BMEWS
 

That’s Inconvenient

 
 


Posted by Drew458    United States   on 06/20/2007 at 09:46 AM   
 
  1. Many of the nations that signed did so only because they knew it would hamstring the US economy. They got a real kick when we shoved it back to them and said eat it. China was given a free pass, so of course they signed. Its been in the news for years about how they polute their water and land, why is ANYONE suprised about this? I had honestly expected them to take over the number one slot by 2005 because after Kyoto, many businesses were dumping their home lands and shifting production facilities to China. The communists have reaped a technological harvest heretofore unheard of. We have jump their economy ahead quite a few years with all the reverberations from Kyoto.

    Posted by Jeremy    United States   06/20/2007  at  09:07 AM  

  2. So many who push Kyoto, “Global Warming”, insurgents’ rights and such, seem mostly interested in feeling good about saying something against an opponent they know won’t fight back, rather than one who will or worse yet, ignore them. They remind me of a local liberal newspaper here, Random Lengths in San Pedro, California.  The editor likes to make a lot of noise about how bad Bush is, promotes the Longshore Union, lots of Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories, buried news items and such.  While some of his stuff is interesting and sometimes even accurate, what I haven’t seen him do is actually take a position against anyone who might actually fight him or do him some damage.  He actually surprised me recently by letting one of his reporters point out how a developer was manipulating facts in order to get approval for a major project.  In short, he likes to mouth off a lot, while taking little or no risk and posturing as a radical leftist bravely manning the barricade.  There’s a word for pleasuring ones self that describes these actions.

    Come to think of it, if he ever finds out I’ve posted this, he will probably take a shot at me or someone I like in one or more of his articles.  That’s his style.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   06/20/2007  at  03:41 PM  

  3. Well Anonymous, followed your embedded link (apathy.net). Seems that both you and the blogger there are cut from the “blame America first” cloth. No matter what the numbers are, you’ll find a way to twist them to suit your agenda. Your blogger’s respondents DID point out that ol momma Gaia doen’t give a rat’s butt about “per capita”, just total amounts.
    You know if MacArthur had gotten his way, we could have prevented China’s global warning
    contribution over 50 years ago. Course China would have gotten a wee bit warmer for a short period of time… rolleyes

    Posted by memoryleak    United States   06/20/2007  at  11:13 PM  

  4. Let me phrase this simply.  There seems to be a general pattern that the United States is always or frequently asked or demanded to give up some of the wealth and privilege that we have earned.  The question is not whether or not the weather is changing, the question is how does the United States maintain #1 position.  That’s the agenda here. 

    When I look at who is promoting the Global Warming agenda, I note that it always seems to be rich people who will be pretty much unaffected.  Al Gore’s swimming pool and private jet stand as good examples, even though they are meaningless by themselves. When I was known as a leftist radical, we used to call such people Limousine Liberals.  Lots of noise, but no actual commitment.  So, MFL, if you are willing to live in an unheated, unlit cave and make a living recycling acorns, more power to you, but don’t insist that the rest of us give up what we have worked for.

    btw - did you note the piece of weather monitoring stations?  Hmmmmm?

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   06/21/2007  at  01:47 PM  

  5. Dear MFL,

    Someday I will understand why the current generation of liberals consider personal insults and assorted ad hominem attacks an effective debating technique.  It really stifles the exchange of information and ideas and makes the person appear uncivilized and fearful of new knowledge. 

    I always considered open mindedness and tolerance the true hallmarks of being a liberal.  In the 60’s when my political and social awareness began, it was the conservatives who dismissed and vilified any idea or information that challenged their world view.  Look up the terms “Silent Majority”, “Hard Hat” and “Segregationist” for easy examples.  If you were a long haired Hippie like me, debating almost anything with any of those groups could be dangerous to your health (the ending of “Easy Rider” wasn’t that far from common experience).  The state of American politics has changed a lot in the last 40 years.

    I find it also interesting that because I raised points about Global Warming that you didn’t like, you’ve decided that I am a Creationist.  Tsk.  Without understanding the function and mechanics of evolution I don’t believe that you can understand either the universe or G-d.  Something the conservatives here at this blog may not always agree with, but no one has stooped to insulting me because of it.  Shame on you, MFL, more potty mouthed than the conservatives you bemoan.

    Now, if you have digested the above, let’s get back to the debate.

    In your paragraph three, you show the beginning of understanding of my point.  Yes, if there a gross climate change, we will suffer.  Steps should be taken to mitigate the effect of such changes.  However, the steps should not come at the sole cost of the United States.  Offshore industries selling into the U.S. market and many other factors need to be considered.  Time doesn’t always permit us to list all the details and ramifications of our ideas here.

    Climate change is a fact of life.  Ice ages, floods and droughts have been noted since Biblical times.  Modern science has certainly tracked and identified quite a few drastic climate changes from prehistoric times to the fairly recent past.  I consider those changes well proven.  We must be prepared to deal with future changes, regardless of their cause.  Our industries have successfully risen to many challenges over the years.  Shutting down or hamstringing them cannot be the best way to prepare for a drastic change.  A simple idea, yes?  It’s just as simple as the concept of making full and proper use of our available resources and technologies.  This includes consideration of things as diverse as oil drilling off the coast of California and the North Slope of Alaska, building LNG and CNG terminals to make use of a cheap, low polluting fuel and restarting our civilian nuclear power program.  Regardless of the the ultimate solution to the upcoming problems, we will need sources of energy to enable us to cope with them.  Nuclear power in particular should appeal, it really doesn’t generate any green house gases.  Just ask the French, their nuclear power program has been working quietly and well for decades.  I see no reason that we can’t do at least as well as they do.

    We could discuss at length the validity of various sources of information, but I think that best for another day.  I’ve got a red headed girlfriend and I’m late for our date.

    Oh yes, insult me again and I won’t bother with a civilized response, but I’m hoping you can still learn some manners.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   06/22/2007  at  11:28 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Sicko-mentory

Previous entry: Pest Control

<< BMEWS Main Page >>