Originally posted by: VIAN
I love this. I read in the Star Ledger today:
Bush doesn't want to adopt a Reduced Emissions Policy because he doesn't want Americans to lose a single job.
Bush encourages outsourcing.
Cool, I'm Diamond.
Initiate Environmentally Safe Exploration: President Bush will seek to promote environmentally sound domestic oil production in just one percent of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which could provide up to 1 million barrels of oil a day for nearly 20 years.
Originally posted by: daniel1113
And the award for the stupidest post of the day goes to...
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Originally posted by: daniel1113
And the award for the stupidest post of the day goes to...
How so?
Originally posted by: Luck JF
There is no global warming. It's just a natural cycle.
Originally posted by: daniel1113
And the award for the stupidest post of the day goes to...
And the award for the stupidest post of the day goes to...
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: daniel1113
And the award for the stupidest post of the day goes to...And the award for the stupidest post of the day goes to...
Originally posted by: chess9
This isn't a moral issue. It's a tree-hugging, bicycle riding liberal issue. These liberals will ruin this country if we let them. More posts like this and our steel mills will be shutting down and jobs will be going overseas.
Yet another near-sighted whack job for the left. What happened to all the real Americans?
Our air is pure, our rivers are clean, our cars are good for us, and God loves America! If you can't breathe carbon monoxide and the other life friendly chemicals like hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, then you haven't adapted and it's time to order your burial plot. Or, maybe France will take you....
-Robert
Originally posted by: cwjerome
But in the late 70s it was global cooling. But in the late 60s it was overpopulation.
It's all politics....
Push a crisis and move your agenda.
Originally posted by: VIAN
Bush doesn't care because it would cost money and 5million jobs.
The U.S. Senate will not ratify any treaty signed at Kyoto that:
* Would impose binding limits on the industrialized nations but not on developing nations within the same compliance period.
* "Would result in serious economic harm to the economy of the United States."
So, because somebody was wrong crying wolf before, there's never a wolf? What a terribly comfortable way of looking at the world. The consensus among scientists across the planet is that we are negatively affecting our environment.Originally posted by: cwjerome
But in the late 70s it was global cooling. But in the late 60s it was overpopulation.
It's all politics....
Push a crisis and move your agenda.
And, the consensus among climatologists is that we don't know what is effecting the climate change.Originally posted by: Skoorb
So, because somebody was wrong crying wolf before, there's never a wolf? What a terribly comfortable way of looking at the world. The consensus among scientists across the planet is that we are negatively affecting our environment.Originally posted by: cwjerome
But in the late 70s it was global cooling. But in the late 60s it was overpopulation.
It's all politics....
Push a crisis and move your agenda.
Yes, you're right. Humans are totally unable to affect change in the environment they live in. They can't create acid rain, can't kill rain forests, can't create smog in cities, can't pollute rivers. Let's all run amuck!Originally posted by: Squisher
And, the consensus among climatologists is that we don't know what is effecting the climate change.Originally posted by: Skoorb
So, because somebody was wrong crying wolf before, there's never a wolf? What a terribly comfortable way of looking at the world. The consensus among scientists across the planet is that we are negatively affecting our environment.Originally posted by: cwjerome
But in the late 70s it was global cooling. But in the late 60s it was overpopulation.
It's all politics....
Push a crisis and move your agenda.
Amazing how you can skew the result when you speak to a bunch of people with no direct knowledge of a topic.
It is human nature to personalize those things going on around us even if events have noting to do with humans.
World wide climates have changed before. Care to tell us why.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
So, because somebody was wrong crying wolf before, there's never a wolf? What a terribly comfortable way of looking at the world. The consensus among scientists across the planet is that we are negatively affecting our environment.Originally posted by: cwjerome
But in the late 70s it was global cooling. But in the late 60s it was overpopulation.
It's all politics....
Push a crisis and move your agenda.
we != humans?Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Skoorb
So, because somebody was wrong crying wolf before, there's never a wolf? What a terribly comfortable way of looking at the world. The consensus among scientists across the planet is that we are negatively affecting our environment.Originally posted by: cwjerome
But in the late 70s it was global cooling. But in the late 60s it was overpopulation.
It's all politics....
Push a crisis and move your agenda.
I was under the impression that the debate is how much humans alter the environment.
Oops!The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars, factories and power plants.