Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Global warming ? maybe, maybe not. . .
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Aug 19 15:50:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166150,00.html


 
addi Posted: Fri Aug 19 16:06:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  so i ask you why even take a chance? All the pollutants we're spewing forth in the atmosphere may or may not be be directly impacting earths temperature, but to go ahead and keep doing it with our fingers crossed that it doesn't effect our temperatures seems extremely assinine and "irresponsible" to me.
What we do know is that it affects our environment in so many other negative ways (outside of the global warming debate) that it's still imperative to lessen the amount of shit we're putting up there.
Acid rain, carbon monoxide, mercury, sulfates...all this stuff is having a negative effect on our land, water, and with human resperatory related illnesses.
All the major environmental groups give this president either poor to failing grades on his environmental policies. Killing soldiers and citizens isn't enough for him apparantly, he has to include our environment as well.

Fox news sucks as a source of reliable information. Bush just plain sucks.

*nice to have you back hif.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Aug 19 16:16:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>so i ask you why even take a chance? All the pollutants we're spewing forth in the atmosphere may or may not be be directly impacting earths temperature, but to go ahead and keep doing it with our fingers crossed that it doesn't effect our temperatures seems extremely assinine and "irresponsible" to me.
>What we do know is that it affects our environment in so many other negative ways (outside of the global warming debate) that it's still imperative to lessen the amount of shit we're putting up there.
>
I don't think anyone would disagree with you there, but then again, we have made great advances in the last few decades. Our rivers are cleaner, and there is more reforestation than just a couple of decades ago. Factories are polluting less than they used to.
>Acid rain, carbon monoxide, mercury, sulfates...all this stuff is having a negative effect on our land, water, and with human resperatory related illnesses.
>What are you talking about ? A little mercury never hurt anyone.
Respiratory illnesses ?
Lets talk about the tobacco lobby.
>All the major environmental groups give this president either poor to failing grades on his environmental policies. Killing soldiers and citizens isn't enough for him apparantly, he has to include our environment as well.
>
Major environmental groups ? What does that term mean ?
Can you name one that would give a republican president a fair shake? just one ? I doubt it.
Dubya has spent more federal dollars on the environment than any other president, and no one cares because he's a republican.
>Fox news sucks as a source of reliable information. Bush just plain sucks.
>
I suppose you would rather have Mr. Rather ? Mr. credibility himself.
>*nice to have you back hif.
>
You don't love me, you never loved me !


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Aug 19 16:45:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Thought you might find this interesting since you say Dubya's record on the environment sucks.
This from an article 3yrs ago.

GRAHAM'S IMAGINARY ROLLBACKS
by Gregg Easterbrook

Candidate: Bob Graham
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: D

I winced when George W. Bush made his silly statement that Democrats don't care about national security, and I wince whenever I think of the similarly silly statements that Democratic presidential candidates will make about Bush's environmental policies. Bob Graham is first at the pole with this silly op-ed in The Boston Globe. Graham declares that the Bush term has been "defined by environmental rollbacks announced at 5:30 PM on Friday," and that Christine Whitman quit as EPA administrator "after repeatedly losing out to big business, big coal and big oil." These silly statements mean either that Graham has no idea what he's talking about, or that he will say anything for political points. Choose your unattractive alternative.

Many Democrats, editorialists, and pundits have been slamming Bush over supposed "rollbacks." This is easy to claim because voters are conditioned to believe it, just as they are conditioned to believe that Democrats are soft on national security. But the fact that voters are conditioned to believe a charge does not make it true, or politically fair.

Most politicians who cry "rollback" don't have any examples, because this supposed sweeping phenomenon is not happening; Congress has not altered environmental law under Bush 43, and administration decisions in matters such as the "new source review" issue on power plants will, in the worst case, simply slow the rate at which pollution declines. What "rollbacks" does Graham cite? One is relaxing Clinton's proposed ban of snowmobiles in Yellowstone--a rollback, but minor. Another is "delaying needed action to reduce the impact of global warming." Action is needed, but nothing has been "rolled back," since there was no law or binding policy about greenhouse gases under Clinton, either.

The third cited "rollback" Graham claims is "undermining the cleanup of America's lakes, rivers and estuaries." Huh? All forms of water pollution have been declining on a pretty much linear basis for 30 years. Thirty years ago, one-third of America water bodies met the Clean Water Act standard of safe for fishing; today two-thirds do, and the proportion continues to rise. Boston Harbor, the Potomac River, Puget Sound, and many other water bodies have made spectacular recoveries. Whitman did delay implementation of a complex new water-pollution standard called "TMDL." But she delayed it on advice from the National Academy of Sciences, which had been asked to study the rule by Clinton. Hers was hardly a cavalier decision.

As for "repeatedly losing out to big business, big coal and big oil," here is where Graham joins many pundits and enviros in using the Big Lie. The two-year Bush administration has made three spectacular pro-environmental decisions, and all over the howls of big interest groups. Just after taking office, Bush ordered that diesel fuel--studies show diesel fumes contribute to urban asthma and to premature deaths of the elderly--be reformulated to reduce its inherent pollutant content. This was the most important environmental advance since the 1991 Clean Air Act amendments ordered gasoline similarly reformulated, and came over the howls of the petroleum lobby.

Then Bush ordered that new diesel engines for trucks and buses meet significantly higher environmental standards. This decision came over the howls of the trucking business and of Speaker Dennis Hastert, the most important Republican in the House, in whose district sits the largest diesel-engine manufacturing plant in the nation. Later Bush ordered that "off-road" engines--the motors of lawnmowers, snowmobiles, boats, and construction equipment--be regulated for air emissions for the first time. Gasoline-powered lawnmowers today emit about 100 times as much smog-forming emissions, per hour of operation, as a new car. Regulating off-road engines is great news; it happened over the howls of the boating, snowmobile, ATV, and construction-equipment industries.

Taken together, Bush's three pro-environmental decisions will cause the next round of progress toward clean air. Have you heard of any of them? Of course not. The media (especially Howell Raines's truth-optional New York Times) resolutely pretend these decisions do not exist. Democrats and enviro lobbyists have learned they can make hay by pretending these decisions do not exist. Graham's environmental policy seems based on such pretending. Which other contenders will join in this prevarication?




 
addi Posted: Fri Aug 19 16:59:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You don't love me, you never loved me !

: )
Sure I do, hif. As beetlebum once said, you're the yin to my yang.

Hope that didn't sound too sexual.


*off to margaritaville. Will respond to your post later


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]