Ex-heads of EPA blast Bush on global warming


PDA






rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 03:50 AM
Are they ganging up on my hero - the greatest President in our time? I bet when he flushes Cheney later this year the new Vice President will take of these guys. I really like this "Three former administrators did not attend Wednesday’s ceremony: Mike Leavitt, now secretary of health and human services; Doug Costle, who was in the Carter administration, and Anne Burford, a Reagan appointee who died last year."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913795/

WASHINGTON - Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

“I don’t think there’s a commitment in this administration,” said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA’s first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.

Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of “greenhouse” gases isn’t enough.

“We need leadership, and I don’t think we’re getting it,” he said at an EPA-sponsored symposium centered around the agency’s 35th anniversary. “To sit back and just push it away and say we’ll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive.”

All of the former administrators raised their hands when EPA’s current chief, Stephen Johnson, asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem, and again when he asked if humans bear significant blame.

Agency heads during five Republican administrations, including the current one, criticized the Bush White House for what they described as a failure of leadership.

$20 billion spent on climate
Defending his boss, Johnson said the current administration has spent $20 billion on research and technology to combat climate change after President Bush rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, the chief gas blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

Bush also kept the United States out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases globally, saying it would harm the U.S. economy, after many of the accord’s terms were negotiated by the Clinton administration.

“I know from the president on down, he is committed,” Johnson said. “And certainly his charge to me was, and certainly our team has heard it: ‘I want you to accelerate the pace of environmental protection. I want you to maintain our economic competitiveness.’ And I think that’s really what it’s all about.”

His predecessors disagreed. Lee Thomas, Ruckelshaus’s successor in the Reagan administration, said that “if the United States doesn’t deal with those kinds of issues in a leadership role, they’re not going to get dealt with. So I’m very concerned about this country and this agency.”

Bill Reilly, the EPA administrator under the first President Bush, echoed that assessment.

Urging action
“The time will come when we will address seriously the problem of climate change, and this is the agency that’s best equipped to anticipate it,” he said.

Christie Whitman, the first of three EPA administrators in the current Bush administration, said people obviously are having “an enormous impact” on the earth’s warming.

“You’d need to be in a hole somewhere to think that the amount of change that we have imposed on land, and the way we’ve handled deforestation, farming practices, development, and what we’re putting into the air, isn’t exacerbating what is probably a natural trend,” she said. “But this is worse, and it’s getting worse.”

Carol Browner, who was President Clinton’s EPA administrator, said the White House and the Congress should push legislation to establish a carbon trading program based on a 1990 pollution trading program that helped reduce acid rain.

“If we wait for every single scientist who has a thought on the issue of climate change to agree, we will never do anything,” she said. “If this agency had waited to completely understand the impacts of DDT, the impacts of lead in our gasoline, there would probably still be DDT sprayed and lead in our gasoline.”

Three former administrators did not attend Wednesday’s ceremony: Mike Leavitt, now secretary of health and human services; Doug Costle, who was in the Carter administration, and Anne Burford, a Reagan appointee who died last year.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ex-heads of EPA blast Bush on global warming" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Joejojoba111
January 19, 2006, 06:46 AM
Truthfully the evidence that the USA is not causing 'global warming' is somewhat compelling, enough to put the issue in doubt.

The evidence that climate change is occuring is also compelling, enough to give the issue importance.

How can you rectify both? Do something and place blame later. Do what? Identify immediate threats and proffer solutions or band-aids, then identify future ones. For instance, if the coast-line is about to become the worst possible place to situate habitation and businesses, then inform people and literally draw a picture showing where it is going to be bad to live, and where it will be less bad.

THEN worry about the exact constitution of the atmosphere and theorize what makes it that way. Perhaps a more important long-term goal would be to simply plant millions of trees. Or examine the ocean algae to see if they are not doing their work.

Everyone talks, no-one acts!!! Infuriating~! And it costs so much!

