You are wrong. This country is much cleaner now than it was a few decades ago. Most of the pollution produced in this country is produced in urban, industrial areas. Our cities are far cleaner now than they were when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, as anybody who grew up in or near a large American city or traveled the country much over the past thirty to fifty years will tell you. The cleanup began in the 70s after the establishment of the EPA in 1970.

 

Amen to your statement. SF41, either your too young to remember the 50's-60's-70's or you grew up out west or in Alaska to know what it used to be like. While there is always a bit more to do, our air and water is much better today than 30-50 years ago.

Americans have no God-given right to decide what other nations want to do with their own natural resources, nor do other nations have the right to dictate how we choose to manage our own natural resources. The "many scientists agree" line is indicative of the phony concept of scientific consensus that has given us the manmade global warming hoax.

Actually, I should have said "most scientists" are in agreement on the issue. The "hoax" nonsense is just some people's excuse to do nothing. As for other nations having a right: No, they do not have a right to endanger life on earth, no more than we would have a right to pour radioactive dust into the atmosphere. Those may be their trees; but the oxygen and weather belong to the world.

 

If a cure for AIDS or other human disease is not found, then our species will survive. AIDS is almost 100% preventable through simple changes in human behavior.

So we should stop producing medicines because some illnesses are preventable?:lol: And it's far, far more than just an AIDS issue. That's only a very tiny piece of the pie.

 

As for the loss of biodiversity, would you feel the same if you lived in an Indian village where tigers periodically dined on your neighbors?Are we really in a moral position to demand that the natural habitat of Bengal tigers be preserved in another nation if doing so results in the continued loss of human life to tiger attacks?

Absolutely we are! All species are important. They all serve their purpose--even the scary ones.

 

Like I said above, if American taxpayers want to pay nations like Brazil to place their natural resources off limits to development, then we should know what the costs, benefits, and risks are and compensate the Brazilians for their loss. Alernatively, the US could simply use its military might and begin building a new empire, targeting only those countries who we believe are mismanaging their own natural resources.

These solutions are far too simplistic. The solutions to these problems will be just as diverse as the rainforest itself. But burying our heads in the sand, pretending that things aren't our problem--or that they don't even exist--will do nothing to give rise to those solutions. We can't keep making ourselves feel better by pretending that our fellow man (and ourselves) are having no impact on the world we share. Reasonable compromises and viable changes can be found. But this can only happen if we accept that the problems exist and understand their potential impact.

Actually, I should have said "most scientists" are in agreement on the issue. The "hoax" nonsense is just some people's excuse to do nothing. As for other nations having a right: No, they do not have a right to endanger life on earth, no more than we would have a right to pour radioactive dust into the atmosphere. Those may be their trees; but the oxygen and weather belong to the world.

Scientific "consensus" is not science at all. It is what politicians resort to when scientists lack the evidence to support government actions.

So we should stop producing medicines because some illnesses are preventable?:lol: And it's far, far more than just an AIDS issue. That's only a very tiny piece of the pie.

I never said or implied any such thing. If natural cures exist in some small part of a jungle that is cleared for a hospital, home, or school, then it is not the end of the world. Thanks to technology developed through mostly capitalist enterprises, molecules are designed and built by our pharmaceutical companies on a regular basis.

Absolutely we are! All species are important. They all serve their purpose--even the scary ones.

Indian tigers are an Indian problem. If their government wants our help to preserve Bengal tigers, then that is quite different than imposing our will upon a sovereign nation.

 

These solutions are far too simplistic. The solutions to these problems will be just as diverse as the rainforest itself. But burying our heads in the sand, pretending that things aren't our problem--or that they don't even exist--will do nothing to give rise to those solutions. We can't keep making ourselves feel better by pretending that our fellow man (and ourselves) are having no impact on the world we share. Reasonable compromises and viable changes can be found. But this can only happen if we accept that the problems exist and understand their potential impact.

I agree to a large extent. Cooperation in solving global environmental problems is a worthy endeavor. However, if a nation does not wish to preserve the rain forests, tigers, or spotted frogs within its borders, then we should respect that nation's sovereign rights.

All species are important. They all serve their purpose--even the scary ones.

 

You mean like this?....

 

 

You mean like this?....

There are a few isolated exceptions.

Another dissenting voice on the global warming front.

 

Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science "Mistaken"

Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

 

Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming "mistaken".

 

"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

 

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

 

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

Another dissenting voice on the global warming front.

Speaks volumes of Al Gore and his merry band of GW alarmists! :thumb:

Speaks volumes of Al Gore and his merry band of GW alarmists! :thumb:

The good news keeps pouring in!

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

By Christopher Booker

 

Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.

 

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

 

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

 

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

The good news keeps pouring in!

What bothers me most about the alarmists is that children are now the No. 1 target of the global warming fear campaign. What's happening to the children at schools is ridiculous, they are being indoctrinated. Children have to watch scientifically unrealistic horror movies related to the climate, such as An Inconvenient Truth and many of them don't sleep well at night. Look at how alarmists are using children’s books and Christmas to push their agenda.

I don't think Global Warming necessarily means that the earth gets hotter in all places, at all times.

 

It doesn't, what global warming produces, is very extremes in the weather patern. IE, snowing in Houston and New Orleans. The winters will be come harsher, summers hotter, huricanes seasons will last longer etc. It doesn't mean we are going to burn up.

 

For those that don't believe in GW, how do you explain all the melting that is taking place within the mountian regions and all the glasiers that are disappearing. I tend to pay attention to actions more then words and when I can see things going away, then it tells me more then what a scientist suspects.

 

G

It doesn't, what global warming produces, is very extremes in the weather patern. IE, snowing in Houston and New Orleans. The winters will be come harsher, summers hotter, huricanes seasons will last longer etc. It doesn't mean we are going to burn up.

 

For those that don't believe in GW, how do you explain all the melting that is taking place within the mountian regions and all the glasiers that are disappearing. I tend to pay attention to actions more then words and when I can see things going away, then it tells me more then what a scientist suspects.

Exactly. :thumb:

So if winters are below average in temps it is because of GW?

 

And sea ice levels at the end of 2008 were equal to that of 1979. I guess GW melted it then refroze it right?

So if winters are below average in temps it is because of GW?

And sea ice levels at the end of 2008 were equal to that of 1979. I guess GW melted it then refroze it right?

 

Actually, it very well could be.

 

Everything I have read and seen has shown me otherwise.

 

From National Geographic. I apologize if they have a hidden political agenda. I don't read them enough to know.

 

"Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss. "

 

"Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. "

 

The whole article is here.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

 

G

Some interesting speeches by Michael Crichton in regards to this subject and the politicization of science in general. Some of them are very long, but honestly I think if you want to have an actual discussion in regards to Global Warming/Climate Change then these deserve a read.

 

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

 

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

 

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-sciencepolicy.html

 

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-complexity.html

Actually, it very well could be.

 

Everything I have read and seen has shown me otherwise.

 

From National Geographic. I apologize if they have a hidden political agenda. I don't read them enough to know.

 

"Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss. "

 

"Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. "

 

The whole article is here.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

 

G

How doe that make it GW's fault? The Indians and Chinese have nothing to do with it with their rapid industrialization? What about the burning of forests in the Amazon and central Africa? Is GW also responsible for global warming on Mars?