Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > May > 31 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBugs in global warming alarmism
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Pack the kids in the car, Maggie, and let’s flee to the hills of Idaho. Our Southern lifestyle is about to come to a crashing end, an early victim of global warming.
As described by the AJC’s Bob Dart, the picture presented by tourism officials to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has “golfers heading north to escape bug-infested, parched courses. Southern rivers too shallow for tubing [and] beaches from Jekyll Island to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., engulfed by a rising Atlantic Ocean.” The cause? Global warming. What’s a native to do? The same thing, I suppose, when we’re bombarded by what in modern times has become a steady stream of dire warnings on everything from the new millennium disaster that was to befall our computers to the revelation that cul-de-sacs and the suburban lifestyle cause obesity. And yet the worst we got was that a software upgrade crashed MARTA’s new Breeze fare system for a day. And fat kids everywhere.
The problem I’ve always had with global warming alarmists is that while most climate scientists agree that global warming has occurred in the past century,on the order of 1 degree Fahrenheit, predicting the future depends on assumptions fed into computer models. Different assumptions, different outcomes. Are humans causing it? Scientists are split. It’s hard to argue that humans have no impact whatsoever, but my suspicion is that those who say humans are the cause have an agenda, which is to set national energy and environmental policies.
Yes, it’s hot. Yes, there’s a drought. Yes, the weather is peculiar. But current conditions are not evidence of looming environmental disaster.
Comments
By TW
May 31, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this
Dittos Jim – they should have outlawed science after the dinosaur hoax…
By ckt
May 31, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this
Jim-
As an environmental engineer at GaTech, I am constantly dismayed at every rightwingers favorite line, “the scientists are split.”
If there is ONE thing I can tell you about climate change and global warming, it is this: “SCIENTISTS NOT BEING FUNDED BY EXXON ARE NOT SPLIT.”
Stop repeating Rush’s talking points for him - its unbecoming of you.
By harold
May 31, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this
what scientists are split?
is laura mallory a scientist?
or do you mean the republicans are split from the scientists?
or are there a few scientists on the payroll at the chemical factory going “nope, nothing we do is a problem”
jim do you wanna poke holes at scientific theories or would you rather go outside for a jog along peachtree and realize on your own that the air is all farked up
harold cant understand why people choose partisanly to perpetuate industry that kills them. where is the benefit? keeping Mr Plastics rich?
By TD
May 31, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this
National Energy and Environmental Policy, Jim? We already have one of them. Dicky Do Cheney, Kenny Boy Lay, et al, decided the NEP for us. Maybe it is time that someone else wrote us up a new one. Their’s certainly isn’t working for the consumers of this country.
By jbmlaw
May 31, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. As a professing Christian, I am loath to trash the religion of another – and unthinking belief is the essence of the current global warming campaign. It is the coming apocalypse, where evil man destroys the world due to his worldly desires. The only cure is to sacrifice all of our conveniences, and to punish ourselves with less.
You all get the argument, you’ve heard it before; no reason for me to belabor the issue. I am with Vaclav Klaus on this one. My belief system is that man lacks capacity to destroy the earth, which sets me opposed to those who would constrain my freedom, in order to honor their god of global warming
By DebbieDoRight
May 31, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
When did Jim become a scientist? Are the republicans buying degrees online again?
By DebbieDoRight
May 31, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
harold cant understand why people choose partisanly to perpetuate industry that kills them. where is the benefit? keeping Mr Plastics rich?
Nope; it’s called keeping Jimmy Boy rich as Croseus until he dies, (that way he can afford healthcare for his deteriorating lungs)…..he’s got stock in plastics…….
By TD
May 31, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
Am I wrong in my remembrance that even Exxon Mobil and BP have now stated that Global Warming is real and that man is part of the problem?
By harold
May 31, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this
jim isnt a scientist. he is a blog troll!
jim is a troll on his own blog!
harold guesses thats what the republicans have come to. they are caricatures of their former selves. they are the old lady wearing two pounds of blue eye shadow!
remember when california used to burn every summer? then florida and arizona started? and now georgia too?
By Realist
May 31, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this
Bravo JBM! Great Post!
When the alarmists and hypocrits who preach to us about global warming stop driving cars and flying in jets, I will begin to beleive that they are sincere about mans contribution to the impending doom. Until then, I will beleive that at least for today, the sky IS NOT falling.
By RCH
May 31, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this
I have seen lists of engineers and scientists on both sides of the fence. What makes this an Republican issue. Most environmental bills and Federal parks where passed by Republican presidents and Congress. Do you think Republicans want to breath dirty air. I believe we need to strike a good balance between the environment and industry. Wounder why we are paying over $3 per gallon for gasoline?
By cmd
May 31, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
Not only the oil companies… (including Chevron) …. even the Bush Administration has said that man is to blame for climate change.
It’s sad when fusty old people endanger the futures of the younger generations and their children - much easier to be mocking, self-congratulatory and selfish rather than take a thoughtful and educated look at the problem. Typical.
By TD
May 31, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
By jbmlaw
May 31, 2007 8:53 AM You all get the argument, you’ve heard it before; no reason for me to belabor the issue. I am with Vaclav Klaus on this one. My belief system is that man lacks capacity to destroy the earth, which sets me opposed to those who would constrain my freedom, in order to honor their god of global warming
jbmlaw, even using your logic and your premise that only God has the capacity to destroy the earth, could it not be possible that God is sending us a message in the hope that man will get the message before God has had enough of man’s mismanagement of his earth and does something about it himself? He has certainly done it before, has he not jbmlaw?
By gtfan
May 31, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
Thought the new word was ‘climate change’ b/c of the cold winters that occured this year.
Anyway, I heard ‘Scientists’ say Neptune’s been warming up for the last 25 years. Does Al Gore have a mansion on Neptune, and fly back and forth from there on his private plane?
