carless

Without speculating about global warming (climate change) it would seem that limits on how much crap can be spewed into the environment would be good.
https://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle332384.ece
Apparently the United States or Bush, tried to derail it and signed on. If 179 nations feel strongly about it, why are we so squeamish?
Perhaps our non-negotiable way of life https://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/28630/ includes more cars than people? How arrogant can one nation get? Forget the statistics, most 3rd world families could probably live off what we discard, except the frickin filthy air, melting glaciers, and the legacy of cars as a status symbol
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/3791645.stm .
Sorry for the rant, too many MEGA-RAM QUAD FOUR DIESEL TURBO commercials on NBA games.
I do feel a little better.

Brad M

You got me all excited, I thought you said they signed on to Kyoto, but this is good news anyway.

Artkansas 

They should take away Bush's bicycle until he signs it. He's such a corporate patsy.

Brad M

his bike burns jet fuel (that is, it rides in his cargo plane wherever he goes)

bito7

People are so narrow minded...

emissions = bad
kyoto = reduces emmisions (supposedly)
kyoto = must be good if the above is true.

The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. No wonder they signed on, why not. Why aren't we exempt.


We don't live in a bubble one thing affects (or is it effects) another. Bush knows it is bad for the economy to sign onto kyoto. Anyways, global warming is a farce. The earth may be warming but we arent causing it. It would be ignorant to sign onto something because of global warming. If he signed on to it in a few years when the economy tanked, because of Kyoto, you would be complaining about Bush and how Kyoto tanked the economy and did absolutely no good.

Is it our fault other countries have so little? Should we have less? or should other countries have more? I think every country should have the oportunities and freedoms we have. Should i feel guilty? I don't feel guilty. I feel lucky to live in the best country in the world.

bito7

ohhh... and guess which country has been banning bicycles for the last 3 years? But I guess this won't affect their involvement in Kyoto since they seem to be exempt.

https://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English...200502/p38.htm

Wow... Kyoto is going to work wonders. I agree with your title, Kyoto is a bunch of hot air!

BenyBen

If I read some of those posts, it looks like some are saying that pollution isn't bad. Or if it is, we don't have anything to do about it because others aren't doing it. Let's say global warming isn't caused by us, then what about the smog days in major cities? Those are okay?

In the sake of economy, let's not change our ways, it's okay if we're polluted! Don't get fooled by the economy going down because of kyoto. There are always ways to create economicaly viable solutions. If you think about it, a nation trying to curb its pollution will need to have wokers.. well, working at it, and getting a salary.

GGDub

Germany also signed up as part of the EU, which means their emmisions get averaged together. Europe also gets most of their hydrocarbon energy from outside the EU (thus they are not responsible for emmisions caused from its production), once again making it much easier to sign Kyoto. I'm 100% behind reducing emmisions, but Kyoto will do 4/5ths of fack-all. I guarantee, if Germany's economy gets roaring again, good-bye Germany from Kyoto.

bito7

polution is bad... no one is disputing that... or at least not me. I will dispute global warming being a result of pollution, but that does not make it good. Things are getting better not worse, without Kyoto. Here are some numbers from LA, the countries smoggiest city.... again;
1975 - 180 days
2003 - 120
2004 - 90
2005 - 33

How is this happening without Kyoto? We don't need to sign onto kyoto to reduce greenhouse gases. The argument that a few people will have jobs if we sign onto kyoto is no comfort to the many, many, many more that will likely not have jobs.

Lambo

Bito,
Smog and ground level ozone is not caused by the carbon emissions which Kyoto deals with, but tather with oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds.
I'll agree that catalytic converters and cleaner burning cars in general have reduced smog due to the reduction in NOx, but they still emit
CO2 and CO. Thus, your argument about cleaner air looking air in SoCAL equalling no global climate change is
fallacious.
What scientific evidence do you have that greenhouse gases do not cause climate change?
Please state some valid studies if you are in fact aware of any.

