ANWR drilling

[shuksan]

I took this thread as an excuse to educate myself about global warming research, and to play devil's advocate for MtnGoat and Fairweather's position, as they seem pretty well outnumbered here.

 

from AlpineK:

So bring it on. Lets see either you or Fairweather come up with data that backs your claims. Remember all good scientists submit their work for review by thier peers, so your info should come from a scientific journal not some lone scientist out prove everyone wrong.

 

and again, from j_b:

 

I don't mean to be impatient (well, just a little) but since MtnGoat is fond of the concepts behind the scientific method: we are still waiting for the supporting evidence for the comments he made against the IPCC report.

 

Let's look at exactly what evidence has been presented in this thread in favor of the global warming hypothesis, and why it ought to be accepted:

 

(j_b again)

MtnGoat: "The temperature increase is not seen by satellites which measure troposphere (lower air layer) temperatures which have been operational for a while now."

 

not according to the 2001 IPCC report:

"Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, both satellite and weather balloon measurements show that the global average temperature of the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere has changed by +0.05 ±0.10°C per decade, but the global average surface temperature has increased significantly by + 0.15 ±0.05°C per decade."

 

MtnGoat: "Further, this increase measured by ground stations has data problems not usually discussed. Heat island effects of changing local environments may not be adequately controlled for, as is the decreasing number of stations and the way stations are grouped into larger measurement blocks."

 

not according to the 2001 IPCC report:

"Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ±0.2°C 5,6 (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects."

 

MtnGoat: "The idea that we have a set perfect temperature at some recent point in the past is as anthro centered as the idea that we are causing warming."

 

not according to the IPCC report:

"The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified"

 

j_b, I believe you got your quotes above from the "Summary for Policymakers" (SPM) of the 2001 report. Examining the preface to the SPM, it says "Based on a draft prepared by:...." with the names of lots of authors, with no affiliations. The SPM is a product written by diplomats, who are in no way bound by or a part of the peer review/scientific journal process that AlpineK refers to. There have even been allegations that the "Technical Summary" section of previous IPCC reports (which should be subject to peer review) have been doctored to conform to the desires of diplomats writing the SPM. A survey of IPCC member scientists showed that 40% disagreed with the report's conclusions, while 60% did not believe the models used accurately simulated the environment (see http://www.colby.edu/sci.tech/controversy/pages/ipcc_controversy.htm).

 

So, j_b and AlpineK, I say show me the SCIENCE! (journal cites, please).

[shuksan]

I took this thread as an excuse to educate myself about global warming research, and to play devil's advocate for MtnGoat and Fairweather's position, as they seem pretty well outnumbered here.

 

Now, for evidence that supports some of MtnGoat's points.

 

There are two main models used to draw many of the conclusions reached by the IPCC and also by the National Academy of Sciences report to Bush, as well as the recent EPA report. These are the Hadley model and the Canadian model. They both agree that the earth will get warmer, but have wildly differing regional predictions. They also both fail in trying to simulate the past record of temperature and precipitation, predicting higher present day temperatures than actual, as well as predicting that present day Colorado has a wetter climate than Louisiana. The following two links provide more detail on this, including graphics and some insight into how the disagreement of the models has been "swept under the rug" in the IPCC report.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-062802B

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-032602A

(To assuage the inevitable worries from AlpineK, Dr. Willie Soon, author of the second piece, is with the Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, not Texaco!)

 

A more academically pure reference to the above points is: "A Comparison of Simulations of Current Climate from Two Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Global Climate Models Against Observations and Evaluation of their Future Climates", (Report to the National Institute for Global Environmental Change),Ruth Doherty and Linda O. Mearns ( http://www.esig.ucar.edu/doherty/figures.html ) NIGEC is a nonpartisan U.S. government organization. Doherty is with the National Center for Atmospherics Research in Boulder, CO. Some idea of the degree of trust the authors put in the models can be gained from this quote from the paper: "It should be noted that the future climates simulated by these models are in no way to be considered predictions or forecasts of the future. They are scenarios of the future and thus inherently uncertain."