Or is that where his carbon emmission credits are being deposited?
By Dave
May 31, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this
I am very suspicious of Global Warming. Why? Because the politicians are making a bog deal of it.
You don’t see them making a big case about the missing honey bees, which is a huge issue.
We live in a society that distorts statistics, funds biased research, staffs our schools with activists rather than educators and we get this as a result.
I am highly susicious of the motivations of ALL scientists.
They have lost their credibility by selling objectivity.
Do I care if this means the end of the world? No not really. I know that if God wants it to end, then it will end.
We are not the ones in charge here and the sooner we realize that, the more we can focus our energy on something we can change, ourselves.
By Anonymous
May 31, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
Anyone with a PhD in climate research, please raise your hand.
Everyone else, admit you’re not qualified to comment on this and move on.
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
Just 16% Believe Senate Bill Will Reduce Illegal Immigration Wednesday, May 30, 2007
There’s a simple reason the immigration bill being debated by the U.S. Senate is unpopular with voters—the general public doesn’t believe it will reduce illegal immigration. And, in the minds of most voters, that’s what immigration reform is all about.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 16% of American voters believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate bill is passed. Seventy-four percent (74%) disagree. That figure includes 41% who believe the Senate bill will actually lead to an increase in illegal immigration.
If voters had a chance to improve the legislation, 75% would “make changes to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration.” Just 29% would” make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country and eventually become citizens.”
Voters who believe that the current bill will succeed in reducing illegal immigration favor its passage by a 51% to 31% margin. Those who believe the bill will lead to even more illegal immigration oppose its passage by a 70% to 12% margin.
Overall, despite a major push by the President and others over the past week, support for the Senate bill has not increased at all. In polling conducted last night (Tuesday, May 29), 26% of voters favor passage of the bill. That’s unchanged from the 26% support found in polling conducted the previous Monday and Tuesday. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters remain opposed.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of American voters are closely following news stories about the issue, including 37% who are following it Very Closely. Those with the highest interest in the issue oppose the legislation by a 3-to-1 margin (69% to 23%). By a 55% to 15% margin, those following the story Very Closely believe the bill will lead to increased levels of illegal immigration.
Unaffiliated voters are now more opposed to the bill than either Republicans or Democrats. Among those who don’t identify with either of the major parties, 22% support the Senate bill while 57% are opposed.
Some supporters of the bill have tried to suggest it is politically popular by citing polling data for selected features of the bill. However, President Bush yesterday implicitly acknowledged the strong public opposition to the bill by stating that elected officials will need political “courage” to pass the measure. Senator Jon Kyl (R), a major supporter of the legislation, acknowledged in interviews that the lack of support measured by Rasmussen Reports is an accurate reflection of the public mood.
Rasmussen Reports polling, like that of other firms, has found that Americans may be willing to accept a compromise proposal that includes legalizing the status of the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the United States. Sixty-five percent (65%) said they would accept such a compromise provided that it accomplished the primary goal of reducing illegal immigration. However, arguing about the nuances of amnesty, guest-worker programs and other provisions will do nothing to build popular support without proof that the government is serious about controlling the border.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters believe it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.”
Many times, voters doubt that reasonable alternatives exist. But, 68% of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. A New York Times/CBS News poll found a similar result—82% believe the federal government could do more to reduce illegal immigration.
The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the frustration of those who oppose the Senate bill. Sixty-six percent (66%) believe it doesn’t make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws.
By zeke
May 31, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
Typiical left wing anti individual socialist, and, yes democrat, drivel proclaim man is destroying the earth! What crap! The climate was much worse in the middle ages and ancient times. The oceans were much higher, 300 feet or higher. Scientists have recently discovered that the New Madrid fault in Missouri was caused by ancient oceans. Climate change has occurred in various cycles over the history of the Earth without industrial activity. Did man cause it? Of course not. This is a natural phenomenon of the cycles of the planet. For these alarmists to think that humans are so powerful that they can destroy the Earth or the vast galaxies of space is pretty conceited and absurd. We may cause severe damage with vast nuclear explosions, but, I seriously doubt we can destroy what we cannot fully understand how it came into existance!!!!
By Peter
May 31, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
HA HA HA Jim…off course you don’t worry about global warming……. heck as long as the administration changes the data like always, we will have zero problems.
Since you want to stick your head in the sand, and ignore the problem, you will be happy to know as it becomes dryer in our region, there will be allot more sand for you to bury yourself in!
By RCH
May 31, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
gtfan Heard the same,also mars is getting warmer. Might the cause be the sun is getting warmer?
By Astronomer
May 31, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
The planet Mars has been warming for years. This week the news comes out that the planet Neptune is showing evidence of planetary warming. IT’S THE SUN STUPID!!!! There’s nothing we can do about it. Our solar system is going to do whatever the hell it wants in spite of us insignificant carbon-based life forms that inhabit the paper-thin crust of the third rock from the sun!
By Aquagirl
May 31, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
I agree with Vaclav Klaus too. Man can’t destroy the earth. We can, however, make it uninhabitable by the human species by our own actions. The earth existed without humans for millions of years, and can do so again quite nicely.
If this is okay with you, then you are obviously a Republican.
By JEEEEZE
May 31, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
By Dave
May 31, 2007 9:14 AM Do I care if this means the end of the world? No not really. I know that if God wants it to end, then it will end.
This is the kind of ignorance that insures man’s demise. Just stick your head in the sand so you can’t see it coming at your posterior. But I guess it is true that ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your blissful ignorance Dave.
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
Bush’s detention facilities
Houston-based KBR, formerly the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co., has a contingency contract in place with the Department of Homeland Security to construct detention facilities in the event of a national emergency.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, spokeswoman Jamie Zuieback confirmed yesterday in a telephone interview that the KBR contract for $385 million was awarded initially in January 2006 for a one-year base period with four one-year options. It has been extended into 2007. KBR held a previous emergency detention contract with ICE from 2000 to 2005.