Riderfan_lee

My M.Sc. project is looking at the effect of global warming on tree physiology and I use a lot of emission/ climate change models that deal with the temperature increase with a certain PPM increase in C02 concentration. The main piece of evidence that warming is a result of human influence is the increase in CO2 levels. Since 1950, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increase from 310 PPM to 360 PPM. These are the highest levels in 400,000 years and this increase has occured in direct positive correlation with the industrial era and major deforestation. This increase in 50 years normally occurs over thousands of years under natural climate change.

People bring up temperature shifts in the past. These were not the result of CO2 spikes, they are a result of other forces. The temperature increase we have seen in the past century (1 C) on a global average occured at a rate much greater than what normally occurs.

People also say 1C is nothing and that is doesn't really matter. That is a global average and locally, especially at polar latitudes, temperatures are forecast to increase much more than that. This leads to increase in glacier melting, leading to more water in the atmosphere from evaporation. This then adds to the effect as water vapour also contributes to warming. This is a cycle that builds itself and accelerates once it gets going. If we can stop that cycle or at least delay it, we may be able adjust.

I do agree though that Kyoto itself will not make much of a difference but IMO is more of an awareness campaign to make countries and people think about what they are doing. It is a start to going in the right direction. Countries that are unwilling to participate in Kyoto should be subject to taxes or tariffs on goods that they export as these goods were not manufactures under Kyoto requirements. This would balance the economic benefit of not participating. The money from taxes and tariff would then be redistributed across countries that are participating in Kyoto.

gescom

Taken from this pdf from Buddhist monk Bhikkhu Bodhi

linux_author

- hmm... 30 years ago we were all warned about a coming Ice Age....

- now contemporary science has us worrying about Global Warming...

- should i get a fur coat or a bikini?

bito7

Exactly... in the past we we had global cooling. The "scientists" determined through extensive (sarcasm) testing that is was due to green house emissions and unless
we reduced greenhouse emmissions we would all be buried in ice. I guess the fact we didnt reduce emissions saved us by increasing tempatures to prevent an ice age?

I never said there was no global climate change. I said we arent causing it.

That isn't exactly how science works... science should be proving mankind is causing global warming not the opposite. But anyways there is plenty of evidence out there to back me up. I suggest you read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomberg, it is a very interesting look at the state of the world not just the environment. He is a professor that gave his class the assignment to prove global warming but he came the exact opposite conclusion.

Please give me some scientific evidence that PROVES we are causing global warming. Just so you know, in order for science to prove it they will need to recreate it in a lab. Otherwise, it is just theory should be presented as such.

It is not science to say... the global temp is rising and so is CO2, one must be the cause of the other. This is psuedo science. You could use the same argument to say the increase in dogs on the planet has caused global warming.


The global temp has been rising steadily from about 1910 to now. Do you think the small amount of greenhouse gases created in 1910 were enough to cause the start of global warming? Why did the temps start to drop in the 40s?

https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

I have a few questions....
what caused global warming in the ice age? I don't beleive there was any greenhouse gases yet the earth warmed enough for the sheets of ice to melt.
Why did the temps begin to drop in the 40s?

Scientists will state the earth is a few degrees warmer than it was 4,000,0000 years ago as if it is indisputable. It is not as exact as they would have you believe. Even carbon dating is not as accurate as they would have you believe. For what is is worth, I am sure the earth is not the exact same temp as it was 4,000,000,000 years
ago, what does that mean?

I don't think people understand how big the earth or its atmosphere is. The earth is HUGE the worlds population could fit in half of the state of texas. To say that we could possible effect the earths atmosphere is unlikely. It is like saying one campfire
is effecting the temp of Rocky Mountain National park.

bito7

A Cool Appraisal of Global Warming
by Richard T. Ritenbaugh

We have all heard the stories. Over the next century, mean temperatures all over the world will rise as much as six degrees Celsius, causing massive environmental damage. The planet's polar ice caps will melt, and billions of gallons of the now-liquid water will raise global sea levels, inundating coastlines—in some places for miles.

