(01-26-2010 03:51 AM)RobertN Wrote: Actually, they use "change" because global warming can cause various changes in cloud cover, rain, drought, etc. These then cause changes in climates.
Robert... they said the result of man's actions was going to be cooling... THEN they said the result would be warming... and now they simply say that man's actions are causing change/volatility... blaming man for earthquakes, hurricanes, colder in some places and warmer in others... in other words, they can blame any weather phenomenon they want on man except stability... and any measurement of the earth's weather shows that "change" is the only constant. Warming trends, cooling trends, 18 hurricanes in a season, 5 in a season... Greenland being named Greenland... snow in Houston.
and you don't care about how much it costs because you don't expect to pay it... and you're wrong
(01-26-2010 10:52 AM)NIU007 Wrote: To a large extent, the lakes and rivers got cleaned up due to pressure from treehuggers - who are so maligned on this board. Businesses didn't just decide that they would turn over a new leaf and stop polluting. I agree though, overseas they can beat us on price partly because they don't care about working conditions or the safety of the products they produce. We need to be extra vigilant that they aren't foisting off their polluting, cheap, unsafe products on us, just because they're cheap.
There is a difference between showing me a river that used to have potable water in it and now won't support life... or land that won't grow crops because the dirt is poisoned... and the HUGE leap of faith required to believe what climatologists predict. One is a fact, the other is a prediction. I'm not saying you have to wait until things are horrible to do something about it... and we don't. We look at logical and reasonable extensions of facts... not leaps of faith. We emit significantly less than we used to, and continue to seek ways to reduce our impact. Reducing our carbon footprint?? I'm all for it. So what have people done about that?? Turned carbon footprints into a commodity to be traded... and the only people who ALWAYS make money trading commodities are the brokers. Everyone else wins or loses by an equal amount. It's a zero-sum game... with a few points taken out for Al Gore (a euphamism, not really meaning Gore) for "inventing" the market. You think "the rich" might find a way to exploit this market that doesn't really need to exist?? I guarantee they will. Look at the profits on Wall Street, and you just gave them a new unregulated market to play in.
Of course, there are people on here that just want to argue to argue... but the tree-huggers who are generally maligned are the ones who believe extreme measures are justified. Kill people to protect trees. Destroy private property to protect animals. Spend trillions of dollars to prevent something that may not happen, or may be unpreventable... or because of the actions of other countries, could happen despite our best efforts, while ruining our economy in the process and giving power to those who cause the problem anyway... while maligning those who are willing to take reasonable efforts to "do right" simply because they won't write a blank check to a group without a solution.
As to being vigilant... That is exactly the problem with Kyoto and with what happened in Copenhagen. They don't want to clean the environment... they want money and jobs. Put the responsibility on THEM to make things cleanly and charge us accordingly rather than on us to be the moral compass for the world. This is exactly what has gotten us into many of the problems we face today. Let the rest of the world be "the environmental police", and if that means that an ipod cost $299.99 instead of $199.99, then so be it. This is better than charging us $299 for something that everyone else in the world can buy for $199, with $100 going to some "fund", whether it be the cap and trade marketers or the government to spend on something they can't enforce. We can't FORCE China to be clean... we can only "encourage", meaning bribe... and bribes are NEVER efficient uses of money... In other words... place the responsibility where it belongs... on the producers, rather than the consumers... and let THEM bear the expense rather than us. If you don't, then those societies willing to do so will surpass ours... which is exactly the wrong result if WE are the ones doing "the right" thing.