just as old GPL code will that no one cares enough about to maintian. Geez.
It never closes off the original GPL code which the grandfather post implied. That code is always around to be updated. The only reason it wouldn't be is if enough folks didn't find it useful to keep maintaining. Who cares what some company doesn't maintain their own secret branch? The main code is out there for anyone to use and maintain if it's useful enough code for them to do so.
Right, because all that great GPL'd code on sourceforge is all kept up to date, while all the BSD code on it whithers and dies. Bullocks. Look at the projects. There are plenty of dead GPL projects, and plenty of long lived BSD ones that keep rolling along.
Making it GPL instead of BSD doesn't miraculously make more people care about an uninteresing or badly put togeather project. If it's a good enough project, people will work on it, be it BSD or GPL.
Once again, who said they had to care? The ones who care more about the benifit of everyone rather than just their project will go with BSD, the ones who care more about just their project will go with GPL. No one is saying anyone who likes the GPL better should change their belief system and care about the companies. Different people have different goals and therefore different beliefs about what is 'bad'. Project vs World.
I thought you'd understand the meaning from rest of my post. Apparently not.
Where did anyone say an OSS developer should weep??? GPL is only 'bad' for a software project if one of the major goals of the project is to get companies to contribute back. Most BSD folks were glad MS picked up their TCP stack so that there would be a good stable stack on tons of computers on the internet rather than some shoddy one making life harder on everyone who had to interact with it or on use the same lines. The BSD license is more about what's good for all rather than just what's good for the project.
And if someone gets AIDs through a blood transfusion/needle-stick/some-other-means, their spouse should obviously be happy to die from it, because wearing a condom to prevent transmission would be a sin. Brilliant.
It is very much a matter of perspecive because there is no firm defintion for 'hard' vaccum. I take it to mean extremely low pressure (high/very-high/ultra-high vacuum)
By a 'real vacuum wouldn't have a bow shock' I take it you mean total/complete vacuum, which I think of as included as one end of the spectrum of vacuums that I would call 'hard'
There are only about 5 particles/cm3 near the Earth, and it decreases from there by an inverse square law farther from the Sun. That's pretty darn hard of a vaccuum by common thinking. Yes, it will have a effect on a space probe going millions of miles, but calling it a hard vacuum isn't really that much of an overstatement.
Nah, they will be war tracker sites. People launching tracking sites on laptops in their cars outside wireless hotspots. Passing off info to the next tracking sites as they come online.
You are still guaging that by the number of _known_ exploits, that ssh bug existed for at least a year before it went public.
Probably because it's damn hard to guage it by the number of *unknown* exploits out there. I'd love to hear of a method if you know of one.
linux with grsec/pax has been more secure than openbsd for quite some time, hell in that case obsd has been countinually behind the curve in the order of 3 years or so-- lookup a reply to theo by the author of pax where he details just how behind the curve they actually are.
I've read plenty of threads pax/grsec, and I've found nothing that makes me thing a box with it would be any more secure than an OpenBSD box. We'll have to agree to disagree. Have fun running Linux, I'll stick with OpenBSD.
Well, if you really want one... It seems remote in the extreme but still possible.
I dont' think anyone ever claimed OpenBSD was totally impervious forever and ever to all exploits. But it's track record for the past 8 years or so kinda speaks for itself. All the other *BSDs/Linux/commercial-*nix's/windows/etc have had many more exploits compared. Code auditing is a good thing. They've fixed many unknown security holes just by rewriting the code to make it easier to read and audit. Holes no one realized existed until much later.
You are going to have a rough time building a more secure box unless you go to something like OpenVMS. That's a nice OS, but any modern hardware for it is going to be expensive (and the cheap old stuff will be slow). Certainly some 0 day exploits may exist for it, but that's true of every other OS. And less likely with OpenBSD than most.
Many big cities have a free paper, but many aren't daily. Being in NYC, you might have a slightly scewed view of what is available to the rest of us. We've got a million folks in the "greater city area" and we only have two local free rags with extremely limited news coverage that each come out once a week.
And not everyone lives in a big city. What if you live in a smaller city, town, or in a rural area?