This is only the beginning of the planet's problems. Ecologically valuable estuaries—even now in delicate balance—will be wiped out, and thousands, if not millions, of species of plants and animals will become extinct. Coastal forests will die with their roots under saltwater, disturbing the earth's ability to recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen, thus leaving more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and priming the cycle of planetary heating. Some have even theorized that the massive flow of water from the poles toward the equator could put stress on the earth's tectonics—increasing earthquakes and volcanoes—and perhaps shift the earth's axis several degrees.

Of course, if these things occur, humanity will certainly suffer. Tropical diseases will spread more easily. Arable land will decrease—either becoming desert or seabed—straining the nations' ability to feed earth's billions. Decreased ozone in the upper atmosphere will boost the risk of terrible skin cancers, while increased heat will make life miserable as desertification occurs. Weather patterns will change dramatically, resulting in unprecedented numbers and intensity of natural disasters. This is a future none of us want to live into.

But is any of it true?

Warming? Cooling?

It was only thirty years ago that the concern among environmental types was global cooling. A "New Ice Age" was predicted to fall upon us within the next century, and wooly mammoths would make a comeback. Drastic government intervention would be needed to stave off this threat to all life on the planet. Billions of people would starve due to shrinking arable lands. Shorelines would recede, destroying pristine estuaries and other wetlands.

Alas, this histrionic movement melted under overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Therefore, environmentalists decided to use this proof to their advantage and did a one-eighty. Since science showed that the trend in mean temperatures was upward (ever so slightly), they figured they could reach the same ends by promoting global warming.

And they have nearly pulled it off.

The environmental movement has never been about truth or facts—some would go so far as to say that it has never even been about the environment! Environmentalism has always focused on political results: restrictions on free enterprise (business and industry), government oversight and regulation [one-third of federal laws published since 1970—mostly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations—concern the environment1], massive funding of environmental causes and studies, and implementation of liberal social policies (like animal rights, diversity, multiculturalism, etc.). As a result, coupled with a "the end justifies the means" mentality, the "science" that undergirds the global warming myth is junk.

With all we hear in the news to the contrary, this sounds like an overstatement. An objective look at the cold, hard facts of global climate change, however, shows it to be true.

That the Bush administration flip-flopped on the matter in early June confirms that this is really not a scientific issue but a political one. The presentation to the United Nations of an EPA report on climate—in which human activity is partially blamed for rising temperatures—seems to have been an administration trial balloon to see if Bush's base would back him on the issue. The clear answer was, "No way!"

Since environmentalists call it global warming, it is not just an American political issue. Truly, it gets far better play abroad than here. The 1997 UN Kyoto Treaty on Climate Control is supported by a majority of nations, while the U.S.—notwithstanding a last-minute end-around attempt by former President Bill Clinton to implement its protocols without Senate ratification—refuses to sign on.

Beyond the fact that the climate projection models that undergird the agreement are questionable, the American refusal is based on its heavy-handed treatment of U.S. industry and commerce, as well as its exemption of worse polluting nations like China and India. At least this administration is unwilling to sacrifice America's prosperity and productivity on the environmentalist altar.

The Facts

While a few scientists speak of global warming as a fact, many more—especially those who are directly involved in climate science—say the data do not support it. To date, 19,700 scientists, including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists, have signed a petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that discounts global warming. Its accompanying report concludes:

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.2

A competing, pro-global-warming petition circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997 garnered only 1,559 signatures of scientists.

In May, a team of international scientists met in Washington, DC, to expose the absence of real proof that global warming exists. These scientists challenged the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections—that the earth would warm up between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next century—on several fronts.

First, Hartwig Volz, a German geophysicist, dismissed the projections as "fairy tales." S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist from the University of Virginia, added that the IPCC assumes "extreme scenarios of population growth and fossil fuel consumption" in its projections. In other words, the IPCC inflates its numbers to get the results its wants.

Second, Dr. Ulrich Berner, a German geologist, cited global temperature variations in the past as evidence that human activity is unrelated to climate change. A study of surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea over the past 3,000 years (determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment), showed an average temperature of 23ºC. The present average temperature is below the 3,000-year average by a few tenths of a degree.3 The earth is still "recovering" from what is known as the "Little Ice Age" that occurred about 300 years ago.