 

There are many skeptics of global warming (see the previous links in more detail). A good link to one of them is

 

http://www.senate.gov/~epw/Legates_031302.pdf.

 

This is the testimony to congress of Dr. David R. Legates, head of the Center for Climatic Research at University of Delaware and, among other things, an associate editor of the journal Climate Research. His testimony is clear and easy to understand. It also brings up the very points argued by MtnGoat, along with a few other points. For example, while the last century saw pronounced warming occur, the bulk of the warming was earlier in the century before most of the increase in CO2 levels occurred; when CO2 levels increased the most, towards the end of the century, there was little warming. At the end of the document are summaries of his research funding (all from the US gov't for his global warming research; other sources are agricultural groups), and an exhaustive list of citations from his journal articles. If you want the actual cites, you'll have to go to the link. He has published in Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Climatic Change, Geographical Review, and Global and Planetary Change.

[Poseur]

Muir on Saturday.

 

[Zenolith]

Here is a link to data from many sources. The last graph may be the most telling and it is a compilation of other data from the same web page. The web page is maintained by Dr. Greg Bothun. His credentials speak for themselves.

 

These data are a bit confusing if you don't know what you're looking at and/or if you don't check the units.

 

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2002/es399/l3.html

 

If you look at the graph called "Global Stratopheric T anomalies" you'll see why looking back at the T record for too short a time is inadequate.

 

Looking at the graph "Historical...Vostok Ice Core" you'll see a mass of red at T=0.

 

Look especially at "Global Atmospheric Methane...". This will be a bigger problem in the future. Methane is 25X more absorbtive of radiation than CO2. You'll notice that two of the major food sources for the 6 billion planeteers (rice in the east and beef in the west) are the greatest causes for the rise in atmospheric methane.

 

In my opinion fossil fuels use is a giant problem but methane may be a bigger one soon.

[j_b]

to Shuksan:

 

I find it interesting that you compare future earth climate to navigating a glacier under lots of rockfall (there is something to be very concerned about after all?). Now if you also consider that an overwhelming majority of research scientists say you are responsible for much of the rockfall, I am sure you'll change something about your methods of travel.

[j_b]

Shuksan: "I took this thread as an excuse to educate myself about global warming research, and to play devil's advocate for MtnGoat and Fairweather's position, as

 

<snip>

 

"devil's advocate"? Well, I hope it does not mean you think you appear as an impartial observer. You claim to educate yourself and here you are, already smearing the IPCC process.

 

"The task of the Intergovernmental Panel is to assess the scientific and technical information about climate change in a comprehensive, transparent, and objective manner. The reports of the Panel are made possible through the cooperation of the scientific community around the world. Hundreds of scientific and technical experts were involved in preparing the Panel's 2001 report, and literally thousands more were engaged to provide objective peer review. The participants were drawn from academia, from private and national research laboratories, from industry and from non-governmental organizations. The Panel makes a concerted effort to include the broadest possible range of valid scientific opinion. Indeed, the credibility of the Panel in the eyes of both governments and the scientific community rests on its commitment to providing the most up-to-date, balanced scientific information that truly reflects the state of human understanding of climate change science."

 

i.e. whether it makes you happy or not, the report is the basic reference that summarizes what we know about climate change. If you have any disagreement about specific points you'll have to provide the supporting evidence. Critics of the IPCC process are an extremist minority that has yet to show it is credible. It is often heard that global warming skeptics produce little science being quite busy criticizing (with little basis) that of others.

 

As to the piece found at the link you provided: the people mentioned have little credibility with respect to the IPCC process.

 

Fred Singer and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP):

"Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP's stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone.

Funded by conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon's Unification Church, including receipt of a year's free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP's director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine."

 

Global Climate Coalition:

"Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP's lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when Daimler Chrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change."

 

Isn't it funny when the same ghosts follow the critics of IPCC: global warming hypothesis critics are apologists for big business and/or conservative politics. The same names, organizations appear over and over and over. And you still expect us to believe your intervention here is to play the "devil's advocate"? I'd say it is at least an interesting coincidence.There is a reason MtnGoat and Fairweather are in a minority position: their position is just not tenable in the face of the evidence presented by climate scientists. Quit obfuscating the issue by smearing the IPCC and address fundamental observations if you have any pretense at wanting to discuss the science.