"Let's reduce our CO2 output by 3.7% over the next 7.8 years and spent 300 miillion dollars drawing graphs."

"Let's give everone a bag of seeds and there will be 300millionx50 seeds= 15 billion new trees in 7.8 years."

fallingblock
January 19, 2006, 10:21 AM
The truth is, not much is actually yet known regarding the precise balance of anthropogenic vs. natural cyclical "global warming".

I wonder of any of those ex-EPA folks are seeking funding for their favorite "global warming" research charities?:scrutiny:

Excellent suggestions from Joejojoba111, but I'd hold off on planting those trees for a while Joe....

And no, Max Planck Institute isn't known for it's "Bushies".....

Even "The Guardian" can't decide what to do about it all.:eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1684378,00.html?gusrc=rss



Global warming: blame the forests

· Research identifies plants as source of methane
· Climate scientists shocked by new findings

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian


The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Monday January 16 2006

The headline above overstated the more circumspect case outlined in the article below, which said that plants emit up to 30% of the methane, a greenhouse gas, entering the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists have just discovered this, but to conclude that it is a new cause of rising temperatures is mistaken.

They have long been thought of as the antidote to harmful greenhouse gases, sufferers of, rather than contributors to, the effects of global warming. But in a startling discovery, scientists have realised that plants are part of the problem.

According to a study published today, living plants may emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth's atmosphere.
The result has come as a shock to climate scientists. "This is a genuinely remarkable result," said Richard Betts of the climate change monitoring organisation the Hadley Centre. "It adds an important new piece of understanding of how plants interact with the climate."

Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. "For a given mass of methane, it is a stronger greenhouse gas, but the reason it is of less concern is that there's less of it in the atmosphere," said Dr Betts.

But the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled in the last 150 years, mainly through human-influenced so-called biogenic sources such as the rise in rice cultivation or numbers of flatulent ruminating animals. According to previous estimates, these sources make up two-thirds of the 600m tonnes worldwide annual methane production.

Frank Keppler, of the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, who led the team behind the new research, estimated that living plants release between 60m and 240m tonnes of methane per year, based on experiments he carried out, with the largest part coming from tropical areas.

David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the new work, published in Nature, is important for two reasons. "First, because the methane emissions they document occur under normal physiological conditions, in the presence of oxygen, rather than through bacterial action in anoxic environments," he wrote in an accompanying article. "Second, because the estimated emissions are large, constituting 10-30% of the annual total of methane entering Earth's atmosphere."

Yadvinder Malhi, a specialist in the relationship between vegetation and climate at Oxford University, said the plant source of methane had probably been missed in the past because scientists have a poor understanding of the way methane circulates in the atmosphere. "There are a variety of sources and sinks of methane and there are huge error bars on those terms," he said. "What's been uncertain is where the methane is coming from and where it's going. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane is much more dynamic; it lasts about 10 years in the atmosphere."

Biogenic methane has traditionally been assumed to come from organic materials as they decompose in oxygen-free environments. But Dr Keppler found plants emit the gas even in normal, oxygen-rich surroundings: between 10 and 1,000 times more methane than dead plant material. When the plants were exposed to the sun, the rate of methane production increased. "Until now all the textbooks have said that biogenic methane can only be produced in the absence of oxygen," Dr Keppler said. "For that simple reason, nobody looked closely at this."

The discovery sheds further light on the complex relationship between greenhouse gases and the environment. "If you're after predictions of global average temperature, it won't make a huge amount of difference," said Dr Betts. "But it shows how complicated it is to exactly quantify reforesting or deforesting in comparison with current fossil fuel emissions."

It will also intensify debates on whether targets in climate change treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol should be based entirely on carbon emissions, which are easily measured, or also take sinks into account, which remove carbon from the atmosphere but are more difficult to measure.

For climate scientists, the new work clears up a few unexplained features in the environment.