Zuieback told this writer the primary intent of the KBR contract was to build temporary detention facilities that could be used in the event of a mass migration across the border that required ICE to respond on a quick basis to an illegal-immigration crisis.
“The idea of the KBR contract is to support the Army Corp of Engineers,” Zuieback explained, “in case we experienced a sudden mass immigration and we had to respond quickly. We would need immediate detention facilities in the form of temporary housing that would enable us to determine if the large numbers of illegal immigrants were political or economically motivated, or if they were criminals or terrorists.”
Zuieback confirmed that the KBR contract for detention facilities could apply to national emergencies, including natural disasters.
Several times, Zuieback insisted in the telephone interview that the KBR contract was a “contingency contract,” specifying that detention facilities were to be built only when an immigration emergency or a national emergency, including a natural disaster, had been declared.
Heather Browne, spokeswoman for KBR, also sent me an e-mail yesterday confirming KBR built a temporary facility in New Orleans that provided cantonment for up to 500 federal detention officers who were tasked with maintaining law and order during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Last week President Bush on May 9 signed a little-reported National Security and Homeland Security Directive (NSPD-51 and NSPD-20) that granted extraordinary powers to the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
NSPD-51/HSPD-20, published on the White House website, rescinds Presidential Decision Directive 67 signed by Bill Clinton Oct. 21, 1998, and establishes a new White House office of the National Continuity Coordinator, a position now occupied by Frances Fragos Townsend, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Terrorism.
The new directive concentrates an unprecedented amount of emergency authority in the office of the president, specifying that the president now has the authority to direct “National Essential Functions” of all federal state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
The KBR contingency contract appears to give ICE the ability to have detention facilities constructed under the president’s direction in response to a national emergency as declared under NSPD-51/HSPD-20.
The initial White House press release announcing the presidential directive included no background explanation of the directive or statement by the president. The press release merely posted NSPD-51/HSPD-20 on the White House website.
Sections 23 and 24 of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 specify that Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes are incorporated
By DaVinci
May 31, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
Why are you so negative about science Dave? Did a scientist tell you that the earth is more than 6000 years old? What a moron.
By harold
May 31, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
it aint about destorying the earth
its about destroying the life on earth
including us. we are alive, currently
the red alert smog days every summer are just make up like the terror alert right?
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
Global Warming
If some environmentalists are to be believed, we are on the verge of massive global climate change which will see a significant rise in sea levels, chaotic weather patterns, and catastrophic droughts all caused by small increase in global average temperature.
This site provides links to resources skeptical of those sort of doomsday scenarios. The articles linked to here are written by a wide variety of people, from scientists to laypeople, and their inclusion here should not be read as an endorsement of their positions.
Just as when dealing with things coming out of the environmentalist camp, you need to use your brain and decide for yourself to what extent global warming poses a threat to humanity.
numerous scholarly hard science based articles are available here:
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/
By Keep God out of it
May 31, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
Dave,
You are the primary reason people hate Christians. You just resign the cause of all worldy events to God, thereby avoiding any personal responsibility to share the stewardship of our planet with the rest of us “earthly” secular folks…
Well sorry dude…I”m not waiting around to see if your God has decided it wants to destroy the planet.
Opiated, head-in-the-sanders like you are the reason that the Government ultimately will (and it’s gonna happen) force us to do the things necessary to keep the planet livable.
You relics, including Jim Wooten, have missed the train…
And to Jim Wooten..you are so obsessed with partisan politics that you can’t see past the end of your nose…you freely admit that mankind could be affecting the weather but it’s just not important because it’s an agenda…idiot.
By scott
May 31, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this
Most of the split in consensus is not about whether humans are contributing to climate change, but more about how. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of SCIENTISTS (not politicians with an agenda) says there is at least a 90 percent chance that humans are contributing to global warming. Science is about facts, and the facts are that humans are contributing, and the human population is growing exponentially. Those two realities alone should be frightening to anyone, regardless of political ideology. Just because a politician made a movie on the subject does not mean this is a political agenda. Here’s the agenda – the earth is warmer than it has ever been (fact), humans contribute to global warming (sorry, it’s not disputed), and the human population is growing exponentially. Stop passing the buck and start doing something about it.
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this
Global Warming is not caused by carbon dioxide
just one of numerous extremely detailed hard science articles that debunk the hysterical lies of the global whiners:
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
By FED_UP
May 31, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this
JIM YOU TRULY ARE AN IDIOT
By getalife
May 31, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
OMG, it is not about PeachCare but does show Jim could care a less about future generations.
As long as he is not stuck in traffic, global warming os okay by him.
Geez.
By DebbieDoRight
May 31, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this
Typiical left wing anti individual socialist, and, yes democrat, drivel proclaim man is destroying the earth!
