Bush speaks for you - gass the world.

[Technosoul]

In latest newsstory at Yahoo

U.S. opposes fixing greenhouse gas cuts at G8 - Yahoo! News

President Bush said the Untied States will not back any treaty that sets a standard for greenhouse "carbon" emmisions (as proposed by Germany and others).

You, the people of the United States thinks it is okay to cause global warming and to threaten everyone with the potential for getting cancer.
According to President Bush.

Okay you all, how come you voted to not support this important environmental plan? How come the Polls show that you all do not care about global warming or the bad side effects of carbon gasses coming from our tailpipes? Is it because you did not watch Al Gores award winning movie about Global Warming?

And why should Germany complain after they gassed all those people?

Well. They might need more then just a defense shield for missles, they might need one for all the GAS coming from Bush's USA ass.

(hmm, no wonder NBC will not hire me to report the news).

[Praxius]

Yeah I saw a bit of the report today...... just one more thing Bush plans to royally screw up while he's there at the G8..... Then again Harper isn't doing much better with his crap enviromental plan of his.....

[Technosoul]

I accadently misspelled a word in my tilte.

I should be spelled "GA$$".

[Technosoul]

The point of my little re-organized news story is that President Bush is saying that "the United States" does not support some of the ideas about overcoming Global Warming. Instead of letting them know it is just his own private opinon. His dislike for the ideas proposed has nothing to do with what we the voters demanded as a true Democarcy.
I doubt if he even had a poll done to find out ether.

He makes statements as if that is what we want as a collective, when most of us just want him out of office, not out of the country speaking in our name.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Maybe he's worried about real issues like destroying our economy to appease hysterical and easily fooled puppets?

That's what I see, but then, I was only a meteorologist for a living, what do I KNOW about climate and weather?

[Century 25]

The Why Files | 1. Earth science: NASA takes a pass

[Century 25]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Maybe he's worried about real issues like destroying our economy to appease hysterical and easily fooled puppets? That's what I see, but then, I was only a meteorologist for a living, what do I KNOW about climate and weather?

Bush.. lol.. he is a puppet..

How long ago were you a meteorologist..?? .. For a living.. that is..?

[Mr.Vicchio]

10 years, only got out of that because I wanted to be near my kids.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Maybe he's worried about real issues like destroying our economy to appease hysterical and easily fooled puppets? That's what I see, but then, I was only a meteorologist for a living, what do I KNOW about climate and weather?

I know a lot and you can find out what by reading some of the topics about global warming where debates were aleady conducted.

I know that I do not need a Meterorogist to know which way the wind is blowing.

You are right, Bush cares about the economics of the oil industry. No one is getting hysterical - they are getting logical,

[Technosoul]

Weather forecasters are not always right. Or did you work for a major global research firm?

[Mr.Vicchio]

I worked for the US NAVY :)

AG2(AW) Mr. Vicchio

And for the record, you're RIGHT! Never trust a forecast that's more then three days out. They just aren't accurate, far too many variables. Which leads me to wonder why people trust 100 YEAR prognostications?


Boggles the mind that. A ten day forecast is often dead wrong, but we're gonna listen to people telling us what it will be like in 100 years...

[Century 25]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I worked for the US NAVY :) AG2(AW) Mr. Vicchio And for the record, you're RIGHT! Never trust a forecast that's more then three days out. They just aren't accurate, far too many variables. Which leads me to wonder why people trust 100 YEAR prognostications? Boggles the mind that. A ten day forecast is often dead wrong, but we're gonna listen to people telling us what it will be like in 100 years...

Using the Cray XT3/4 Supercomputers.. 10 day forecasts are getting more & more accurate.. 3-5 day 'casts are really very good.. almost spot-on.. Of course.. pinpointing tornado or other localized storm cells is not going to be possible.. they can form out of transient conditions.. but the conditions for them certainly are predictable.

However.. you cannot compare weather forecasts with climate trends.. as much you would like to.. it's apples & oranges..

Long term trends are within our grasp. It is special interest groups that attempt to hide the facts.. due to their profit-minded vision..

[dilligras]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I worked for the US NAVY :) AG2(AW) Mr. Vicchio

Hmmm, me too.......T-AGS-21.....but not as a weatherman, just an ETN (SINS tech).