"The rate of methane increase in the atmosphere has slowed down in the last 10 years and there was no really convincing explanation of why that's been going on," said Dr Mahli. "This paper argues that tropical deforestation may be a factor there."

In addition, the new research could help to explain the source of plumes of methane observed by satellites over tropical forests. "The sheer biomass of the forest may be a factor there," said Dr Mahli.

The fact that plants produce methane does not mean that planting forests is a bad idea, however. "Putting a tree where there was no tree before locks up a lot of carbon and this [new research] perhaps reduces the overall benefit of that by a fraction," said Dr Mahli.

Some mysteries remain: how and why plants produce methane is unclear. Dr Keppler's team said the search for an answer is likely open up a new area of research into plant biochemistry.

Other surprise results

Tree planting

Researchers in North Carolina found that planting trees to soak up carbon dioxide can suck water and nutrients from the ground, dry up streams and change the soil's mineral balance

Aerosols

A recent study in Nature found cutting air pollution could trigger a surge in global warming. Aerosols cool the Earth by reflecting radiation back into space. Scrapping them would have adverse consequences

Global dimming

In 2003 scientists noticed levels of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface had dropped by 20% in recent years because of air pollution and bigger, longer-lasting clouds

El Tejon
January 19, 2006, 10:22 AM
Fight global warming: prohibit the use of motor vehicles in the five biggest states. See how that goes over!:D

HankB
January 19, 2006, 10:39 AM
Bush also kept the United States out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases globally, saying it would harm the U.S. economy, after many of the accord’s terms were negotiated by the Clinton administration.So Dubya did something right . . . for a change. ;)

The real purpose of Kyoto is to hamstring the US economy.

The Europeans pushing it are, by and large, living under "coalition" governments which require tacit co-operation with socialists, greens, and other members of the looney left in order to govern. Their economies are largely on the rocks, with slower growth and higher unemployment than we have in the US . . . not that ours is perfect by any means, but for the most part, Europe is in worse shape than we are.

Their leaders understand that most of this is because of the political situation over there, which simply will NOT allow for the sort of reforms necessary to become truly competitive - the aforementioned coalitions will collapse.

Faced with the prospect of falling farther behind, and with no prospect of correcting the problems of their own systems, the only way to keep from being outstripped by the USA in the long term is to drag the USA down.

Kyoto is their way of doing this - and it infuriates them that we're not co-operatively putting our own head in their noose.

Silver Bullet
January 19, 2006, 10:41 AM
State of Fear is now available in paperback.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061015733/qid=1137677735/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-6576781-0340826?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

In State of Fear he reverses field and uses the incorrectly perceived threats of environmental disaster as the underlying impetus for a novel. In Crichton's view, the whole global warming argument is false. His view is that environmentalism has degenerated into a quasi religious system devoid of scientific veracity. Thus, the proponents of the global warming hysteria are pushing faith over fact, many of them have lost their moorings and the inevitable result is a grand conspiracy.

1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 10:52 AM
I hear so much Bush bashing, that I tend to write it off, even when it is somewhat legitimate. And I'm not even a big fan. Global warming? Crap happens. The warming trend has been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, just like the mild glaciated period happened in the 1300's. Mother nature can be harsh sometimes, we just like to whine and blame people.

bogie
January 19, 2006, 10:59 AM
Let's see... We're taking 100 years of possibly faulty data, and extrapolating both into the past and into the future? In a system which, in terms of geological time, constantly fluctuates?

Give me a break.

jazurell
January 19, 2006, 11:05 AM
Global warming is the result of politicians' jabbering. It creates hot air and methane.

shermacman
January 19, 2006, 11:13 AM
Breath-taking analysis there, ROF. That is the sort of clear, concise intellectual discourse that makes those of you with Bush Derangement Syndrom so compelling.

olyeller
January 19, 2006, 12:02 PM
Now michael crichton is a global change biologist?

:banghead:

To use a NOVEL as a defense against man made climate change is freaking dumb.