 

For reference: http://www.ucsusa.org/

[j_b]

Climate scientists don't formulate basic opinions about climate warming and our role in it, based on numerical model results. Elementary current understanding of global warming rests squarely on fundamental observations such as trends in levels of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature. But since you want to talk about models, let's have one of the major player in the field talk about models and their use. It is a little long but well worth it.

 

Climate models and their uses according to Richard Somerville (climate modeler at Scripps):

"In a way, a model is an incorporation of our best current knowledge about the climate system. And, so, you might think that an ultimate goal of this science would be to produce a completely realistic model. At that point, we will have essentially completely understood the climate system. We'll make weather forecasts as accurate as they can possible be, and so on. That goal's a long way off. That's not reason to regard present day models as useless, or to hold them in contempt. In a similar way, you might say that the goal of medical science is to cure all disease. And the fact that that's not yet been done doesn't mean you should treat your physician with disdain.

Models can do a lot. As I said, the foundation of climate models is the atmospheric model that we use in the daily weather forecast. And although meteorologists have thick skins because their predictions are sometimes wrong, and nobody ever forgets it when they are, nonetheless, weather forecasts are pretty good. They're a lot better than they were only a decade or two ago. And as the same physics that's in the weather models gets incorporated into the climate models, the success of the weather models gives us reason to, in part, trust the climate models. Their veracity and their reliability is higher because, although we can't yet wait a century to see what happens as the greenhouse effect strengthens, we've seen successes on shorter time scales--not just the daily weather forecast but predictions of El Niño, for example, which are also made with coupled ocean-atmosphere models. The ability to simulate variations in the seasons, the fact that not all summers or winters in a given part of the world are alike, is another example where we have partial success.

So the trick, I think, in climate models is to interpret them wisely, to have a feel for what parts of the model are trustworthy and what parts of the model are shaky, and, therefore, to be able to use the model results as guides to policy and really guides simply as to what to expect as climate evolves over coming decades.

I suppose the quarrel that mainstream atmospheric scientists like myself have with the people who've come to be called skeptics --the ones who essentially pooh-pooh the prospect of man-induced climate change--is that although there are uncertainties in the models--nobody knows this better, in fact, than the people who work on the models all day, every day, none of whom are the skeptics--although the models have their imperfections, it seems to me it's unlikely that every imperfection in the model is going to be one that makes the model more sensitive to greenhouse gases rather than less.

If I were skeptical about models, it seems to me a reasonable position would be: Well, climate change is going to occur, and changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere is going to affect climate; the models can't predict it perfectly; but that, to me, means that climate change might be either less severe or more severe than the models, and the models give you, at any moment, you might say, a mainstream estimate--our best guess of what the climate's going to do in the future."

 

And,

 

"There's a difficulty in reproducing the past, which is that we don't know where to start things off. We don't have measurements of what the whole climate system was doing in 1890 or 1912. And so that keeps you from replicating the climate of the twentieth century perfectly. And there are other theoretical reasons for thinking you might not be able to replicate it perfectly, even if you had a good knowledge of the initial state.

For example, you don't know with perfection how all the forcings varied during the twentieth century, which volcanoes went off, and how much of what kind of matter they put where, and how the sun varied. Nonetheless, these models are able to reproduce, in broad outline, the climate of the twentieth century. That is to say, if you start them off at a reasonable guess of what things were like 100 years ago, and put in reasonable estimates of these forcings, you can produce something like the climate of the present time.

There are many other examples of partial verification. A good one is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. These very same kinds of models were used to predict that we would see a global cooling in the neighborhood of one degree Celsius, and that it would last in the neighborhood of a couple of years. And that prediction was made before the climate changed, but indeed a climate change very much like that was observed.

So there are lots of means by which we can gain confidence in the models and, at the same time, learn about the aspects of the models that still need improvement. So neither I nor any other climate modeler would accept a blanket statement that says, "Models are useless, they can't reproduce the past, and we can't trust them for the future." That's just not true."

