Arthur C. Clarke took pride in writing his Sci-Fi works based on "hard science". He used the term to refer to devices and technologies that were or might soon be in reach of the human race. The atomic engines described as powering the Overlord's space ships in "Childhood's End" were feasible based on technology known and available at the time of the book's publication, circa 1953, I think. Clarke's hard science in that work of fiction is more sound than so-called Climate-Change "Science". Solid science is based on repetition of experiment(s) for independent peer review and verification of results. Information of global climate conditions is a very young (and short) record. Indirect observations can be made in isolated locations for vast periods of time, but how reliable are they? The fact is, this phenomenon has only been directly observed once. NOBODY *KNOWS* what it is. Maybe it's a trend. Maybe it's not. If humanity had access to a work resembling Carl Sagan's hypothetical "Encyclopedia Galactica", maybe we could find a few planets similar enough to our lovely blue space-hurdling marble that we all call "home" to serve as a sound basis for a viable assessment of what is happening here. But get a load of these guys! They say "2 degrees rise is unsafe" How do they know? Has this ever been directly observed. No. Indirectly, yes. Directly, no. And these indirect observations are highly subjective and questionable. Never mind "Has this ?trend? in global temperatures happened twice or more times and what followed?" Has it happened even once? Is such a trend even occurring now? If so-called Climate-Change "Science" is even science at all, it is at best speculative science. It is not hard science, not even to the level Arthur C. Clarke imposed upon himself in his writings. And it is very definitely not *SOLID* science. DC Treybil