Put your bs detector on high and youll see that its coming from both sides.

Silver Bullet
January 19, 2006, 12:21 PM
To use a NOVEL as a defense against man made climate change is freaking dumb.
Not as a defense, merely as a vehicle to show other sides and other ideas of the issue. The reader can still decide for himself what is correct, and may be inspired to do actual research.

Of course, some folks don’t want opposing ideas to be expressed.

“You can’t stop the signal.”

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 12:31 PM
So Dubya did something right . . . for a change. ;)

The real purpose of Kyoto is to hamstring the US economy.

The Europeans pushing it are, by and large, living under "coalition" governments which require tacit co-operation with socialists, greens, and other members of the looney left in order to govern. Their economies are largely on the rocks, with slower growth and higher unemployment than we have in the US . . . not that ours is perfect by any means, but for the most part, Europe is in worse shape than we are.

Tinfoil hat time!

rick_reno
January 19, 2006, 12:31 PM
I believe this "gang of six" is looking for some press time - and the American news industry (remember - it's for profit) is only too happy to oblige them. Global warming is all about cow farts - give the cows some Beano and all will be well with the planet.

Manedwolf
January 19, 2006, 12:33 PM
Not as a defense, merely as a vehicle to show other sides and other ideas of the issue. The reader can still decide for himself what is correct, and may be inspired to do actual research.

Of course, some folks don’t want opposing ideas to be expressed.

“You can’t stop the signal.”

Basing any opinion on that novel is like basing your ideas of proper tactical procedure and world military incursion allowability on a Clive Cussler or Dale Brown novel, or your idea of how spies operate on an Ian Fleming "Bond" novel.

It's FICTION. He is a writer of pull-ideas-out-of-posterior FICTION! Like, oh, you know, cloning dinosaurs in a couple of years from a mosquito in amber, SAME AUTHOR?

buzz_knox
January 19, 2006, 12:39 PM
Tinfoil hat time!

Actually, no, it's not. Kyoto was as much a mechanism for transfer of wealth from the "rich" nations as welfare is. India and China both got off without having to make cuts despite becoming some of the major users of energy and producers of pollution, while industrialized nations making efforts towards cutting pollution had their economies further hamstrung.

Even the Europeans are starting to realize what a nightmare Kyoto is, and started moving to bail once they saw what kind of damage compliance would do to their already problematic economies.

Camp David
January 19, 2006, 12:41 PM
Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems...

What can be realistically done about Global Warming?

Why is this suddently Bush's fault when even the most liberal environmentalist says that problem has been decades in development?

Six former EPA heads all blaming Bush seems like sour apples! What did each of the six do to fight Global Warming while they were in office?

Back to my first point... If you believe "Global Warming" on its face, based on environmental situation, to address it a total makeover of our use of the earth is required. Simply switching to a hybrid vehicle or recyling beer cans WILL NOT solve problem... Indeed, such measures will only slightly delay inevitable. Abandonment of internal combustion vehicles (total ban) according to scientists would also delay the inevitable but not prevent it. So too is a total makeover of our coal dependance; even if we stopped tomorrow on fossil fuel use the emission accumulation would take decades to dissipate and decades more to correct... so again, what can Bush realistically do?

What I am driving at, specifically, is to address the point these former EPA managers were making... what can Bush realistically do to address global warming based on our current social situation? I hate to hear folks criticizing the current administration yet not surfacing a workable alternate plan.

Master Blaster
January 19, 2006, 12:42 PM
Looks like a new Ice age is approaching to me:




BTW that graph is North Carolina Mean daily temperature 1895 to 2005

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/state.html

If you go to this NCDC page you can see the graph for mean temperature for every state for the last 100 years, and they show a trend line, but you have to run the graph to see it, the trend line.
The problem with the data is where are the monitoring stations? Mostly in Urban areas, and its a scientific fact that Urban, built up paved areas retain the heat better than say forrest, so the more built up an area becomes the warmer it gets. That has nothing to do with Co2 or greenhouse gas.