 

And,

 

"Even if you had a perfect model, and even if you had a very good estimate of what the climate was like at the beginning of the period of interest--say, 1900--then in order to simulate the evolution of the climate over the past 100 years, you'd still need to know some things that we don't know well and may never know well, which include how the sun has varied over that time, and the production of aerosols in the atmosphere--both natural aerosols, such as from dust or volcanoes, and manmade aerosols, such as sulfates from industrial products. You'd still need all of those forcings that we have reason to think can influence the climate over decadal time scales.

And lacking that, there's a limit to how well you could even hope to predict the climate. We're still learning what that limit is. That is, it's still an object of active research to go back and say: Well, if we think the climate did this over the last century, and if a model says it did that, how far apart can this and that be for us still to trust the model? That's still active research.

But the basic concept is important to keep in mind, which is that we don't know the predictability of climate perfectly. That is, climate, like weather, can surely vary naturally on its own, independently of forcings. So you could imagine a climate system in which the sun were absolutely constant, there were no changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere or the surface of the earth, and that climate might still vary. And it might vary in an essentially random and unknowable manner.

But quite aside from that, the part of the climate that's predictable potentially, if we knew the initial state and the forcings well enough, is still imperfectly predictable if we have errors in the initial state and the forcings, quite apart from errors in the models. So there's a whole slew of reasons why we can't expect to "hindcast" the climate of the recent past perfectly. "

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/somerville.html

[AlpineK]

Here's an organization I think Fairweather, MtnGoat, and Shuksan should join asap.

 

Society

[jules]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shuksan:

So, j_b and AlpineK, I say show me the SCIENCE! (journal cites, please).

---

shuksan,

Who cares.... medicine is an art, somewhat a science... climbing is an art, somewhat a sport.... recent question I had in an interview: describe a recent situation in which your intuition combined with your expertise solved a problem. Gosh, why would anyone want to bother knowing if my intuition was functioning????

 

I just have a FEELING... don't drill in ANWR. As a matter of fact, everyone should get the f**k out of there and stop destroying the tundra and taiga by traipsing around doing these g-damned studies. EVERY footstep undoes thousands of years of development. I don't give a crap about fuel, it's the RIGHT THING TO DO.

 

Oh, yeah, it was the topic of my team term paper in Environmental Management at UW. Don't touch it. Period. Go with your intuition and trust me.

 

[ 07-22-2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: jules ]

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlpineK:

Here's an organization I think Fairweather, MtnGoat, and Shuksan should join asap.

 

Society

---

Alpine-"A Beacon in the Smog"-K,

 

Both Shuksan and j-b have made persuasive arguments,(which is more than you--or I have done) but once again you hear what you want, and so do I. I feel this debate only demonstrates the inconclusivity of the subject. Shall our nation now break the bank on debatable science? I've heard estimates as high as 1 trillion dollars to implement Kyoto. What other environmental programs would we sacrifice to pay this?? Would a nation broken by economic depression put environmental protection aside completely? Absolutely.

 

Medium-term, I believe it may be of economic benefit for the USA to start making the conversion to non oil based energy. We could lead the world and reap the rewards both economically and environmentally. (I've never denied that our cars pollute!) So, where shall we start? Solar?... How will we store it? In lead/acid/cadmium/lithium/ batteries that will inevitably end up in our landfills/water? Wind power? ...not! Fusion?....Not even close yet. You have an answer Alpine-"a beacon in the smog"-K? ...or are you just j_b's lap dog tonight?

 

[ 07-22-2002, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[AlpineK]

I don't feel I need to say anything after JB shut you guys down. After all he does research in the field

 

As to an answer:

 

Biodiesel is available today. Trucks could be releasing 75% less co2 right now. Obviously production of the fuel needs to increase if everybody starts using it. I use the stuff in my chipper, and when I buy a new chip truck it will be fueled with biodiesel.

 

The cost of wind power has dropped dramatically. The US is reported to be the Saudi Arabia of wind power. Wind doesn't work well for changing demands of consumers, however if you store wind energy as hydrogen you can meet consumer demands.

