Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Look, even President Bush is starting to believe that something must be done on the issue of carbon expenditure.

Does it really matter?

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Even if it doesn't make sense from an ecological point of view, it still makes sense from a national security point of view.

If your energy source comes from inside your own country, you help minimise the ability of other countries to hinder your economy by rising the prices for your fuel.

Look, even President Bush is starting to believe that something must be done on the issue of carbon expenditure.

Does it really matter?

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Even if it doesn't make sense from an ecological point of view, it still makes sense from a national security point of view.

If your energy source comes from inside your own country, you help minimise the ability of other countries to hinder your economy by rising the prices for your fuel.

Look, even President Bush is starting to believe that something must be done on the issue of carbon expenditure.

Does it really matter?

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Even if it doesn't make sense from an ecological point of view, it still makes sense from a national security point of view.

If your energy source comes from inside your own country, you help minimise the ability of other countries to hinder your economy by rising the prices for your fuel.

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Look, even President Bush is starting to believe that something must be done on the issue of carbon expenditure.

Does it really matter?

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Even if it doesn't make sense from an ecological point of view, it still makes sense from a national security point of view.

If your energy source comes from inside your own country, you help minimise the ability of other countries to hinder your economy by rising the prices for your fuel.

Look, even President Bush is starting to believe that something must be done on the issue of carbon expenditure.

Does it really matter?

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Even if it doesn't make sense from an ecological point of view, it still makes sense from a national security point of view.

If your energy source comes from inside your own country, you help minimise the ability of other countries to hinder your economy by rising the prices for your fuel.

Look, even President Bush is starting to believe that something must be done on the issue of carbon expenditure.

Does it really matter?

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Even if it doesn't make sense from an ecological point of view, it still makes sense from a national security point of view.

If your energy source comes from inside your own country, you help minimise the ability of other countries to hinder your economy by rising the prices for your fuel.

Foxfyre wrote:

Just as a casual observation, why is it that the Kyoto Accord proponents are so willing to accept whatever the US government says in favor of global warmng while condemning or calling the US government corrupt or morally bankrupt or incompetent or some other unattractive adjective on every other front?

Foxy, I could have presented all kinds of sources that say that global warming is happening. I could have posted data from the IPCC. Then I would have been accused of only using non-US sources.

Now I have only used US government sources, and you critizise me for using their data.

Therefore, I have proposition: You decide what sources shall be used! US government sources? Or rather data from international bodies or organizations? Or sources from a specific country other than the US?

And another question: When I quote US government organizations and their results - that global warming is indeed happening - and you critizise me using that data, does that mean that you don't believe them?

I posted a very good article, I thought, from a British publication giving some very good scientific evidence from British scientists that supported my concerns on this issue. It was ignored by all but one who is already on my side of the issue.

Foxfyre wrote:

I posted a very good article, I thought, from a British publication giving some very good scientific evidence from British scientists that supported my concerns on this issue. It was ignored by all but one who is already on my side of the issue.

Sir David King, the British Government's chief scientific adviser, has even warned that global warming may be responsible for the devastation reaped by Hurricane Katrina.

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report

... The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show ...

Labelling a government bureaucracy a "Royal Commission" does not make it anything other than a bureaucracy; just as putting a medieval title in front of the name of a bureaucrat doesn't make him anything other than a bureaucrat. Of course he defends the interests of his department. That is what such tiresome creatures do.