quote:
If you could show that inhibiting the number of allowable emissions per country would not have a negative affect on the US economy or industry, then I would wholeheartedly agree.
So in other words, you would rather die than give up a luxury today.
OK, I can take that on board. But why should I be held to ransom by your selfish stupidity?
And, the expectation that the greatest polluter should go first, and do the most, is hardly bizarre. All you are being asked to do is clean up your own mess.
quote:
What I do object to, however, is that the current environmental dogma being served up is based on a paucity of data. From what I have read, the threat of global warming seems much less imminent or detrimental than we are lead to believe.
Look this is complete nonsense. The fact that the US republicans choose to harp this nonsense does not improve its quality. Are you reading the reserach itself? No, you only appear to red "debunkings" of the reaearch. The ill-informed opinions of a handful of political agitators are as nothing in the face of the mountain of consensus across the globe that this is a real problem. In fact, THE MOST important problem we face.
quote:
Well an increase of 0.6, and depending on your source the range could be as low as 0.3, degrees over 120 years on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old seems to be very little to get worked up about.
Thats... I struggle for an appropriate term. The current thinking I have read is that a 2 degree rise will be disastrous, and that we are well on course for that 2 degree rise. So the 0.6 you cavalierly and ignorantly dismiss is nearly a third of that margin. Thats significant; extremely significant.
quote:
and I have to question the conclusions drawn by global warming theorists.
Why don;t you question their models instead of their conclusions. You are just rejecting the conclusions out of hand; you are seeing no evil.
™ Version 4.2