Man can’t destroy the earth huh? Well, let’s look at the long laundry list of things that man has either destroyed, drove to extinction, or is in the process of destroying:
Europe: Caspian Tiger, Panthera tigris virgata (1960s, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, southwest Russia, Crimea (possible))
Caucasian Moose, Alces alces
caucasicus (1810, Caucasus Mountains) Caucasian Wisent, Bison bonasus
caucasicus (1927, Caucasus Mountains)
Carpathian Wisent, Bison bonasus
hungarorum (1790, Carpathian Mountains)
Corsican Pika, Prolagus corsicanus (1800, Corsica, France)
Cretan Dwarf Megacerine, Megaceroides cretensis (Crete, Greece)
European A* or Encebra, Equus hydruntinus (1400s, Spain)
European Lion, Panthera leo europaea (100 AD, Greece)
Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus (c.5000 BC, Ural Mountains)
Majorcan Giant Dormouse, Hypnomys morphaeus (Majorca, Spain)
Majorcan Hare, Lepus granatensis solisi (1980s, Majorca, Spain)
Minorcan Giant Dormouse, Hypnomys mahonensis (Minorca, Spain)
Minorcan Giant Lagomorph, (Minorca)
Portuguese Ibex, Capra pyrenaica lusitanica (1892, Portugal)
Pyrenean Ibex, Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica (2000, Spain)
Sardinian Dhole, Cynotherium sardous (Sardinia, Italy)
Sardinian Giant Shrew, Nesiotites similis (Sardinia, Italy)
Sardinian Lynx, Lynx lynx sardiniae (Sardinia, Italy)
Sardinian Pika, Prolagus sardus (1800, Sardinia, Italy)
Tarpan, Equus ferus ferus (1880, Poland)
Not to mention the Rain Forests, DoDo Bird, etc. The list is endless……
By Copernicus
May 31, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this
So the wingnuts are using the “it’s only the sun getting hotter” argument while conveniently leaving out the part where the ozone layer that protects us from the sun has gotten thinner, equating to higher temperatures here on earth. So if the sun keeps getting hotter and the ozone layer keeps getting thinner, guess what folks? The imbecillic right never, ever, finishes the equation. They just continue down the path to their own destruction with their ignorance as the guide.
By RCH
May 31, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
Scott Then why have the last 5 winters in this decade been the coldest in 100yrs. If it is true that humans are contributing to global warming, why is Mars and Neptune getting warmer.If we do contribute it is a small drop in the pool. If you remember the eruption of Mt. St. Helen. It did more damage than all mankind throughout the ages.
By Adam
May 31, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this
The common thread through of the various sky-is-falling “crises” that crop up such as millineum computer catastrophes, environmental disasters, Snail Darter emergencies, etc is they all require massive regulatory intervention by those who are infinitely smarter than the plebes.
Leftist democrats are always eager to follow any self appointed “expert” who steps up and declares the need for drastic and immediate action. Logical thinking always conflicts with their emotional reactions and therefore must be dismissed as ignorance. Follow the hype of world renowned scientist Al Gore, inventor of the internet, and he will show you the way.
By Copernicus
May 31, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
Remember folks. These naysayers are the same folks that gave Oral Roberts money to build a tower to heaven so that God wouldn’t kill him. They are the same folks that kept Jim and Tammy Faye Baker up in fine style. They are the same folks that think Benny Hinn can heal them through their TV screen. They are the same folks that use local weather as refutation. Consider the source folks. Once you do that you know it is futile to rationalize the truth to them.
By RCH
May 31, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this
Copernicus Maybe you have forgotten that the ozone is not a permanent fixture. Rather it shifts location constantly. That is why certain parts of the earth have periods of colder and then warmer climates. Still,since there is no disturbance by man on these other planets why are they getting warmer?
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this
AS there is NOT the slightest tiniest bit of evidence that I have EVER SEEN ANYWHERE that actually proves the existence of any kind of god it is absurd to make unsupported fideistic assertions invoking such superstitious nonsense. Anyone can claim anything they like and cloak it with dogmatic religious bollocks, but happily these days this kind of simpering (just for you harold) intellectual ‘clerical’ dishonesty carries less and less credibility and resonates only in the already unthinking, lets stay blissfully convinced circles.
Sadly the intolerant mindless regimented evils of the old Spanish papist Inquisition are now being perpetrated again. But this time its the malevolent hysterical post modern puke of the lemming like global whiners who screech from their fule guzzling limousines and Lear Jets and lately from their horrendously polluting Prius’s that the sky is falling. Seemingly only these eco whacko scum have the right to twist and lie and gleefully distort the actual science involved, and that’s where their dumbasshit wide eyed lefty arses get a factual environmental kicking.
By jabster
May 31, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
Why does all the talk about global warming inevitably lead to talk about SACRIFICE? Is THAT the goal of the watermelon crowd (green on the outside, red on the inside)? Bringing down capitalism and keeping people from living just a little bit larger?
I have 37 CFLs throughout my house and my light bill is running about $30+ a month lower over last year. No sacrifice there. I don’t drive a car bigger than my needs (and am paying for it on a TWO-year loan). No sacrifice there. But I WILL run the A/C as cold as I darn well please!
I’ll live simply so that others can simply live…only when Algore gives up his McMansion and leaves some carbon credit indulgences for the rest of us.
Maybe there is something to global warming. But with penance and indulgences, it sounds like a religion to me.
I agree with Bjorn Lomborg—when global warming is projected to be a problem 100 years from now, we’ll be getting all of our energy needs from some clean “Mr. Fusion” type source. Think back 100 years. Atlanta had a vehicle emission problem back then too. At least CO2 doesn’t smell and get all over your shoes. Instead of fouling the air, it fouled the water. People got sick and died from cholera and other waterborne illnesses. Oh the humanity!
By Adam
May 31, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
Hey DebbieDoRight - since you are so informed in all aspects of species extinction, what was the role of Man in:
Cretan Dwarf Megacerine, Megaceroides cretensis (Crete, Greece)
European A* or Encebra, Equus hydruntinus (1400s, Spain)
European Lion, Panthera leo europaea (100 AD, Greece)
Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus (c.5000 BC, Ural Mountains)
Too many gas guzzling SUV’s in the Ural Mountains around 5000 BC?
By Carl
May 31, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Based on my Google research I am convinced that anyone that says they are absoulutely convinced one way or the other on golbal warming is taking a biased stance. The one interesting research report I read looked at climate and temperature change over a 400,000 year span. Clearly their are climate cycles. An intersting tidbit from that report stated the following.
“It is remarkable that over the last 400,000 years, the maximum of the yearly average of the temperature exceeded the present values by just 1 to 2 °C (average temperature on earth was then 16 to 17 °C compared to 15 °C today).” Meaning cooler.