Your TV costs you $15/month in electricity? Yikes. That's a lot bigger set than I have. And Bigger than most folks. You must have a big high-def screen. That or you live in California where the rates are too high;)
The average TV comes in at more like 22 cents for 10 hours. Source That's at 8.14 cents/kWa. Bigger screens take more power.
That's ~$6/month for juice to run a regular TV for 10 hours a day, every day. That's significantly cheaper than cable in most places.
Unless you want to go hang out at the libarary every day, newspapers are not free. Since a decent fraction of those without cable/satallite are poor, that IS an issue.
In short, if you want me to make major changes in the amount of non-poisonous, non-pollutant, pro-plant-growth chemical I produce, you're going to have to show we some damned good evidence. That evidence has NOT been forthcoming. The case for human-induced climate change as a consequence of CO2 is weak, and even if the case were strong, there's no real proof that the ultimate effects of some global warming would necessarily be bad. The world would just be different.
Perhaps you should take a class in reading comprehension. I said "pollution/greenhouse emissions". That includes many other things besides CO2.
Anyway, no thanks. If you have a scientific case to make, make the case and let the world decide on the merits. But don't cop out and expect the world to adopt your recommendations even though you can't demonstrate you're right.
Our modeling systems simply aren't good enough to tell which side of the arguement is right. There is no more scientific evidence for 'your side' then their is for the 'other guys side'. You can't demonstrate you are right, so why should they care what you think either?
And many other people think that the best way to reduce CO2 production would be if those that are opposed to CO2 would just stop breathing.
They should die because their arguement has no more proof than yours. Interesting. Would you be willing to reduce some of the CO2 emmissions from your side of the table? Thanks.
We should still do what we can to reduce our pollution/greenhouse emissions. We don't know for sure that we are going to cause severe shifts in the weather, but we do know we are putting tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment that wouldn't be there except for use.
If we are wrong, and we really weren't changing the planets climate, we still get the benfit of a cleaner environment. Many people think that's a kind of good thing in and of itself.
Slashdot Mirror
At 22,000 miles per hour, do you think you would have had time to hear anything at all before the microphone was vaporized?
At that point is where all the patent stuff happens and the pharm companies take over. There is still more to do. The human drug trials. There are usually 3 stages to those trials and they are extremely costly to do. You have a large number of patients (if you get to the stage 3 trials) which must each see a doctor ($$$) probably a nurse or two ($$) and usually get some type of blood tests, etc, run ($$$). Those drug trials usually take months to years to complete, requiring multiple trips to the physician/nurse/testing ($$$$$$$$$$$). Plus, since they are doing experimental stuff, the insurance for the doctors isn't going to be cheap, even compared to a normal practice ($$$$).
Although most of the 'research' may be done by the research labs in universities, the pharm companies have a large investment in the clinical trials (which often don't work out). That's one of the reasons they try to recoup so much money with jacked up drug prices. Their other big expense is their fleet of drug reps who make weekly or bi-weekly circuits around to tell your local doctor about their new wonder drug. Check how many drug reps companies have out there (and what they are paid) and you will find where a HUGE amount of pharm money really goes.
If you want to study migratory patterns of Caribou or the depletion of the salmon population, you apply for a grant from the Department of Agriculture, or the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Department of Commerce. You don't go to the NIH.
There are lots and lots of funding agencies that do 'biology' research other than the NIH. I've been on grants studying radiation biology from the Department of Energy. I've been supported by grants from rotory clubs. All of that has nothing to do with the $28 Billion last year that the NIH alone spent.
Apparently you don't know what the NIH is. The National Institutes of Health are:
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- National Eye Institute (NEI)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)
- National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
- National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
- National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
- National Library of Medicine (NLM)
Gee, what do all those things have in common? They seem to be about basic biology and human HEALTH. None of them seem directly related to Caribou. Maybe because that's not where Caribou researchers typically get their research money, but someone studying cancer might.You pointed to a 'major' pharm company spending 7 billion. There aren't that many major players, and most of their R&D money are spent on drug trials. That's an expensive part of the research process, but it's the end stage. Most of that money isn't spent discovering a cure, but making sure the possible cure doesn't kill you in other ways. That's not drug discovery, that's human drug toxicity testing. The universities around the country are where most of the real research happens.