 

The government got a man to the moon in less than 10 years. There is no reason why we shouldn't be dumping money into developing cheap fuel cells. Perhaps we should shift the money from Star Wars research.

 

How can the government help? Well tax cuts of course (a republican favorite). Lower road taxes for biodiesel (right now you pay about 50 cents/gal) Give income tax credits to consumers who buy cars above the fleet average mpg, or use alternative fuels. Tax credits to power companies that start generating, "green," power.

 

The government does some of these things now, but all the tax credits and programs shoud be increased.

 

Finally you conservative types should stop wasting your time trying to disprove climate change theory and start figuring out how to make money off new power sources.

 

Fairweather, I should point out that in a PM exchange we had a while ago I told you I wasn't in favor of the Kyoto plan, and I suggested some of the above solutions. I guess you have a shitty memory.

 

You sound kind of grumpy Fairweather. News from Cali got you down?

 

You know I bet you would feel much better with a nice new hybrid car, or if you've got to haul a bunch of stuff why not get yourself a big old diesel rig and fuel it with biodiesel.

 

[ 07-22-2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: AlpineK ]

[Fairweather]

News from Cali? Please enlighten me.

[Fairweather]

.......oh; California. (I thought you were talking about your FARC buddies down in Columbia)

 

I haven't read much about what the new CA vehicle emmission restrictions mean so I won't go off half-cocked just yet. I AM a big supporter of state's rights though.

[j_b]

"After all he does research in the field"

 

I apologize if I gave the impression this was the case but I only do research in a closely related field.

[j_b]

"Shall our nation now break the bank on debatable science?"

 

well, hopefully all science is debatable. Research is a constant process and there exist few certainties. Climate research is no different than any other field in this respect, and this include scientific theories that we successfully use in our everyday lives.

 

"I've heard estimates as high as 1 trillion dollars to implement Kyoto. What other environmental programs would we sacrifice to pay this?? Would a nation broken by economic depression put environmental protection aside completely? Absolutely."

 

what are the real costs of using petroleum energy? what costs will we incur if the effects of climate warming are anywhere close to those predicted?

[Dru]

if we diverted the energy we now use to spray to postive goals who knows what miracles might become possible.... but it wouldn't be as much fun

[KeithKSchultz]

Here are some facts. In the early sixties the Desplaines river (near Chicago) used to catch fire and burn out of control for days. In the early sixties Lake Michigan was dead. Every fish in the entire lake died in a matter of a few days. There were dunes of dead fish on the shore around Chicago. The stench was unbearable from miles away. That is what will happen again to any place we let profit motivated corporations have their way in. The latest technology in drilling for oil in Alaska uses Beryllium as a lubricant for the bits. It is pumped into the holes in large quantities and comes back out in large quantities to be piled in waste dumps near the drilling site. Beryllium is a highly toxic heavy metal that somehow escaped being labeled as a toxic substance by the EPA during the Reagan administration. Golly, more republican science? So now it can and is dumped where ever it seems handy. I do not need a scientist to anylize the details to know that there was nothing alive for fifty yards from the piles I saw. Go see it for yourself and then if you still think we should drill in the largest calving ground in the word for numerous species, give yourself a Beryllium enima.

[Poseur]

Let me try an understand your statement. If we drill for oil in Alaska the rivers in the midwest are goiong to catch fire and the fish in Lake Michigan are going to die? With all due respect, this sounds more like the typical hysterical scare tactics mainstream enviro organizations use to get people to send them some money so they can pay themselves and liberal politicans to fulfill their responsibilities as Democratic Party lapdogs. If enviros were serious about protecting the environment they wouldn't coward away from the primary cause and motivation for acts that have an impact on the environment - POPULATION! Until that root cause of all environmental impacts can be addressed maturely, rather than demagogued, I'm afraid the "natural" environment doesn't stand much of a chance over the long run.

 

Too bad the Clinton Administration never tried to plug that beryllium loophole as part of its environmental program. Maybe he should get the enema? Me, I'll just take the oil thank you.

