On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:42:53 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:39:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th


Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear
energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for
nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any
party.

Now just convince the liberals in power to get on the bandwagon. It's
*really* hard to think they take manmade global warming seriously when
they don't give a high priority to the best treatment available.

Makes it sound like they just want your money.
--
John H


And I suppose that the conservative politicians DON'T want my money?

For nuclear power, certainly.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.