Most done by labs at Universities like mine. If I find a cure for a disease, I'd get famous in my field. Not only that, but it would pretty much ensure that I will have all the future funding for my research that I could want.
Even besides all that, there are plenty of folks in my lab, in my department, and collegues at other Universities I collaborate with who know what I'm working on and how things are going. Hiding something major like a cure for a major disease just isn't going to happen. There is zero in it for me to hide my research, even if it were possible.
Now the drug companies would be the ones to actually produce the drug for sale. They might charge you an arm and a leg for the pill, but it wouldn't be hidden from you.
That is all. We now return you to your regular worries about the aliens reading your brainwaves. And look out for the black helicoptors!
And yes, I'm sure you can point a few individual projects that went by the wayside, but many GPL projects have died as well.
There is plenty of motivation to keep working on opensource projects even if there are better closed source alternatives, as I'm sure the rest of your GPL buddies can attest. This is no less true on the BSD side of things.
That's pretty much a given. I don't see anywhere in the discussion where folks were talking about stuff used just in-house. Everyone who knows the licenses knows that part. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Either share or don't, but get off the BSD-licensed fence. As far as I'm concerned, only dead software (of the "maybe someone else will do something with it" type) is appropriate for BSD licensing.
No thanks, I don't have to get off the 'fence'. I'll use the BSD license if I feel like it. That's the nice thing about the BSDers, they don't like to put restrictions on other folks or tell them what they have to do like you GPL fanatics. I dont' really care what the BSD license is good for 'as far as your concerned'. I get to use it where *I* see it's appropriate.
Once again, most BSDers (those who understand the license, duh) didn't expect MS to contribute anything back. It would be 'nice' if they did, but certainly nothing was ever expected. It was a 'good thing' that they were using a nice stable stack. That's enough reward for most BSD folks. It's the GPL folks that somehow think of this as an 'abuse' of the BSD code. It's not. It's the way it was ment to be. Contributions back are nice, but not expected, and definitely not forced.
With Kerberos, they made incompatible changes and didn't want to feed their changes back to the OS community.
Onced again, the same applies. It's the BSD license. Stop expecting that everyone needs to contribute back. That's GPL thinking. Please think that all you want about GPL code, but don't force that thinking on stuff that was ment to be BSD code.
The BSD community seems to expect that big companies that take their code will somehow just want to feed changes back to them -- so they're a bit put out when companies like SUN use their code, but refuse to even give them specs on their hardware much less hardware to develop more code on.
You must be talking to some minority of the BSD community. Most think contributions back are 'nice', but not expected. It's a bonus.
Part of the problem with BSD-licensed code is that companies that use it, even if they want to contribute their changes back have to presume that their competition will take the contributed changes and close-source them. It's a zero-sum game. In other words, BSD interacts with human greed in a way that discourages code feedback. The GPL, on the other hand, requires code feedback, so companies often feel safer contributing their changes back into the loop.
Part of the problem with GPL-licensed code is that companies that use it, even if they don't want to, must contribute all their changes back because of the license. With the BSD license they can easily pick and chose, freely donating back changes that they don't think will give their competition and advantage, while holding back the bits that will directly help their competitors. There is no requirement to give every pice of code back, so companies often feel safer contributing their changes back that help the code in general, but not their competition specifically.
It goes both ways.
The Open BSD code is out there in the public, just as GPL code. If anyone wants to maintain that public code, they can. Someone making a copy of the BSD code and adding in magic-x ingrediant and selling that in no way takes away the open public BSD version of it. Folks can still maintain the public code just as they would GPL code. WTF is difficult to understand about that? They *can't* close the public version. It's always going to be out there. The public version can be maintained. If it's a project people care enough about, they will maintain the public version. If not enough people care, the public BSD code will rot away just as old GPL code will that no one cares enough about to maintian. Geez.
It never closes off the original GPL code which the grandfather post implied. That code is always around to be updated. The only reason it wouldn't be is if enough folks didn't find it useful to keep maintaining. Who cares what some company doesn't maintain their own secret branch? The main code is out there for anyone to use and maintain if it's useful enough code for them to do so.