HankB
January 19, 2006, 12:44 PM
Tinfoil hat time!Thank you for your profound and enlightening comeback. :rolleyes: We're taking 100 years of possibly faulty data, and extrapolating both into the past and into the future?Mostly the extrapolations are only into the future, since when the computer models are run backwards and extrapolated into the past, they don't match historical records very well . . . unless some "fudge factors" are put in to make them fit.

R.O.F
January 19, 2006, 12:45 PM
Yeah, it feels good to talk about it. I just can't stand the guy, I call em as I see em, much like you did with me. If you can tell me one good thing he has done, and by this I mean directly made your life better, I'll seriously listen and contemplate. Then again, I'm not the thread hi-jacking type, I may have overstepped my bounds on the previous post. Lets start a new one.

Master Blaster
January 19, 2006, 12:54 PM
I just can't stand the guy, I call em as I see em, much like you did with me. If you can tell me one good thing he has done, and by this I mean directly made your life better, I'll seriously listen

Yes I can, he lowered my taxes, and I am not rich, just middle class, in fact he lowered them enough that I can afford to take my family to the Beach for a weeks vacation with the savings.

He also passed the no child left behind act, which imposes standards on my public school, and added billions to the funding of public schools, despite what the talking heads blather about unfunded mandates.
He got off Israel's back, and didnt shove Yassir Arafat down their throats like Clinton did so they could work out a deal with the palestinians.

He put global terrorists on notice that killing Americans carries a steep price.

But hey fair is fair, so now you come up with something Bill Clinton did that made your life better in a concrete fashion.

R.O.F
January 19, 2006, 01:07 PM
imminant hi-jacking...I am redirecting this topic to "Bush leaguer" someplace else.

Sorry to impose on your thread...thread starter.

Sergeant Bob
January 19, 2006, 01:28 PM
George Bush is causing global warming!

SPACE.com -- Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Global Warming on Mars
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09feb_1.htm

Mars is undergoing global warming
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660

Space Research That's Cool - Global Warming on Mars?
http://www.mos.org/cst/article/80/9.html

Scientists Track Climate Changes on Mars
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

Justin
January 19, 2006, 01:30 PM
Ron Bailey of reason magazine review's Crichton's book. (http://www.reason.com/0505/cr.rb.the.shtml)

A fictional novel that includes real facts doesn't mean that those facts are fictitious.

taliv
January 19, 2006, 01:47 PM
hot lead ---> global warming

there's a bumpersticker in there somewhere; i just can't quite see it

AZ Jeff
January 19, 2006, 04:52 PM
Tinfoil hat time!
Not at all. If you notice, the Kyoto agreement called for the most industrialized nations (of which the US led the pack by far) to curb emissions, while the "emerging nations" (India, China, et. al.) were allowed to pollute unfettered. It was really a global weath redistribution scheme.

If Kyoto was REALLY all about curbing emissions, it would have called for such to be done uniformly across ALL countries worldwide.

Finally, the amount of impact Kyoto would have had on total greenhouse gas emissions (if FULLY applied, which is has not been and will not be) was well under a 10% reduction, and was more about perceptions of "doing something" than about actually effecting change.

MD_Willington
January 19, 2006, 05:57 PM
Pop the tops off a couple volcanoes then they can whine about the new ice age...:evil:

Art Eatman
January 19, 2006, 07:14 PM
Manedwolf, Crichton merely builds on Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist", which book I strongly recommend to you.

Lomborg is an ex-GreenPeace statistician.

As far as Kyoto and CO2, I can but note that among the proponents are governments whose countries rank among the highest in generation of electricity via nuclear power. Even so, some of those countries have discovered that for the signatories, Kyoto is a bad deal.