Dr. Berner also explained that extensive analysis of carbon dioxide concentrations show that elevated CO2 levels do not necessarily lead to climate change. He said, "There are numerous temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration." In fact, according to MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen, worldwide CO2 concentrations over the past century have increased from 0.028% to 0.036%, an insignificant percentage.4

Third, temperature readings from the last sixty years show "no appreciable warming since 1940," said Singer. "This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small." He suggested that the primary influence on climate change is—of all things!—the sun. The sun has been shown to go through long-term changes in activity, varying the amount of radiation aimed at the earth and causing the mean temperature to rise or fall. These shifts have a far greater effect on climate than greenhouse gases.5

Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, estimates that even if nations enacted every point of the Kyoto treaty, the world's average temperature would not decrease by a half degree over the next fifty years.6 Without it, the earth has warmed only about one degree over the past hundred years, and most of that increase took place before 1940.7

Arctic and Antarctic

Earth's polar ice caps have been the subject of intense study in proving or disproving global warming. Shrinking or thinning of the ice caps would seem to be signs of higher temperatures and indicate that environmentalists' alarms of impending catastrophe are valid. However, scientific data are currently invalidating these claims.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is of particular concern to environmentalists, as they estimate that if it collapses, sea levels could rise by as much as five meters. As late as June 2002, two U.S. scientists reported in the journal Science that the floating fringes of the WAIS are melting faster than previously suggested because the surrounding seawater is warming.8 However, their findings have drawn criticism because they used satellite radar interferometry rather than on-location samples.

Other research, however, has found that the WAIS is actually thickening, not thinning. A January 2002 article in Science found evidence that not only is the "retreat" of the WAIS coming to an end, but the ice sheet is actually growing by 26.8 gigatons each year.9 This concurs with studies that say Antarctica is cooling, not warming. One University of Illinois at Chicago study found that temperatures had cooled as much as 0.7ºC per decade between 1986 and 2000.10

Another environmental scare is that the Arctic ice is thinning—to the point that by 2100, there could be open water there during the summers. Upward sonar readings from submarines taken between the 1960s and 1990s seem to show that the ice pack has thinned about 40%. However, new research by Dr. Greg Holloway of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, British Columbia, suggests that the ice is still there—just piled up in areas where researchers have not surveyed! He holds that most of the ice has shifted from the central Arctic into Canadian waters where U.S. submarines were not allowed to go in the 1990s. In addition, the ice over the North Pole has begun to thicken.11

If nothing else, a person should come away from conflicting reports like these with a healthy appreciation for the complexity of climate science. Just because the earth seems to be doing something that may give cause for concern does not mean it will not balance itself either in another place or in a short time.

bac

You're right. We should trust the politicians, and admonish those stupid "scientists" for once again spreading their b/s rhetoric, propaganda, and “science” around. After all, the politicians have no obvious vested interest in this situation, and they are trained much better than those wacky “scientists”. Regardless, politicians would never lie to the American public in an effort to promote their not-so-hidden agenda.

Science is bad, m-kay.

bito7

A Cool Appraisal of Global Warming
by Richard T. Ritenbaugh

We have all heard the stories. Over the next century, mean temperatures all over the world will rise as much as six degrees Celsius, causing massive environmental damage. The planet's polar ice caps will melt, and billions of gallons of the now-liquid water will raise global sea levels, inundating coastlines—in some places for miles.

This is only the beginning of the planet's problems. Ecologically valuable estuaries—even now in delicate balance—will be wiped out, and thousands, if not millions, of species of plants and animals will become extinct. Coastal forests will die with their roots under saltwater, disturbing the earth's ability to recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen, thus leaving more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and priming the cycle of planetary heating. Some have even theorized that the massive flow of water from the poles toward the equator could put stress on the earth's tectonics—increasing earthquakes and volcanoes—and perhaps shift the earth's axis several degrees.