All that being said man definitely needs to be a better steward of our environment. I know from my families perspective less gunk in the air would be beneficial from a health perspective.
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
the racist crackpipe debbieturd also seems to have glibly missed out how the black afriKan Bantu movement south butchered and enslaved the pygmies, eventually wiping them out with devastating racist genocidal efficiency.
By Copernicus
May 31, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Well RCH, using your logic, maybe God is trying to send a message to the entire universe before he lights her up. LMAO!
By Bruce
May 31, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
Congrats, you have provoked a dialog about global warming. You’re right others are wrong. Others are right and you’re wrong. As an active Atlantan of 40+ years I’ve watched the climate changes in my fair city. I’ve seen the changing weather patterns and they’ve all been for the worst. Call it global warming; call it cyclical; call it a warning and a whisper. If we don’t change how humans use the earth, we will accelerate the death of this planet. Another Man’s opinion.
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
the racist crackpipe debbieturd also seems to have glibly missed out how ITS OWN WONDERFULLY SOPHISTICATED ANCESTORS the black afriKan Bantu movement south butchered and enslaved the pygmies, eventually wiping them out with devastating racist genocidal efficiency.
By Aquagirl
May 31, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
True, there is a lot of argument over global warming and a lot of it is politically tinged. Mostly by idiots who think because Al Gore flies in a private jet, then we can all do whatever we want and basic scientific principles won’t apply.
Look at it this way: if the evidence of human influence on the earth’s climate is only (for the sake of argument) 20% likely to be correct, isn’t that still significant? If I told you there was an 80% chance that a careening car wouldn’t hit your child, wouldn’t you still do what you could to get them out of the way? The stakes are pretty high.
By melo
May 31, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this
Bush did not use the INTERNETS when he became President. Typical Republican ignorance of anything thats new and science driven. He uses it now. Same with global warming. Now he understands that man can cause harm to the earth if development is not managed properly.
I guess we still have work to do to convince the remaining knuckle heads who are our fellow earth citizens. JIM,u are not a scientist and no scientists are split. You repeat that line because it is comforting to your ignorant senses! Some of u need a sponsored trip to some Third world countries, like Brazilian amazon for example. That way u can see the light.
By FBI
May 31, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this
By deport the illegal leeches now, another of Andy’s aliases. You can tell a crackhead a mile away.
By KC
May 31, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
Hey “deport the illegal leeches now”
Anybody who read your linked article debunking man’s CO2 output as a contributor to global warming I hope took to the time to read the “About The Author” section. He’s a Microbiologist who does MUSHROOM RESEARCH on a “farm in the midwest”. Hmmmmm….yep, scientists are split. On one side there are climatologists and atmospheric specialists with thousands of years of training and experience between them. On the other side we have mushroom researching microbiologists who believe all the other scientists (who obviously won’t let them into their treehouse) are in some Skull and Bones type secret organization who’s only purpose is to scare the bejeezus out of us and get us to fund their research. Because, you know, if it weren’t for global warming there wouldn’t be much left for scientists to do.
I say we just blame it on Clinton.
Have a great day everybody!
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
KC and the Sunshine tw ats…
that was the very first article linked in a google search … funny how you also ignore all the articles in that other skeptics.net link I posted.
I also note that you have NOT factually refuted any of his points - just lamely and hysterically smeared him for not being a climatologist.
also try junkscience.com
And given that many of the lefty eco whackos “scientists” who signed that paid for infamous global whining “petition” in the NY Slimes a year or so were not climatolgists but chemists, engineers and psychologists and the like - none of whom have any climatology expertise - I naturally assume you were as contemptuous of their partisan lack of subject knowledge as this seemingly very well informed mushroom chap.
dishonest lefty wankers like you need to be deported!!!
By Gomer
May 31, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Not being a scientist and all, I just know that when I see satellite photos from 10 years ago and satellite photos from the present that I see a large loss of landmass to water. Maybe all you right wing chritiofreaks need to use that pipeline to God you all have at ready and tell him he needs to stop pouring all that water out of that big boot up there before he makes all of you look really stupid. Tell him straight up that it’s getting harder to convince folks not to believe their lying eyes down here on planet earth.
By jabster
May 31, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
So, let’s say that all of the scientists aren’t just marching in a liberal P.C. lockstep and are all 100% right. What is going to save us? Penance, hairshirts, flagellation, indulgences, and we-are-not-worthy self-denial? Or technology?
Technology is the answer. We need to start an “Apollo/Manhattan” type project to find a source of CO2-free energy, stat. I applaud Richard Branson’s Virgin Fuels effort in this regard.
Sure, there will be winners and losers, from the inventor of some future “Mr. Fusion” to the cashier at the QuikTrip. Always will be. We just need to grow a pair and not coddle those whose businesses may be rendered obsolete.
What we DO NOT need are liberal posers that want us to sacrifice so they can have more for them and their two-faced lifestyles.
This can be a real win-win for most people (excepting those who are stuck in the fossil energy business)—maybe finally resulting in energy too cheap to meter.
And, before someone blames our current situation on “technology”, I want them to give it all up first. No cheating! No fair blaming something that has been a tremendous net gain for the human condition.
By AC
May 31, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
When I was a child we were told that another Ice Age was around the corner. Seems to me that going from Ice Age to Global Warming is quite a difference in the evaluation of scientific data. For me, when the weather experts are able to accurately forecast tomorrow’s weather, I’ll pay a little more attention to their forecast for next century’s weather.
By Southern Democrat
May 31, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
We have a huge problem with the environment and global warming. It is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
We have a huge national security problem. It is because of our involvement in the Middle East. This is, in large part, due to a need for fossil fuels.
