(OT)Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear (BBC-Panorama)

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:04 pm

i can't wait until bush exits the white house and we get back to politicians who don't provide work/support/pork for their supporters/contributors/cronies.

kcp · Post by **kcp** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:27 pm

dj superflat wrote:i can't wait until bush exits the white house and we get back to politicians who don't provide work/support/pork for their supporters/contributors/cronies.

851 days 8 hrs 33 mins.

http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Not a moment too soon.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:20 pm

so only that long until we get more of the same? great!

udp · Post by **udp** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:49 am

dj superflat wrote:so only that long until we get more of the same? great!

Thanks for that! I needed it. I just don't feel like fighting the climate alarmists....again.

simpleton · Post by **simpleton** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:30 am

Global warming aint so bad. Look on the bright side... just think of all the prime beach-front real estate popping up in Canada!

jamester · Post by **jamester** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:02 am

dj superflat wrote:i can't wait until bush exits the white house and we get back to politicians who don't provide work/support/pork for their supporters/contributors/cronies.

That's a beautiful dream. Unfortunately, using the words "get back" implies that we had that before...

/not in my lifetime

rtopia · Post by **rtopia** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:12 am

dj superflat wrote:i can't wait until bush exits the white house and we get back to politicians who don't provide work/support/pork for their supporters/contributors/cronies.

back to when?
before electricity?

- r

fatrabbit · Post by **fatrabbit** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:58 am

jamester wrote:
muscleandhate wrote:The current Bush administration is run by evangelical christians. I suspect they want global warming because it can be interpreted as some sort of bibical flood tantamount to Noah's Ark, perhaps...
While your first statement is correct, the second one is not. Bush's environmental policies are based on Capitalism, not Christianity.

It's no secret Big Oil is in bed with this administration - the buck stops at Cheney as far as that goes:
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01842.html

The bottom line is just that - the bottom line. Nobody wants to see the Earth fall apart, but even more importantly nobody in power who profits from things that are bad for the Earth is willing to give up some of that wealth in return for "greener" (i.e. less profitable) solutions. And that view is very un-Christian, imo.

This is the point isn't it?

It's not a question of choosing between the environment and the economy, because if we f**k up the environment then it'll become very hard to run an economy and it may collapse altogether.

EDIT: F**k up the environment further.

jamester · Post by **jamester** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:55 pm

This is the point isn't it?

Right...I'm just saying it's not entirely a "Bush" thing (as the topic heading states). America can't save the environment single-handed, and even though Bush and his cronies put oil money over alternative fuel research, the fact is that America already has pretty stringent rules and regulations when it comes to polution - unlike countries like China and India - regardless of Kyoto.

Of course, the other question involved here is - is the process actually reversible? I'm no expert, so I don't know...but I'm not so sure the polar ice caps and glaciers are going to start re-expanding just because we start conserving more. Will we be able to start a trend of Global Cooling?

Somehow I doubt it. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I feel the problems we're seeing are irreversable, and at best maybe we can slow it down a bit. There's too many frickin' people on this planet; too much developmant that's throwing the balance. And that trend isn't going to stop, Kyoto Protocols or not...

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:15 pm

dudes, that was sarcasm.

sgx · Post by **sgx** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:32 pm

jamester wrote:
This is the point isn't it?

Right...I'm just saying it's not entirely a "Bush" thing (as the topic heading states). America can't save the environment single-handed, and even though Bush and his cronies put oil money over alternative fuel research, the fact is that America already has pretty stringent rules and regulations when it comes to polution - unlike countries like China and India - regardless of Kyoto.

Of course, the other question involved here is - is the process actually reversible? I'm no expert, so I don't know...but I'm not so sure the polar ice caps and glaciers are going to start re-expanding just because we start conserving more. Will we be able to start a trend of Global Cooling?

Somehow I doubt it. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I feel the problems we're seeing are irreversable, and at best maybe we can slow it down a bit. There's too many frickin' people on this planet; too much developmant that's throwing the balance. And that trend isn't going to stop, Kyoto Protocols or not...

No, it isn't reversable at all, but we can do quite a bit to stop it/slow it down. There will not be any type of "global cooling" hehe until there is another ice age and that won't be caused by anything we do.

udp · Post by **udp** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:30 am

sgx wrote:
jamester wrote:
This is the point isn't it?

Right...I'm just saying it's not entirely a "Bush" thing (as the topic heading states). America can't save the environment single-handed, and even though Bush and his cronies put oil money over alternative fuel research, the fact is that America already has pretty stringent rules and regulations when it comes to polution - unlike countries like China and India - regardless of Kyoto.

Of course, the other question involved here is - is the process actually reversible? I'm no expert, so I don't know...but I'm not so sure the polar ice caps and glaciers are going to start re-expanding just because we start conserving more. Will we be able to start a trend of Global Cooling?

Somehow I doubt it. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I feel the problems we're seeing are irreversable, and at best maybe we can slow it down a bit. There's too many frickin' people on this planet; too much developmant that's throwing the balance. And that trend isn't going to stop, Kyoto Protocols or not...

No, it isn't reversable at all, but we can do quite a bit to stop it/slow it down. There will not be any type of "global cooling" hehe until there is another ice age and that won't be caused by anything we do.

I can't believe I'm doing this again. If we can't cause global cooling what makes anyone think we can cause global warming? Yes I'll conceed that green house gas are more prevelent today than 150 years ago. It is entirely possible that the gas increase is due to warming, not the other way around. We don't know. As far as glaciers going away, they amount to a miniscule amount of the earth's total ice. Much of the earth's ice areas are increasing. There just is no credible evidence that mankind has any significant affect on climate change. How will the earth look 450,000 years from now when the continents are joined again? Will Antarctica still be desolate and ice covered? I doubt it since it will be moving toward the equator. There are many pieces to the climate equation that are never mentioned by climate alarmist. I reccomend "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton for a fictional, but reasoned view on climate change. Besides it's a fast read.

Happy Trails

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:39 am

udp wrote:I reccomend "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton for a fictional, but reasoned view on climate change. Besides it's a fast read.

when you're done with that pick up some John Grisham to learn everything you need to know about law school.

Check out info on Glacier National Park, they'll have to change the name soon. There's also international efforts to claim the waterways north of Canada for more international shipping routes. They're open for a few months now, but shipping companies are already plotting it out.

Scientists have been screaming about this for 20+ years.

udp · Post by **udp** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:18 am

DeadlyKungFu wrote:
Scientists have been screaming about this for 20+ years.

And the 20 before that they were screaming about a "new ice age". Same ole climate alarmists. It's all about CREATING FEAR to raise money.

glu · Post by **glu** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:22 am

there will be another ice age, and it will be because of the warming. So 40 years of scientists in cahoots apparently doesn't phase us...