Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.

True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.

Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.

Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.

You're an idiot; publish that.

If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

 

Another fool who seems a socialist (used to be commie) under every bed.

 

Another person who has no earthly idea how science works.

 

Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

 

What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?

Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.

 

But if Pat Buchanan were to run? If someone reincarnated George Wallace?
Gee, I bet you'd jump at the chance to vote for them!

 

Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.

 

The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.

And giving free rein to megacorporations is your idea of being in touch with
the average American?

 

If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.

And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.

 

Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.


Matt

 

And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
this is much of the stuff of daily politics.

DAS

 

Professor Google tells me that Mad mag is still around:
http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/madmagazine/home.jsp

Gosh, Alfred E Newman is still around, how funny to make his reacquaintance
after decades...and I don't live in the US...


DAS

 

The earth has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and
I don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better. <

Or because mom sells her SUV....

 

Gosh, Alfred E Newman is still around, how funny to make his
reacquaintance after decades...and I don't live in the US... <

Where have you been, Dori? Hell, he was President between '92 and '00!!

 

Agreed, it's a choice we get to make of how much government we want. The
problem I have with the left is when they lose legislatively, they often go
to the courts.... to "progressive" judges.... to implement their agenda. So
instead of legislative choice, we get an obligation of government.

The more the government is saddled with the responsibility for people's
welfare, the bigger government will be and the more taxes must be collected
to support it.

With the exception of abortion, the Democrats are the anti-choice party. At
least that is what they've become as they steer farther and farther to the
left to please and patronize their supporting interest groups. We all know
who they are.... labor unions, wacko-environmentalist goups, "victim"
groups, etc.

 

I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
against the US.

It requires one to believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth and
limited resources that must go around fairly to everyone, and that the US
wants an unfair share of it. This is completely false. The fact is that
wealth is created by private and free enterprise and the US has always been
(hopefully will continue to be) about free enterprise. It isn't a measure
of greed or waste, but of entrepreneurialism and achievement.

Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
emissions and auto emissions. The tax the US places on it's own economy in
striving for clean air and clean water is enormous. Finding newer
technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
the world economy.

And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
world from despotism... from the Nazis and from the Communists. And now
from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than Nazis or Communists
because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.

 

Aw for the love of....

Don't you GET it? That is EXACTLY what's been going on for decades.
Which countries even HAVE emissions standards? The developed ones, often
led by the US. Which countries first implemented the ban on CFCs? The
developed ones, led by the US. Which countries even think about
efficiency and pour billions of reserach dollars into improved
efficiency? The developed ones.

Yes, the "80/20" rule is there, simply because countless people in the
UN-developed nations live in abject poverty and their only atmospheric
emissions come from campfires and composting excrement. Pushing the
devloped countries back to THAT level is not forward progress for
anyone, not even those in poverty in the un-developed countries.

And yet Kyoto is *STUPID* enough to punish the economies of the
developed nations, even though they're ALREADY leading the way to
improvements in efficiency and reduced emissions? And further to move
MORE industrialized emissions to the very countries with no standards
for controlling it???

Feh.

 

But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already.

 

Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. <

Or, sufficiently unproven to the point of nauseum. Indeed, we can hevily
impact the problem through an immediate reduction in the greenhous gas
emissions emmanating from the mouths of Socialist elitists ....

 

Aw for the love of....

UN-developed nations live in abject poverty and their only atmospheric
emissions come from campfires and composting excrement. <<

And, Lord knows, we've already composited enough excrement with THIS thread!
(The noise you hear is the greens piling up more anti-society $#!t!)