It’s not just environmental, it’s economical. We’re Americans. We solve problems. Let’s build more nuclear reactors, triple our investment in efficiency for alternative energies in cars, and join Kyoto to help make carbon emissions trading a profitable enterprise for Americans. We then use soft power to force India to join Kyoto in exchange for an increase in enriched uranium and technology. China will, eventually, follow suit, and if they don’t? That doesn’t decrease our own responsibility to be stewards of the earth and leave our grandchildren clean air, water, and land.
A Republican (Nixon) and Democrat (Clinton) enforced tighter regs on industry, but now the EPA is powerless (see Christie Whitman for details) and is intimidated by big business. It will take popular support to ensure enforcement.
By GLOBAL WARMING ALERT
May 31, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
A STAGE II GLOBAL WARMING ALERT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES: …CHEROKEE, CLAYTON, COBB, DEKALB, FULTON, GWINNETT, HALL and ROCKDALE…..
…A STAGE II GLOBAL WARMING ALERT has been issued by the Global Warming Czar…Global Warming induced fires have covered a large portion of south Georgia…Smoke from fires has created a hazardous condition…Heat and drought index at record high…
WARNING: …Bring ALL pets inside… Small children and people with breathing problems should stay in air-conditioned rooms… AVOID OUTSIDE CONTACT…Do outside chores and errands at night if possible…
SUNBLOCK ADVISORY: SEVERE CANCER RISK
OZONE WARNING: HAZARDOUS
OXYGEN/BREATHING CENTERS: OPEN
COOLING STATIONS: OPEN
HEAT INDEX: SEVERE
DROUGHT CONDITIONS: CRITICAL
WATER RESTRICTIONS: Total outdoor watering ban. 1 Bath per week per person.
For more information please visit the Global Warming Emergency Response Authority at gwera.gov/czar/ALERT
Please check with your local school system for school closings.
By Dusty
May 31, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
Aw geee let’s fight about the weather etc etc
Of course humans are warming the earth. We breathe, build fires, run motorized inventions, and rub two sticks together and sometimes two people together to produce heat.
So let the techies write papers and get grants. Let the liberals stop breathing, And for goodness sake, get Al Gore off the air. I had to cut him off last night. “Now let us talk about the world’s GREATEST problem!!! was his first sentence. He forgot to mention his lack of winning elections which is HIS biggest problem. But woo hoo…it’s getting hot!!
By Dave
May 31, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
*JEEEEZE *
There is a big difference between having your head in the sand and realizing that there is simply NOTHING a single person can do about it.
So what can you or I do specifically that is going to change this? The point above that you did not quote is my mentioning that you can only change yourself.
No I do not have my head in the sand, but at the same time I am not going to worry about it. Why spend so much emotion and energy on something you cannot change. No matter how much you want to, you cannot change what is going to happen.
Take a deep breath and let go of it, all the people in your life will be affected by this anger if you keep holding onto it.
By deegee
May 31, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Back in the sixties and seventies we heard a lot of resistance from industrialists when factories were ordered to stop polluting rivers with toxic waste and to control their emissions. Companies that wanted to do so stayed in the US and complied. Those that didn’t want to spend the money to clean up moved overseas or closed up shop. While we undoubtedly benefit from clean air, rivers and lakes, there is a price to pay.
Scientists are taking the lead on climate change and I don’t think that they are being alarmists. The people in this country need to have an intelligent debate on the topic and force a national environmental and energy policy. We will no doubt pay a price that will include lifestyle changes. Left up to our elected leaders it will never happen. We must force the issue from the bottom up and keep it front and center.
By jm
May 31, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Weather patterns have always been cyclical. There are enough examples of “100” year storms out there to refute “man-made” climate change. However, I believe it is folly to believe that humans are having no impact on the climate.
Then again, when the earth is tired of having humans at the top of the food chain, it will get rid of us, just like it did the dinosaurs and give some other species a chance to be on top.
By GWB
May 31, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
I guess you won’t be watching much TV after the 08 elections when Al Gore becomes the 44th pres of these United States, will you Dusty?
By jbmlaw
May 31, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Adam @ 9:46 and Jabster @ 10:48 said it better than I can, but that will not keep me from trying also. The leftists do this regularly, claiming to be the high priests, as a means of retaining political control over their brothers. (“There is a serious problem, and only I have the solution. Give me the power over you.”)
Dear Copernicus @ 9:52 and Melo @ 10:22, I remind you that leftists led the campaign to ban DDT, leading to the unnecessary deaths of millions, mostly in backward third-world countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for no good reason. Leftists imposed the moratorium on nuclear fission plants, thus ensuring union jobs in the coal industry (and amusingly exacerbated their current distress over global warming.) Leftists prohibit the sale of Freon purportedly due to “ozone damage” surfacing coincidentally just as the DuPont patents expire, to ensure that DuPont’s profits are preserved by its patents on the new and only reasonably workable industrial substitute for coolant. Wrong on all counts, but if it cost lives, fortunes, and freedoms of individuals, that is a small price to pay to ensure the continuing socialist control over our lives.
Dear TD @ 9:13, I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons. The god I worship is a god dedicated to the freedom of his creation. The history of man is a history of enslaving people for their thoughts, e.g., the Inquisition 500 years ago, or the current and indistinguishable non-debate on causation of global warming. Does the truth ever emerge? Of course it does. YHWH is found, not in the bombast or violence of the clamor, but in the quiet truth that ultimately is manifest. I urge you to be wary of those who claim that god compels us to change our ways, and “only I know how you need to change.” This is purely an issue of faith: do you believe the high priest/scientists who think the taxpayer/sucker needs to fund more research in their fields, or is this merely another case where we can be content to allow the market to clear, rather than to urge move government constraints? I am content to trust markets.
Dear Anonymous @ 9:17 and Aquagirl @ 9:23, unlike you, I am unwilling to yield my freedom to a cabal of self-anointed experts.