Art

GhostRider66
January 19, 2006, 07:27 PM
Basing any opinion on that novel is like basing your ideas of proper tactical procedure and world military incursion allowability on a Clive Cussler or Dale Brown novel, or your idea of how spies operate on an Ian Fleming "Bond" novel.

It's FICTION. He is a writer of pull-ideas-out-of-posterior FICTION! Like, oh, you know, cloning dinosaurs in a couple of years from a mosquito in amber, SAME AUTHOR?

Have you read the book? I mean really. And so there is no possibility that someone could, say, research a subject thoroughly, come to a logical conclusion and decide that the best way to present an, otherwise, extremely boring and confusing subject is via a fictional novel. Interesting perspective. Quite a few historical novelists I need to discard immediately.:banghead:

ArmedBear
January 19, 2006, 07:40 PM
Here's the thing.

While models certainly cast a lot of doubt on the religious fervor that often surrounds global warming, let's say for the sake of discussion that it's the worst-case scenario being touted by the environuts.

The same people have long been saying that we'd RUN OUT of fossil fuels! Since they're non-renewable, that's not far-fetched, though of course we can argue over how much we have left.

If that is true, then what's the difference? Burn them up, no more fuel, no more global warming. There's no logical reason to artificially limit use, since, as fossil fuel becomes scarce, prices will rise exponentially.

This will make existing alternatives economically viable, and speed the development of others. It will also force some tough decisions that we're too weak to make right now. E.g., France uses pebble reactors and large-scale nuclear power generation. We don't, mainly due to trendy anti-nuke politics in the '70s, carried forward by the baby boomers who dominate the political process right now. If it comes to sitting in the dark and getting really cold, even the hippies will prefer nuclear power, especially the safer reactors that now exist.

So, the only reason to worry about global warming (100-year predictions? Come on!) is if we think that fossil fuels will NEVER become scarce, no matter how fast we burn them. Do you believe that?

GhostRider66
January 19, 2006, 11:54 PM
So, the only reason to worry about global warming (100-year predictions? Come on!) is if we think that fossil fuels will NEVER become scarce, no matter how fast we burn them. Do you believe that?

Fossil fuels? Please remember that even that phrase is just a theory.

In any case, the above statement reminded me of a college project that I once heard of so I went digging on the internet (yes, I am a geek, thank you). The idea was to figure out how much oil has ever been drilled since we began using it (figure was easily found) and, using standard math calculations, figure out how deep a one mile by one mile hole would have to be to hold all of the oil that has ever come out of the ground. I just spent the last hour doing the calcuations (geek? yes. Math wiz? not even close) and the results were pretty close to what I remember hearing in the original experiment.

Now for the bonus section: describe about what size this hole would represent on a standard sized globe. When you look at it from this perspective, it would certainly seem to the average thinking person that the notion that we are running out of 'fossil fuels' slightly unbelievable.

cracked butt
January 20, 2006, 12:12 AM
I guess the whole bird flu panic didn't pan out, so they now have to resurrect the global warming crap to keep the gullible on the edges of their seats.:rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
January 20, 2006, 12:47 AM
I guess the whole bird flu panic didn't pan out, so they now have to resurrect the global warming crap to keep the gullible on the edges of their seats.

Without fear, ignorance, superstition, hatred, envy, racism, and lots more fear, there's be no chance whatever for socialism.

Silver Bullet
January 20, 2006, 11:35 AM
From a review of State of Fear:

It is interesting to read because Crichton confuses his readers with his constant point-counterpoint propositions regarding the legitimacy of global warming. He does, however, provide a little "author's note" regarding the science of the issue along with an overwhelmingly long list of sources and citations, so if you're skeptical of Crichton's ideas regarding this "no-brainer" environment issue, he has allowed you to "go see for yourself".

The “list of sources" is a 32 page bibliography of references used in the story, plus an appendix explaining the source of data used in the temperature warming graphs.

