Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's
way up here and dumps on us.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html
Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset.
Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is
silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor
(another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a
greenhouse gas).
But global warming fits perfectly into harry's socialist mindset
Two international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU's
Environment Commisioner states that Kyoto is "about levelling the
playing field for big businesses worldwide." French President Jacques
Chirac said during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that
represents "the first component of authentic global governance
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c..._id=&Issue_id=
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral
environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to
bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Environment Minister
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC
"Whether you believe the science [of global warming] or not is beside
the point. Policy should be more about risk than proof." Jon Anda Morgan
Stanley Vice Chairman
"If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of
people out of jobs." Philip Stott Biogeographer University of
London
"We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then
flow to climate scientists." John Christy IPCC contributor
"So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might
have." Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford
University
"We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period" Confided to
geophysicist David Deming by the IPCC (1995)
I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this
issue. To call anyone with a realistic mindset based on SCIENCE a twit
points out your bias and lack of education.
In the recently heard supreme court case Mass. would benefit from a 5 degree
temp rise by 2100. They have not shown, to my knowledge, any loss or
potential loss from current EPA policies. I thought from the little I know
about the legal system that was a necessity for any legal case, you have to
show damages. If I am correct we just had the legal system make a political
decision, guess who voted for it.........Expect this to be overturned within
5 years.
Florida and Texas MIGHT have a case in that insect life won't get a die off
each year as temps don't reach freezing long enough.
The other STUFF that usually accompanies carbon dioxide out of power plant
smoke stacks is already being addressed. If you want stricter regulations
go for it.
If Clinton had not made the low sulfur coal in Utah off limits (he made it a
national park) then we could economically switch to that coal and at the
same time reduce emissions with tighter standards. As it is, this won't
happen because the labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in the east) and
anti carbon dioxide lobby will block it. So you in the
north above the US industrial belt get acid rain and yellow air to breathe.
I hope you like our political system. I think it stinks. no pun intended
I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more anti-science
Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the awakening of Terry
Schiavo.
Anti-science??????
OK, a question. How can the US affect the amount of carbon dioxide being
produced globally. We account for 25% of the worlds total man made carbon
dioxide, that's 5% of the total carbon dioxide produced worldwide. That
percentage is going to drop as the price of oil increases while the world
wide production is going to increase.
Perhaps we could encourage India and China to build more nuclear power
plants. opps..done that, Bush authorized funds for that and released
technologies to both those countries to make sure those power plants were
safe. Hmmm...what else. CAFE standards increase...opps, Bush is doing
that. Build more nuclear power plants here...doing that. Release
technologies for synthetic fuels ....doing that. Fund research...doing
that. Higher efficiency for air conditioning systems..doing that. Higher
standards for insulation in homes...doing that. Perhaps a small tax on
carbon based fuel that goes entirely to subsidize retrofit insulation to
existing homes.
What more can be done? Please offer your suggestions.
You can believe that Bush now believes in man made global warming or you can
believe that the war on terror requires us to be less dependant on foreign
oil. Anything that reduces the worlds dependence on "Arab" oil is good for
the world and bad for terrorists. Jumping on the "global warming bandwagon
makes him more in tune with the political climate and gets his agenda
forward.
For my part it's good for this country to be less dependant on foreign oil
regardless of the reason you do it. I'd like to see sustainable renewable
energy sources developed.