Making it GPL instead of BSD doesn't miraculously make more people care about an uninteresing or badly put togeather project. If it's a good enough project, people will work on it, be it BSD or GPL.
I thought you'd understand the meaning from rest of my post. Apparently not.
Where did anyone say an OSS developer should weep??? GPL is only 'bad' for a software project if one of the major goals of the project is to get companies to contribute back. Most BSD folks were glad MS picked up their TCP stack so that there would be a good stable stack on tons of computers on the internet rather than some shoddy one making life harder on everyone who had to interact with it or on use the same lines. The BSD license is more about what's good for all rather than just what's good for the project.
So what your saying is neanderthals are just folks from West Virginia?
And if someone gets AIDs through a blood transfusion/needle-stick/some-other-means, their spouse should obviously be happy to die from it, because wearing a condom to prevent transmission would be a sin. Brilliant.
By a 'real vacuum wouldn't have a bow shock' I take it you mean total/complete vacuum, which I think of as included as one end of the spectrum of vacuums that I would call 'hard'
There are only about 5 particles/cm3 near the Earth, and it decreases from there by an inverse square law farther from the Sun. That's pretty darn hard of a vaccuum by common thinking. Yes, it will have a effect on a space probe going millions of miles, but calling it a hard vacuum isn't really that much of an overstatement.
Nah, they will be war tracker sites. People launching tracking sites on laptops in their cars outside wireless hotspots. Passing off info to the next tracking sites as they come online.
XP has a firewall built in. It just isnt' turned on by default. Install XP, turn on the firewall, then plug it into the network and download patches.
Probably because it's damn hard to guage it by the number of *unknown* exploits out there. I'd love to hear of a method if you know of one.
linux with grsec/pax has been more secure than openbsd for quite some time, hell in that case obsd has been countinually behind the curve in the order of 3 years or so-- lookup a reply to theo by the author of pax where he details just how behind the curve they actually are.
I've read plenty of threads pax/grsec, and I've found nothing that makes me thing a box with it would be any more secure than an OpenBSD box. We'll have to agree to disagree. Have fun running Linux, I'll stick with OpenBSD.
I dont' think anyone ever claimed OpenBSD was totally impervious forever and ever to all exploits. But it's track record for the past 8 years or so kinda speaks for itself. All the other *BSDs/Linux/commercial-*nix's/windows/etc have had many more exploits compared. Code auditing is a good thing. They've fixed many unknown security holes just by rewriting the code to make it easier to read and audit. Holes no one realized existed until much later.
You are going to have a rough time building a more secure box unless you go to something like OpenVMS. That's a nice OS, but any modern hardware for it is going to be expensive (and the cheap old stuff will be slow). Certainly some 0 day exploits may exist for it, but that's true of every other OS. And less likely with OpenBSD than most.
And not everyone lives in a big city. What if you live in a smaller city, town, or in a rural area?
The average TV comes in at more like 22 cents for 10 hours. Source That's at 8.14 cents/kWa. Bigger screens take more power.
That's ~$6/month for juice to run a regular TV for 10 hours a day, every day. That's significantly cheaper than cable in most places.
Unless you want to go hang out at the libarary every day, newspapers are not free. Since a decent fraction of those without cable/satallite are poor, that IS an issue.
Perhaps you should take a class in reading comprehension. I said "pollution/greenhouse emissions". That includes many other things besides CO2.
Anyway, no thanks. If you have a scientific case to make, make the case and let the world decide on the merits. But don't cop out and expect the world to adopt your recommendations even though you can't demonstrate you're right.
Our modeling systems simply aren't good enough to tell which side of the arguement is right. There is no more scientific evidence for 'your side' then their is for the 'other guys side'. You can't demonstrate you are right, so why should they care what you think either?
And many other people think that the best way to reduce CO2 production would be if those that are opposed to CO2 would just stop breathing.
They should die because their arguement has no more proof than yours. Interesting. Would you be willing to reduce some of the CO2 emmissions from your side of the table? Thanks.
If we are wrong, and we really weren't changing the planets climate, we still get the benfit of a cleaner environment. Many people think that's a kind of good thing in and of itself.