Quote by: Technosoul I know a lot and you can find out what by reading some of the topics about global warming where debates were aleady conducted.

My, my, Is that how you conduct all your research? I read a few of the debates, even participated in some........somehow, I don't feel as knowledgeable now as you say you are......must have been holding my mouth wrong or sumpthin, eh?

I know that I do not need a Meterorogist to know which way the wind is blowing.

Hah! I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole......oh, wait, yes I will........that zephyr that is tickling the hairs in yer nose is caused by the UN Global Warming crowd.........sucking.

You are right, Bush cares about the economics of the oil industry. No one is getting hysterical - they are getting logical,

Of course he does, as does anyone with a lick of sense......after all, we haven't quite got the hydrogen economy working yet, have we?

Maybe some think that $5/gal of gas is something that will benefit our society, given how hard they work to ensure it by refusing to allow more refineries to be built; refusing to allow wind turbine farms because they don't like the view from their beach being obstructed with whirling blades several miles offshore; refusing to allow drilling by anyone not affiliated with a commie dictatorship; refusing to allow ANY nuclear plants to be built.......and all the while pointing the finger at everyone else.

Yeah, THAT works. :rolleyes:


As you were.

[flacidashtrack]

Bush may care of the economics of the oil industry, at the same time as being blind to them too: i mean waging war aginst the country with the second highest reserves and consequently inflating barrel costs to record prices wasn't a bright initiative in my books.
Fact: 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded were in the last decade. Fact: levels of atmospheric CO2 are highest for, at least, 10,000 yr. What is also fact: US and EU cannot have got, nor stay at current development without present, or just less than present energy consumption levels. Fact: this level of energy consumption cannot b sufficed with renewables alone.

In my sceptic view: it will cost us the economy to save us from global warming, or global warming end up costing us the economy. catch 22

[Osborn F Enready]

Cause and effect is the problem here.

The history of global climate change has not been adequately recorded long enough to show the measure of human cause and effect on it through emissions, without also taking into account every other factor we affect, such as deforestation, altering water temperatures through discharges and use, etc.

I have no doubt the global climate warms and cools, I only doubt the hysteria being pushed by those who think we have affected as much as some of the claims made, and by those who think we can actually control it.

Science has its share of extremists too... and the global climate change cause and effect argument is exposing some of them.

[dilligras]

Quote by: flacidashtrack Bush may care of the economics of the oil industry, at the same time as being blind to them too: i mean waging war aginst the country with the second highest reserves and consequently inflating barrel costs to record prices wasn't a bright initiative in my books. Fact: 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded were in the last decade. Fact: levels of atmospheric CO2 are highest for, at least, 10,000 yr. What is also fact: US and EU cannot have got, nor stay at current development without present, or just less than present energy consumption levels. Fact: this level of energy consumption cannot b sufficed with renewables alone. In my sceptic view: it will cost us the economy to save us from global warming, or global warming end up costing us the economy. catch 22

Ah yes, the "fact" based argument.......one of my favorites.

I have a few facts for you, pardner:

Fact: Several other planets in our solar system have been warming lately as well........too many SUV's on Mars?

Fact: The so-called scientists at the UN are known to have altered their data so as to ignore the Medieval Warming Period, because it is inconvenient to their results.

Fact: The "hockey stick" results of their computer modelling is known to be the result obtained no matter what data is input.

Fact: There used to be crops grown in Greenland, back when Eric the Red fooled some folks into settling there......the ruins still remain, from their evacuation due to the post-Medieval cooling of the climate.

Fact: There are records in the French archives in which the vinyards of the day were complaining of the competition from vinyards in England during the Medieval Warming Period.

Fact: Only three decades ago, "scientists" were telling us to get ready for the next ice age.

Fact: CO2 is NOT a pollutant.......it is actually what plants breathe, and in so doing, produce Oxygen for us to breathe.

Fact: CO2 levels have historically gone up AFTER a warming period, not before.

As for your, "sceptic view" (fruedian slip?), the first is not prudent, because the second is not yet proven-- which pretty much makes your "Catch 22" a fig newton of your over-active imagination, does it not?


As you were.