Dear Harold @ 9:29, no, it is about destroying freedom on earth.
Dear KGooi @ 9:31, you are the primary reason people hate agnostics, most of whom strike me as pleasant people otherwise. By elevating man to the position of god – master of the universe – you create unreal expectations and grant unrealistic omniscience. The arrogant misperception of omniscience is the ultimate “Achilles’ heel” in leftism/ socialism. For a well-reasoned agnostic view contrary to yours, check out the note by our friend dtiln @ 9:53.
Dear Southern @ 11:14, I was with you until you magnified the wisdom of Kyoto. Just another deal assembled by the card-sharks.
By RCH
May 31, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Southern Democrat Obviously you don’t know anything about the Kyoto. This is exactly why it was not voted for in the U.S. If you build a nuclear power plant to displace the usage of 100k barrels of oil, this does not count to your mandated consumption of fuel oil. You could build a million nuclear plants and do away with all consumption of fuel oil and still be in violation. Explain that!
By jabster
May 31, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
Why do I need to change my lifestyle? Particularly when technological solutions exist (or are on the immediate horizon) where I don’t have to?
I am not going to change my lifestyle just to satisfy someone’s personal need for penance by proxy. I am NOT playing a role in someone’s personal “sacrifice Kabuki theater”.
Consider yourself warned…if nobody else is looking out for me and my family I am fully prepared to do it myself.
By Dave
May 31, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
*DaVinci * Actually I am far from one of these fundamentalists who think the earth is 5000 years old. That was a subject of interpretation by a couple scholars who were flat wrong.
Carbon 14 dating is a good measure of time.
Not all religious people believe the same thing and an ad hominem attack like yours is infantile and does not further your argument or credibility. A few readers who agree with you might be moved to agree, but that’s only an emotional reaction.
I find both science and religion important and I am not criticising science, because the scientific method is not being properly followed in this case.
There is no such thing as a proven fact or consensus in science. Scepticism is necessary and integral in science.
The closest you can get to “fact” in science is statistically significant.
But the marriage of today’s science with politics is a perversion of science due to political beliefs and financial incentives.
Science and religion are 2 parts of the same whole even though many extremists on either side want to keep them separate.
By Gomer
May 31, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
And obviously you know everything about everything don’t you RCH? LMAO! ROFL!
By TW
May 31, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw - having tamed the God of Christianity, how long will it take your god of mammon to domesticate that of science?
By Southern Democrat
May 31, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
Jbmlaw,
I understand your feelings towards Kyoto, it’s (in its current iteration) a flawed system. I do think, however, the idea born from the Montreal Protocol and continued through Kyoto of having an emissions trading market is one in which we could profit enormously.
We have a weird situation currently where we have U.S. states signing on to a set of principles and rushing to fill a gap left by a do-nothing EPA (which still receives billions of taxpayer funds) and the rest of the federal government.
The irony here, of course, is that (akin to the immigration debate) we already have the laws in place. It is an issue of enforcement. The EPA, being granted Chevron deference, chose to ignore its responsibilities until it recently got smacked by the conservative court. We need drastic enforcement now and a Kyoto-like carbon trading system allows it to be economically sensible for us.
By kevin mccarey
May 31, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
Wooten’s comments on global warming prove once again that “common sense conservatism” is an oxymoron.
By David
May 31, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Today’s news … from an NPR interview. (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/TopNASAofficialnotsureabout0531.html)(http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3229696&page=2) To the priests of the religion of global warming … in the tradition of science, why don’t we just evolve and adapt? Why must we change our behavior? Wouldn’t Darwin just want us to evolve and develop larger sweat glands?
By RCH
May 31, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Gomer Nope. But I do know that there is a lot of politics and economics involved. That little clause described above was included by the French. And guess where they get 80% of their power from Yep Nuclear. Imagine that. Maybe if you didn’t LMAO and ROFL you might learn something. I no nothing about sewing and NASCAR.
By Blind Homer
May 31, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
3 degrees celsius won’t mater much unless you’re a polar bear or you own oceanfront property. The root cause of this and almost all of our other problems (war, traffic, polution, crime, etc.) is way too many people. Without god to protect us, nature will eventually restore balance and thin the herd.
By Dusty
May 31, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
GWB@11:31
I will worry about Al Gore winning ANY election when I worry about the waves of the Atlantic lapping against the suburbs of Atlanta. It aint gonna happen, lovely liberal.
But you have put in your two cents worth for the Democratic Drive. I guess you were one of the six Gore supporters that was selected.
Keep up the good fight!! But don’t breathe that warm stuff. Gore is against it.
By Gomer
May 31, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this
Maybe you should reevaluate that RCH. Judging by the econimic lunacy you have advocated during the immigration debate, I seriously doubt if you have had so much as even the most elementary economics course. You are one of those psuedo-intellectuals aren’t you RCH? One of those google brains. Without google you would be incapable of any thought that didn’t originate with your stomach or your di*k.
By @@
May 31, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
Dontcha just love this Kyoto Protocol Jim? It’s like a bunch of kids sitting at a table afraid to eat what’s been put on their plate.
One kid says “You first”.
Another kid says “I don’t wanna go first, you go first”.
The war of the economies.
The thing is, let a couple of these babies bust a gut on land or in the ocean, and it starts the big blue ball rolling.
Follow it up with an asteroid, and it’ll be a do-over.
O.K., I’m thinking here. Why do the terms
Bust a gut…
A*-terhoid
and do-over
remind me of Al Gore?
Maybe you could research that question Jim.
By Political Mongrel
May 31, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
It is definitely difficult to see the effects of global warming when one’s head is stuck entirely up one’s butt.
By Southern Democrat
May 31, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
RCH,
I don’t think you are correct at all. I’ve studied the UNFCCC, Montreal Protocol, and Kyoto Protocol for a while now.