There is an interesting caveat in the appendix:

Note: Shortly after the hardcover publication of this book, GISS changed its website to show less data. The station data no longer goes back before 1880, and thus heightens the appearance of a steady rise in temperature.

Fear not; there are tons of other references in the book. The socialists won’t be able to suppress them all.

You can’t stop the signal.

sarge83
January 20, 2006, 01:15 PM
Kyoto isn't worth a damn in reducing emissions. How can you make the US, Europe and Japan make major and expensive expenditures to cut emissions and allow China, India and other thrid world countries to do as they please? Pure and simple it is an agreement for the transfer of wealth, maybe not directly but in the long run. And it is based on highly dubious so-called scientific studies.

As many scientist claiming man-made global warming is occuring, just as many reputable scientist claim that it is not or that if it is, it's a naturally occuring cycle of the earths weather. If it is the later are we so arrogant to presume we can now control the weather cycles of the earth?

Sound conservation practices are fine and desired but radical environmentalism is every bit as dangerous as Marxist-Lenninist Communism.

Sergeant Bob
January 20, 2006, 01:37 PM
The same people have long been saying that we'd RUN OUT of fossil fuels!
Weren't those the same people who, in the '60's were saying we were heading into another ice age?
Since they're non-renewable, that's not far-fetched, though of course we can argue over how much we have left
Even that is being debated now.

thorn726
January 20, 2006, 01:43 PM
yeah, right pollution is a myth.

it is ok to skateboard in the toxic water that pools up in wintertime at the bottom of the bowls.
this quote describes what we put up with every winter
"This is Ed Murphy in Berkeley. Yes, this will confirm the skatepark is closed . We had ground water which contained hexovalent chromium [aka CR6] leaking into the park. It was a high enough level of CR6 that it posed a potential danger to users. Closed pending studies. Risk assessment should be completed in the next couple of weeks. If risk level is low, we'll open the park. If it's not, we'll have to keep it closed until we can come up w/ a way to keep the water out."

the air has not been turned brown around any cities

global warming or not, there is NO reason to try and save any part of the environment- after all when we all live in a glass bubble, oxygen supplied by machines, theyll let us all have guns and shoot all we want right?

true, nations like China and India rapidly undo whatever we do to help. but is that a fair excuse for destroying our planet?

sounds a little like "his mommy lets him do it" to me.

recycling, cutting emissions, reducing use, it is all for nothing , just a crock.

and excessive use of fossil fuels, ignoring the possible effects- who does that really help?
BIG OIL

funny how all this talk and everyone sides with the richest industry in the world.

the dancing bear has become accustomed to his chains

AZ Jeff
January 20, 2006, 02:03 PM
yeah, right pollution is a myth.

..........

the dancing bear has become accustomed to his chains

I think you are missing the point. No one is saying that unfettered pollution is good.

What some (including me) are saying is that, if the problem (that Kyoto claims to address) is as bad as some depict it, we should be applying the emission reduction policies UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE PLANET, (and not selectively as Kyoto is structured). To not do so is to contradict that the problem is as bad as depicted.

An adjuct issue here is that there is a significant body of evidence that even if humans were to cease creating "greenhouse" gases ALTOGETHER, IMMEDIATELY, the world temp would rise due to factors totally behind the direct control of humans. If that is in fact true, our actions towards changing emissions become an exercise in futility.

thorn726
January 20, 2006, 02:13 PM
we should be applying the emission reduction policies UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE PLANET. To not do so to to contradict that the problem is as bad as depicted.

true, nations like China and India rapidly undo whatever we do to help. but is that a fair excuse for destroying our planet?

sounds a little like "his mommy lets him do it" to me.

the bottom line of most of these posts is "i shouldnt have to worry about pollution, period"

and i dont like it

BuddyOne
January 20, 2006, 02:13 PM
Why does BIG SOCIALISM always capitalize Big Oil???