[Bug]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poseur:

Let me try an understand your statement. If we drill for oil in Alaska the rivers in the midwest are goiong to catch fire and the fish in Lake Michigan are going to die? With all due respect, this sounds more like the typical hysterical scare tactics mainstream enviro organizations use to get people to send them some money so they can pay themselves and liberal politicans to fulfill their responsibilities as Democratic Party lapdogs. If enviros were serious about protecting the environment they wouldn't coward away from the primary cause and motivation for acts that have an impact on the environment - POPULATION! Until that root cause of all environmental impacts can be addressed maturely, rather than demagogued, I'm afraid the "natural" environment doesn't stand much of a chance over the long run.

 

Too bad the Clinton Administration never tried to plug that beryllium loophole as part of its environmental program. Maybe he should get the enema? Me, I'll just take the oil thank you.

---

Let me try an understand your statement. You can't read?

What I read was: "That is what will happen again to any place we let profit motivated corporations have their way in." While Billy does diserve the enima, and overpopulation is clearly root of these problems, you seem to need some practice with reading comprehension. Your arguement smacks of what you accused KeithKSchultz of doing.

[Fairweather]

Careful Poseur!

 

One step or thought that differs from the Official Environmentalist Hysteria Playbook and you'll be labeled "enemy of the environment".

 

Curious that this hysteria was mostly absent during the Clinton years. Oh, that's right....he signed the 10ppm arsenic-in-the-water order!.....just a couple days before he left office. Wow! What political courage Mr Bill had. Bush Sr. at least signed The Clean Air Act. What was it WJClinton did for the environment again?

[Alpine_Tom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Shall our nation now break the bank on debatable science? I've heard estimates as high as 1 trillion dollars to implement Kyoto.

---

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that implementing the Kyoto protocols will SAVE money.

There are all sort of ways this happens: if you reduce fuel consumption to reduce emissions, you also save the cost of the fuel, and reduce demand, which further reduces the cost (if you are a believer is supply & demand.)

Increased global temperatures are leading to tropical diseases like malaria moving northward, causing increases in medical costs.

 

I guess, in accordance with the bizarre new fact-based mode of arguement that this thread is peretrating, I should provide some links and other documentation for my claims, but I'm at work and am (annoyingly) pretty busy today.

[texplorer]

Why can't we just let this topic die.

[MtnGoat]

Oh this thread will not die yet, I'm working on some of the claims made in previous posts, just don't have time to get it done quickly...

 

but still...

 

"There is plenty of evidence to suggest that implementing the Kyoto protocols will SAVE money.

There are all sort of ways this happens: if you reduce fuel consumption to reduce emissions, you also save the cost of the fuel, and reduce demand, which further reduces the cost (if you are a believer is supply & demand.)"

 

I surely am, but it all begs the question, is the money "saved", more or less than the trillion it costs to "save" this money?

 

Additionally, since even Kyoto supporters admit Kyoto will only *delay* a temperature rise by a few fractions of a degree C for less than a decade, is this really cost effective and the best use of all that money?

[klar404]

quote:

---

It's all a bunch of tree huggin' hippie crap!

---

Eric Cartman

[Poseur]

Well, since the thread is still alive...

 

quote:

---

Let me try an understand your statement. You can't read?

What I read was: "That is what will happen again to any place we let profit motivated corporations have their way in." While Billy does diserve the enima, and overpopulation is clearly root of these problems, you seem to need some practice with reading comprehension. Your arguement smacks of what you accused KeithKSchultz of doing.

---

Yes Bug, I can read, can you? Just because a river in the midwest caught on fire and fish died in a midwest lake 30 YEARS AGO does not mean all corporations will kill fish or pollute a river. Do you really believe that ALL corporations will do this? There are many corporations that do not produce any pollutants - accounting, law firms, etc., and many others that manage their waste responsibly. To throw out two old incidences to smear an entire group within in society is BS. There are a multitude of corpoations that have been in business during the last 30 years and no rivers have caught on fire and no lakes have spit out its fish on the shoreline. If you are against drilling in ANWR - fine, I can respect, but hysterical and obviously transparent BS scare tactics does a diservice to legitimate efforts to protect the environment - the ol cry wolf story....

 

Ol Billy would probably enjoy that enema a little too much.

 

 

[ 07-31-2002, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Poseur ]