I’m not sure what you’re confused by, but the U.S. is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, but the treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification because of the stratification of developed v. non-developed nations and the usage of 1990 as the baseline year for carbon emissions.
The U.S., as a developed nation, would have to reduce its carbon emissions around 5-6% from its 1990 levels. Power generation is the largest emitter of carbon gases in America. Nuclear power does not emit those gases (though it does produce waste that must be dealt with). There is no “mandate” to use oil. Quite the contrary. Further, if there was a reduction of 100K barrels of oil or an increase of 100K barrels of oil, it would have no bearing on our Kyoto responsibilities unless it affected our overall carbon emissions.
Have I helped clear that up at all?
By deport the illegal leeches now
May 31, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
On a lighter note folks
IT WAS 40 YEARS AGO TODAY … THAT SGT PEPPER TAUGHT THE BAND TO PLAY.
An interesting article that reflects on when the greatest ever rocknroll band, an English band - recorded their masterpiece, and how today’s less talented self absorbed lefty poseurs are attempting to pointlessly re-record it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LRDOS1N3PJPNXQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/arts/2007/05/31/bmpepper131.xml
By TDJ
May 31, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Gomer, if laughter is good for one’s health, with RCH around we are all guaranteed to live to a very ripe old age. The guy is a hoot!
By RCH
May 31, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
Gomer Why can some of you never address a direct point. When you are cornered all you can say is: racist, homophobic, KKK, nationalist, etc. I am not here to trade insults, just ideas.
By Gomer
May 31, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Southern Democrat, you can bet ole RCH is googling his azz off right now trying to come back at you.
By David
May 31, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
Blind Homer is right ‘nature will eventually restore balance’.
Why do we insist or even want so save everyone and everything? The worshippers of ‘global warming fear’ religion are the same who defend free health care and evolution fervently. (I believe in evolution not in the dire of global warming.) We must allow nature consume the weak and infirm and eliminate them from the gene pool. Would a large pandemic or plague really be that bad. maybe while it’s happening but not for the future of the species. Those fighting to prevent trying conditions must feel humans have evolved as high as possible and are content to stagnate.
Scenerio - global warming causes half of all humans to die, plants evolve to consume excess CO2, not enough humans to consume excess plant life and rainforests flourish. Plants produce excess oxygen which aid in the evolution of stronger, larger, healthier humans.
Bottom line - do nothing and allow your descendants to become stronger, larger, healthier.
By Grim Reaper
May 31, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
By David
May 31, 2007 12:21 PM
We must allow nature consume the weak and infirm and eliminate them from the gene pool.
Adios David. Mother nature will definately be coming for you.
By Donna P.
May 31, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
As a child of the 1970’s, I am used to the environmental alarms going off. Remember when they banned aerosol cans (like hairsprays) due to a concern over the environment? Global warming has been happening since then and we have been warned for the past 30 years. Why all the hoopla now? The “experts” had all this time to do something about it. They could have controlled growth, made requests to control our immigration, and made requets to use more green products starting 30 years ago! I do what I can and I know 30 more years from now, we will still have alarmists talking about global warming.
By DebbieDoRight
May 31, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
Hey Adam! Google it and read it for yourself like I did!!!
By Gomer
May 31, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
By RCH
May 31, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
Gomer Why can some of you never address a direct point. When you are cornered all you can say is: racist, homophobic, KKK, nationalist, etc. I am not here to trade insults, just ideas.
Uh, RCH my nitwit fodder, where on this blog have I called you any such thing? I believe your lack of economic expertise is what you were challenged on. But…if the shoe fits, wear it.
By RCH
May 31, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
No * Gomer* The nuclear issue is one I picked because it most clearly showed the political side to this equation. I thought it would be a given that most people would know the developed vs. undeveloped situation. At this time I would argue the point made by Southern Democrat. I have heard stated my way many times. But, as I stated beforehand that’s what I am here for; to hear other ideas and info., not name call.
By David
May 31, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
Mother nature will come for everyone eventually.
By Gomer
May 31, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
By RCH
May 31, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Gomer Nope. But I do know that there is a lot of politics and economics involved.
I do think I see the word ECONOMICS in your post there RCH.
By Gomer
May 31, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
By RCH
May 31, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Gomer Nope. But I do know that there is a lot of politics and economics involved.
I do think I see the word ECONOMICS in your post there RCH.
By Eddie Murphy
May 31, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
RCH, you are living proof that God has a sense of humour.
By Keep God out of it
May 31, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
JBMlaw, As to your statement:
By elevating man to the position of god – master of the universe – you create unreal expectations and grant unrealistic omniscience.
Nothing but unadulterated bulls**t and hyperbole..and has nothing to do with my prior post. I don’t elevate man to the position of God because I have no evidence such an entity exists…
I deal in reality not omniscience…
Either produce evidence of God or keep him out of the debate.
By DebbieDoRight
May 31, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
The people in this country need to have an intelligent debate on the topic and force a national environmental and energy policy.
Intelligent debate on Global Warming!??!! Sigh. If only…….
By RCH
May 31, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
I am sure he does. While you walk and ride bicycles, Al and his pals drive SUV’s and fly in private jets. I wounder who is laughing?
By DebbieDoRight
May 31, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
“Our allies’ pleas for action add to the voices of many big corporations such as Dow, Shell, General Electric and General Motors,” said Daniel Weiss, the group’s climate strategy director. “These and other Fortune 500 companies endorsed a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2050, the level scientists indicate that we must reach to stave off the worst impacts. Unfortunately, these appeals from his foreign and corporate allies continue to fall on President Bush’s deaf ears.”
By Eddie Murphy
May 31, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
As hard as I try not to RCH, I can’t help but laugh watching you push that shopping cart of yours down the road. But you need to rearrange your cargo before you lose one of your valued possessions.
By RCH