Buddy

progunner1957
January 20, 2006, 02:27 PM
Without fear, ignorance, superstition, hatred, envy, racism, and lots more fear, there's be no chance whatever for socialism.

Exactly. Not only is socialism being pimped here in the U.S., it is being pimped in every nation around the world that is not yet under socialist rule.

In order to survive and grow, socialism needs three things -
1: Horrific, global disasters - real or imaginary.
2: Helpless, terrified masses of sheeple.
3: Enlightened "experts" with Ph.D's and/or bureaucratic titles and power to save the helpless, terrified masses.

There's the recipie for saving the world, according to socialism: Rule by the "experts" who have had conferred upon them unlimited power and zero accountability by submissive, obedient masses of terrified sheeple.

I'll take my chances with global warming, bird flu, and giant meteroite attacks on my own, thanks...

engineer151515
January 20, 2006, 02:49 PM
1. Global warming is a direct result of variations in solar output.

2. Kyoto = joke. No impact to the biggest land rapists and polluters of the upcomming century which are China, India and Brazil.

3. If a politician is going to get bashed over environmental issues, why doesn't this group bash Senator Edward Kennedy for opposing the clean energy, non-obtrusive to wildlife, 130-turbine Nantucket Sound wind farm?

4. Everyone talks with no action because the only current permanent solution to pulling your energy needs from a hydrocarbon base is nuclear. Nobody in the United States wants nuclear. We can't even lauch a Pluto probe (contining a minuscule amount of plutonium for power) without protesters outside the fence of Cape Canaveral. Thus - like the dinosaurs before us, the United States will doom itself to eventual energy extinction, replacing oil with dependence on those who are investing in nuclear technology today (Japan, France - perhaps China). And you think you are paying a heavy political price today for oil???? Just wait.

progunner1957
January 20, 2006, 02:52 PM
If a politician is going to get bashed over environmental issues, why doesn't this group bash Senator Edward Kennedy for opposing the clean energy, non-obtrusive to wildlife, 130-turbine Nantucket Sound wind farm?

Because he is a Democrat and therefore can do no wrong?
the United States will doom itself to eventual energy extinction, replacing oil with dependence on those who are investing in nuclear technology today (Japan, France - perhaps China). And you think you are paying a heavy political price today for oil???? Just wait.
It's all part of the plan - weaken the United States, bring it to its knees, global socialism takes a huge step forward.

There's a reason all the anti-nuclear protestors are leftist/socialist/democratic.

Art Eatman
January 20, 2006, 02:57 PM
Sorry, Thorn, but 'the bottom line of most of these posts is "i shouldnt have to worry about pollution, period"' is a very distorted view of what people are saying in this thread. Completely erroneous conclusion.

Further, note that the outcries against nuclear power have led directly to the amount of electricity generated by burning hydrocarbons--which create the CO2 that is the focus of Kyoto.

And it's Kyoto that is the focus of this thread, not other problems with pollutants. To bring up those irrelevant issues is drifting away from the subject of THIS thread.
\
Were we to become a signatory to the Kyoto Accords, we would be forced to reduce our output of electricity. That means a loss of jobs. That's inescapable. Were we to institute controls on travel, that would also mean a large loss of jobs. I can easily see a jobless rate in excess of 15% within a very few years. The Great Depression saw a rate of roughly 25%.

The social impacts would then lead to more Draconian laws from Congress, probably including a resumption of anti-gun legislation in the face of what I expect to be a rise in crime rates.

And China and India would continue to be the world's worst polluters...

Art

ThreadKiller
January 21, 2006, 10:20 AM
Given the fact that the polar ice caps are receding on Mars would lead logical thinkers to the conclusion that the phenonenon of "global warming" is pretty much out of mankind's reach.

I thought it was pretty cool how Al Gore and his contingent arrived at the Kyoto conference in air conditioned SUV's.

"All animals are created equal. But some animals are more equal than others."

If you enjoyed reading about "Ex-heads of EPA blast Bush on global warming" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!