Of course, if these things occur, humanity will certainly suffer. Tropical diseases will spread more easily. Arable land will decrease—either becoming desert or seabed—straining the nations' ability to feed earth's billions. Decreased ozone in the upper atmosphere will boost the risk of terrible skin cancers, while increased heat will make life miserable as desertification occurs. Weather patterns will change dramatically, resulting in unprecedented numbers and intensity of natural disasters. This is a future none of us want to live into.

But is any of it true?

Warming? Cooling?

It was only thirty years ago that the concern among environmental types was global cooling. A "New Ice Age" was predicted to fall upon us within the next century, and wooly mammoths would make a comeback. Drastic government intervention would be needed to stave off this threat to all life on the planet. Billions of people would starve due to shrinking arable lands. Shorelines would recede, destroying pristine estuaries and other wetlands.

Alas, this histrionic movement melted under overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Therefore, environmentalists decided to use this proof to their advantage and did a one-eighty. Since science showed that the trend in mean temperatures was upward (ever so slightly), they figured they could reach the same ends by promoting global warming.

And they have nearly pulled it off.

The environmental movement has never been about truth or facts—some would go so far as to say that it has never even been about the environment! Environmentalism has always focused on political results: restrictions on free enterprise (business and industry), government oversight and regulation [one-third of federal laws published since 1970—mostly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations—concern the environment1], massive funding of environmental causes and studies, and implementation of liberal social policies (like animal rights, diversity, multiculturalism, etc.). As a result, coupled with a "the end justifies the means" mentality, the "science" that undergirds the global warming myth is junk.

With all we hear in the news to the contrary, this sounds like an overstatement. An objective look at the cold, hard facts of global climate change, however, shows it to be true.

That the Bush administration flip-flopped on the matter in early June confirms that this is really not a scientific issue but a political one. The presentation to the United Nations of an EPA report on climate—in which human activity is partially blamed for rising temperatures—seems to have been an administration trial balloon to see if Bush's base would back him on the issue. The clear answer was, "No way!"

Since environmentalists call it global warming, it is not just an American political issue. Truly, it gets far better play abroad than here. The 1997 UN Kyoto Treaty on Climate Control is supported by a majority of nations, while the U.S.—notwithstanding a last-minute end-around attempt by former President Bill Clinton to implement its protocols without Senate ratification—refuses to sign on.

Beyond the fact that the climate projection models that undergird the agreement are questionable, the American refusal is based on its heavy-handed treatment of U.S. industry and commerce, as well as its exemption of worse polluting nations like China and India. At least this administration is unwilling to sacrifice America's prosperity and productivity on the environmentalist altar.

The Facts

While a few scientists speak of global warming as a fact, many more—especially those who are directly involved in climate science—say the data do not support it. To date, 19,700 scientists, including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists, have signed a petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that discounts global warming. Its accompanying report concludes:

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.2

A competing, pro-global-warming petition circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997 garnered only 1,559 signatures of scientists.

In May, a team of international scientists met in Washington, DC, to expose the absence of real proof that global warming exists. These scientists challenged the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections—that the earth would warm up between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next century—on several fronts.

First, Hartwig Volz, a German geophysicist, dismissed the projections as "fairy tales." S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist from the University of Virginia, added that the IPCC assumes "extreme scenarios of population growth and fossil fuel consumption" in its projections. In other words, the IPCC inflates its numbers to get the results its wants.

Second, Dr. Ulrich Berner, a German geologist, cited global temperature variations in the past as evidence that human activity is unrelated to climate change. A study of surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea over the past 3,000 years (determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment), showed an average temperature of 23ºC. The present average temperature is below the 3,000-year average by a few tenths of a degree.3 The earth is still "recovering" from what is known as the "Little Ice Age" that occurred about 300 years ago.

