Bush can't deny Global Warming Now

[Shama Khan]

America's leading scientists have told President George Bush that global warming is real - and that the burning of fossil fuel is feeding it. (ie. they have just confirmed what the rest of the world has been telling our real smart president - not only that. They have presented the solutions that ask Bush and his business buddies to sacrifice much more than they were asked to do in the first place.)
Read On By clicking this
[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited June 08, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

The problem is that the people who are most likely to suffer if the US reduces fossil fuel use is not Americans but all the third world countries that rely on America for trade and aid.

[Joseph Russell]

I might be wrong but let me get this straight...
From an evolutionists standpoint their used to be an iceage (before humans existed). Chemicals changed (maybe Thomas can elaborate here cause I don't know) and everything warmed up to relatively where it is now.
Why do we assume that the change in temperature has anything to do with us? Also, what's wrong with species dying off? Are we just afraid of change?
I'm really not offering any wisdom. Just questions.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Russell (edited June 08, 2001).]

[Greg Harris]

just as always this article will be followed by an equally convincing article stating just the opposite. i think Joseph has a very good point... why is this necessarily our fault? it just might be part of the evolutionary cycle of the earth. even if you do not believe in the evolution of man (i do not) you have to admit that the earth itself has been through millions of years of changes. i would not be too surprised if it is just time for another drastic change.
this might seem pretty stupid to some people, but i think most of you will get my point: if we weren't supposed to use "fossile fuels" and other natural resources, then why are they here? i believe that everything on this earth is here for a reason, and if we have figured out how to use it to our advantage, then we should use it. if there is another more environmentally friendly resource out there, then i certainly hope we figure out how to use it as well.
as for the reference to Bush... you cannot blame the current state of environmental affairs to him. Clinton had 8 years to do something about it, and i haven't seen one thing. well, except for him changing the "acceptable" CO2 count 3 days before he left office... which Bush had no choice but to change back to a realistic, attainable level. then, of course, the environmentalists attacked him for not caring about the atmosphere... just another slick move by "Slick Willy."
[This message has been edited by Greg Harris (edited June 08, 2001).]

[Shama Khan]

I wish this was not such a political issue.
In terms of why shouldn't we be able to use/burn fossil fuels if it's there for us. Well, if there is a balance then all would be alright. I feel that a lack of balance exists in all aspect of our lives and we'd be a lot better off if we tried to attain a balance of some sorts.
Shama

[Dave Vick]

A while back I read an article in the paper or some scientific journal somewhere that the current warming trend has happened before and that it is relatively cyclic in nature. The same for the hole in the ozone layer. They have found fossil records that go back millions of years that show the hole in the ozone layer has is also cyclic. I am not saying that what we are doing is completely right or that we aren't to blame for anything. The earth/environment is whole lot tougher and resistant to any damage we could do in the couple hundred years. We are not going to destroy the earth or kill all life on the planet. We may make it completly uninhabitable for humans for a few million years but then that's our own fault. Should we reduce polution? Of course we should! Is it as bad as some people say it is? Probably not. Nor, I'm sure, is it as good as some other people say either. I don't go out and hug trees or anything like that, I do try to recycle and conserve energy if I can though. Call me a fence straddler.
Given enough time, data, big words, and a big enough calculator yo can skew almost any data to say anything you want. That goes for both sides of any argument. Unless you're an expert take everything you read with a grain of salt!!
just my $.02
Dave

[Thomas Paul]

Notice from the article that not everything is bad. The article states the growing season in England is getting longer.
I was just reading an article about the wine industry in England. Apparently, prior to the 1300's, England was quite a bit warmer and drier than it is today. Somewhere around the 1300's, the tempertature became cooler and wetter making grape growing more difficult because of shorter growing seasons and fungal growth from the wetter climate. So the question is, are we seeing man-made changes in the weather or is this simply part of the cyclic nature of the weather.

[Andy Ceponis]

I havent read many articles on this topic but i do think that we are contributing to global warming. I am no scientist or anyhting, but just think about it. There are like a few billion cars and trucks in this world. Each of them has motors that give off heat and they produce toxic fumes that rise into the air. All that heat and fumes have to have SOMESORT of effect. And i doubt that it could be good. But since our knowledge of the world is still very limited we might be exaggerating or overlooking certain things.

[Douglas Wolfinger]

The air in Manhattan contains tiny black specs that fly into the windows of apartment dwellers, and settle on the floor and on furniture. Even people in the cleaner neighborhoods notice it in their apartments. It gathers on the inside of bicycle wheels; after a year in that city my wheels were completely black. Was forced to wipe down my box fan every 6 months. Blecch, that stuff can't be good for a person's lungs.
Combination of heating ducts and exhaust fumes, perhaps?