[dilligras]

I ran across this just now at the Annoyed Man dot com:


"Sources and Authorities
Dissidents Against Dogma"
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

(From Counterpunch.com)

Back in the 1970s, as the oil companies engineered a leap in prices, the left correctly identified and stigmatized the the conspiracy. Some thirty five years, here's the entire progressive sector swallowing, with religious fervor, a far more potent concoction of nonsense to buttress a program which will savagely penalize the poor, the third world and the environment. The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists-people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology. Geologists are particularly skeptical. Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, writes to me thus: "A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware). The first of these is that the planet has never been this cool. There is abundant fossil evidence to support this--from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossil in sedimentary rocks of the far north. this is hardly the first warming period in the earth's history. The present global warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much "on schedule." One thing, for sure, is that the environmental community has always spurned any input from geologists (many of whom are employed by the petroleum industry). No environmental conference, such as Kyoto, has ever invited a geologist, a paleontologist, a paleoclimatologist. It would seem beneficial for any scientific investigatory to include such scientific disciplines. "Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon. "There are hundreds of reasons--political, pragmatic and economic, health and environmental--for cleaning up our environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, cleaning up our nuclear program, etc. Global warming is not one of them."

As you were.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: dilligras Hmmm, me too.......T-AGS-21.....but not as a weatherman, just an ETN (SINS tech). My, my, Is that how you conduct all your research? I read a few of the debates, even participated in some........somehow, I don't feel as knowledgeable now as you say you are......must have been holding my mouth wrong or sumpthin, eh? Hah! I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole......oh, wait, yes I will........that zephyr that is tickling the hairs in yer nose is caused by the UN Global Warming crowd.........sucking. Of course he does, as does anyone with a lick of sense......after all, we haven't quite got the hydrogen economy working yet, have we? Maybe some think that $5/gal of gas is something that will benefit our society, given how hard they work to ensure it by refusing to allow more refineries to be built; refusing to allow wind turbine farms because they don't like the view from their beach being obstructed with whirling blades several miles offshore; refusing to allow drilling by anyone not affiliated with a commie dictatorship; refusing to allow ANY nuclear plants to be built.......and all the while pointing the finger at everyone else. Yeah, THAT works. :rolleyes: As you were.

Thanks to Bush none of the economy is working well.

The reason why I noted the deabte forums on global warming is to point to the fact that this was already debated and this post is not about that topic. It is about Bush speaking on our behalf. Why sidetrack this debate with a debate about global warming when we have "been there, done that" all ready. And the posters here did in fact provide links and lots of science data in that forum.

And I don't even need a sins tech to know about my sins. But you seem intent on pointing our my errors anyway.

( hope you know the difference between inserted jokes and the real info?)

My finger is pointed in the right direction. All four fingers in fact. I am pointing them directly at President Bush and his supporters. Blame Bush, shame on Bush. Is someone else in charge? Is someone trying to make international policy in our name? No... it is Bush and no one else.

Attention!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Cause and effect is the problem here. The history of global climate change has not been adequately recorded long enough to show the measure of human cause and effect on it through emissions, without also taking into account every other factor we affect, such as deforestation, altering water temperatures through discharges and use, etc. I have no doubt the global climate warms and cools, I only doubt the hysteria being pushed by those who think we have affected as much as some of the claims made, and by those who think we can actually control it. Science has its share of extremists too... and the global climate change cause and effect argument is exposing some of them.

This was already debated as you know, people presented lots of data and logical reasons to support the claims about global warming.

It has been recorded long enough to see a rapid change relative to use of fosil fuel in great quanties. Fosil fuel for mass trasnportation is a recent event and cannot be noted from prehistoric record keeping even if such was possible. Volcanos represent the only other novel factor in nature that science has studied. Polution of the oceans, the reduction of the rainforest, and the addition of particles from fuel, are all factored into the cause of global warming and all should be reduced. Oh yeah, also sun spots are being studied.

[Slevin57]

On an economic level, It would be a massive undertaking for the United States to meet those deadlines by the specified time. It is not worth it to the United States to risk the future of our country because the EU countries that have been preparing for the proposal they put forth years ahead.

We have no said we are not going to meet those standards we just can't meet that deadline. And that's all there is to that.