Dr. Berner also explained that extensive analysis of carbon dioxide concentrations show that elevated CO2 levels do not necessarily lead to climate change. He said, "There are numerous temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration." In fact, according to MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen, worldwide CO2 concentrations over the past century have increased from 0.028% to 0.036%, an insignificant percentage.4

Third, temperature readings from the last sixty years show "no appreciable warming since 1940," said Singer. "This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small." He suggested that the primary influence on climate change is—of all things!—the sun. The sun has been shown to go through long-term changes in activity, varying the amount of radiation aimed at the earth and causing the mean temperature to rise or fall. These shifts have a far greater effect on climate than greenhouse gases.5

Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, estimates that even if nations enacted every point of the Kyoto treaty, the world's average temperature would not decrease by a half degree over the next fifty years.6 Without it, the earth has warmed only about one degree over the past hundred years, and most of that increase took place before 1940.7

Arctic and Antarctic

Earth's polar ice caps have been the subject of intense study in proving or disproving global warming. Shrinking or thinning of the ice caps would seem to be signs of higher temperatures and indicate that environmentalists' alarms of impending catastrophe are valid. However, scientific data are currently invalidating these claims.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is of particular concern to environmentalists, as they estimate that if it collapses, sea levels could rise by as much as five meters. As late as June 2002, two U.S. scientists reported in the journal Science that the floating fringes of the WAIS are melting faster than previously suggested because the surrounding seawater is warming.8 However, their findings have drawn criticism because they used satellite radar interferometry rather than on-location samples.

Other research, however, has found that the WAIS is actually thickening, not thinning. A January 2002 article in Science found evidence that not only is the "retreat" of the WAIS coming to an end, but the ice sheet is actually growing by 26.8 gigatons each year.9 This concurs with studies that say Antarctica is cooling, not warming. One University of Illinois at Chicago study found that temperatures had cooled as much as 0.7ºC per decade between 1986 and 2000.10

Another environmental scare is that the Arctic ice is thinning—to the point that by 2100, there could be open water there during the summers. Upward sonar readings from submarines taken between the 1960s and 1990s seem to show that the ice pack has thinned about 40%. However, new research by Dr. Greg Holloway of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, British Columbia, suggests that the ice is still there—just piled up in areas where researchers have not surveyed! He holds that most of the ice has shifted from the central Arctic into Canadian waters where U.S. submarines were not allowed to go in the 1990s. In addition, the ice over the North Pole has begun to thicken.11

If nothing else, a person should come away from conflicting reports like these with a healthy appreciation for the complexity of climate science. Just because the earth seems to be doing something that may give cause for concern does not mean it will not balance itself either in another place or in a short time.

Lambo

Oh, that's a qualified author, indeed -
a superstitious flat earther. Probably thinks women
were made of a man's rib. That's some science.
Just google on Richard T. Ritenbaugh, folks.



Why don't you post the link and the entire article? I'll only post the link and let
the rational decide for themselves.

https://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuse...ce/CT/PW/k/737

Lambo

Here's some info on that petition and "paper" by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

linux_author

- umm... sourcewatch's objectivity is also in question if you examine its funding, members, etc.

- what i do know is that the U.S. has taken steps to cut and scrub emissions while the Third World gets a 'pass' on such efforts (and the U.S. telling other countries to clean up their act is considered gauche, while our foibles are fair game)

bito7

No, we shouldn't necasarily trust politicians either, trust common sense. Everyone has an agenda, the problem is we tend to believe the person with the loudest voice and/or the person whos agenda/beliefs match our own. If the president jumped on every environmentalist bandwagon the country would be broke and confused.

I used to believe in the greenhouse gas global warming phenomonen until i started looking into the other side and realized it is not nearly as cut and dry as the environmentalist would have you believe.

Just because Bush didn't sign onto Kyoto does not mean he hates the environment and loves oil and polution. It means he thought it would be bad for the country and of very little good to the environment. Don't fool your self into thinking the only outcome of Kyoto would be cleaner air and hurt the oil industry.

We do a pretty good job regulating polution internally. It could be better and it is only going to get better since we are becoming more and more aware and accountable for the environment.

Hambone40

hi

Bike_UK

When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.

Cree Prophecy

carless

Thanks for sparkling idea. Basically the "narrow" crowd is everybody not like you. I think every mind should blossom into maturity. Do I feel guilty some don't....

carless

I think the U.S. agreed to continue to talk, Bush doesn't support it. I'm not a fan of politics, but my gov doesn't want to admit the air is dirty from cars.