[Joseph Russell]

Is that only in NY? I haven't noticed it here in Washington State. First, I'd want to know where it happens and then from that information deduce why. Vehicles are pretty common in all states so that can't be why or else I'd have tiny black flakes here. Doesn't sound good though.

[Greg Harris]

i have seen the tiny black flecks as well... but that was when i was in the Navy living on the ship. my ship was pretty old, and i just figured they came from a worn-out desiel generator, or the boiler room, or the 24 helicopters on the flight-deck.
one thing i do know is that i certainly noticed a change in my energy level after being off the ship for 6 months! it has been 3 years now, and i guess i have been back to "normal" for quite a while.

[Joseph Russell]

Thought everyone might enjoy actually seeing what Bush said instead of what reporters are telling us.

President Bush
For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.
Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.
This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth.
Kyoto also failed to address two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone. Both are proven health hazards. Reducing both would not only address climate change, but also dramatically improve people's health.
Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it's not sound public policy.
That's why 95 members of the United States Senate expressed a reluctance to endorse such an approach. Yet, America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change.
The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change commences to stabilizing concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate; but no one knows what that level is. The United States has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990 -- three times as much as any other country, and more than Japan and all 15 nations of the EU combined.

I took out quite a bit out of the article. If your interested in reading it click here: http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
Like he said what they wanted us to sign in Kyoto was unrealistic. We should know since we've spent three times more than any other country. So, the real question is: Why isn't anyone complaining about India and China not having to go?
The other lesson of this is always go to the source. Reporters are just going to twist a story to suit their own needs. You can't always believe what they say. It's not just Bush, it's also 95 members of our Senate saying Kyoto was a bad idea.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Russell (edited June 13, 2001).]

[Greg Harris]

thank you, Joseph! i did not want to paste the article in my post, but now that i see your post, it really wasn't that long.
it is too bad that Bush is being slammed by the media so much, but that is just the way it will be for the GOP. i hate to bring this up, but the liberal media love to rip Bush and company to shreds any chance they get... so, when we (the U.S.) did not agree to Kyoto, ALL of the blame was placed on Bush... not the Senate. and, to make it worse, they (the media) did not report ALL of the facts, just that the oil man (George Bush) did not want to sign the agreement.
i better quit before i break something...

[George Brown]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I was just reading an article about the wine industry in England. Apparently, prior to the 1300's, England was quite a bit warmer and drier than it is today. Somewhere around the 1300's, the tempertature became cooler and wetter making grape growing more difficult because of shorter growing seasons and fungal growth from the wetter climate. So the question is, are we seeing man-made changes in the weather or is this simply part of the cyclic nature of the weather.

Is this an reliable source? I'd be interested in knowing what the sources used for this article were since accurate recording of temperatures did not start until several hundreds of years after the 1300's.
You know how wine can give you that 'warm' feeling when you drink it?

[Thomas Paul]

It's not the temperatures but rather the fact that grapes were commonly grown in regions that can no longer support it because the weather is too cool and damp. The Domesday book which was written in the Middle Ages and is basically eyewitness testimony discusses the flourishing wine making industry in England.

[George Brown]

People still do maintain vines and make wine in England but by modern standards of wine quality it sucks (and today is uneconomical to make). But back then in the pre-1300s they had little to compare it to so would most probably have drunk any old gutrot. I'll be willing to bet that it was better than the water that they had available at any rate. The reasons for the industry's gradual demise are likely to have been more due to more recent higher quality french imports from across the english channel than to the weather.
The Domesday book was a large accounting document for taxation purposes anyway, and any eyewitness reports were factual and to do with numbers of horses, cows, sheep, property, and individual's trades, which have little to do with the climate - and what's more there would have been many other industries described in it that are no longer practised. And not for reasons of any assumed climatic change.
[This message has been edited by George Brown (edited June 14, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

Actually that was only one of the many reports showing a cooling trend. Viking colonies growing wheat and vegetables were quite common in areas of Greenland which no longer can support them. Examinations of glacial ice show that the temperatures were distinctly warmer in early middle ages.
"People in the Arctic have had to adapt to changing climates in the past, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The demise of the Norse settlement in Greenland in the Middle Ages may be an example of the inability to adapt to a drop in temperature. The Norse, who were dependent on sheep farming, may not have been able to survive the longer winters. Inuit in the same area continued to thrive because they were able to shift their economic base toward seal hunting."
The "little ice age" from 1400 to 1850 is well documented both by scientific evidence and by first person accounts.