On Apr 4, 7:16�am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In oglegroups.com, Chuck
Gould sprach forth the following:

The right
wing's hatred for Al Gore

"There are those who believe that global warming is manmade. *In Al Gore we
apparently have found the man." - Dick Cheney

has caused a lot of people to turn a blind
eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be
considering the entire body of evidence.

And Al Gore is the most guilty of not doing so.


Thanks, Fred. I could not have asked or a more perfect validation of
my point.
:-)

We need to accept that this really isn't about George Bush, Rush
Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, or Al Gore. It's about a climate trend that
according to objective and scientific measurement is eradicating
glacial ice at both poles. Our prevailing winds and ocean currents
depend on a large temperature differential at the poles vs. the
equator. Screw up the winds and curents, and life on this planet will
change so dramatically the survivors will be telling tales about life
in the 20th and 21st centuries in way that will make conditions today
seem like a mythical paradise.

Somebody up thread commented, "Scientists have predicted that my
particular section of the world will actually benefit from several
degrees of global warming." Not really. We are each dependent on the
health of the entire planet. The population shifts from areas that are
only marginally inhabitable now and could become entirely arid or
disappear under rising sea levels will have social consequences. Many
of those social consequences could be violent, as greater numbers of
people squabble over diminishing drinking water and other resources.

The dominant life forms on earth have been largely eradicated by
climate changes in the past. (Seen a T-Rex lately?) This could easily
happen again. Would it happen without any help from man? Maybe.....but
even if it were going to happen anyway does that excuse man for
possibly accelerating the process? Even *if* this were an entirely
natural phenomonon and modifyng the mixture of gas in the atmosphere
can be shown to have no effect, why would we just sit back and submit
to the will of nature without attempting to find a way to reduce the
risk?

The disappearing polar ice is a problem. Folks who don't understand
how the winds and currents of the oceans dictate weather on this
planet and how those winds are currents are dependent on a temperature
differential between the
poles and the tropics might do well to do some basic reading on that
issue before concluding that a disruption in temperature and the
elimination of polar ice is a non-issue. Any suggestion that the
change will be *positive* is truly nuts.

Those of us willing to pay $5-$7 a gallon for boat fuel a few years
from now will be able to carry on in the face of steadily escalating
fuel costs; but the political
fallout from the global warming situation may find us all *ordered*
off the water.
Making a realistic, non-political evaluation of the situation at this
point and (if necessary) taking some moderate precautions may prevent
or postpone the day when recreational use of fossil fuel is banned, at
least until most of us are either dead or too darn old to boat
anymore. :-)