|
Post by DT on Feb 4, 2005 12:10:29 GMT -6
Thank You Mr Bush for your Environmental policies. Chicago area yesterday was under a ozone alert. The first time it has ever happened in the winter months. ![>:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/angry.png) pssssssst...... Ya get what you vote for ![:-*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/kiss.png)
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 4, 2005 12:22:55 GMT -6
Specifically what did Bush do that resuted in the ozone alert?
|
|
|
Post by DT on Feb 4, 2005 12:45:44 GMT -6
Well Tex, A Bush proposal to weaken clean-air rules, cutting EPA regulators and turning a blind eye on factory emissions. Has alot to do with it. Don't even worry about global warming. That's exactly what Bush's EPA did when it sliced a whole chapter on climate ch-ch-change from its 2002 annual report on pollution.
|
|
|
Post by luckyhedo on Feb 4, 2005 16:50:40 GMT -6
Well Tex, A Bush proposal to weaken clean-air rules, cutting EPA regulators and turning a blind eye on factory emissions. Has alot to do with it. Don't even worry about global warming. That's exactly what Bush's EPA did when it sliced a whole chapter on climate ch-ch-change from its 2002 annual report on pollution.
|
|
|
Post by luckyhedo on Feb 4, 2005 16:51:30 GMT -6
Good point ,DT!
Lou
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 4, 2005 17:08:17 GMT -6
Well Tex, A Bush proposal to weaken clean-air rules, cutting EPA regulators and turning a blind eye on factory emissions. Has alot to do with it. Don't even worry about global warming. That's exactly what Bush's EPA did when it sliced a whole chapter on climate ch-ch-change from its 2002 annual report on pollution. It strikes me that there are many factors that can lead to smog, and I'm not sure you can blame Bush for a single episode. We need to protect the environment, but we need to be reasonable. Anyone remember that there was an ice age a few thousand years ago? Can anyone REALLY tell me it warmed up due to Humans burning fossil fuels? I didn't think so. There remains a lot about this stuff we just don't know. ................Bob
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 4, 2005 17:19:34 GMT -6
It is my understanding that Bush put the brakes on a proposal to cut emissions (which the Clinton administration conveniently scheduled to become effective after it left office) and that the (actually enforced) air standards have never been more strict than they are now. Not everything is about Geroge Bush. London's famous 1952 Killer Smog (where the term smog originated) which killed 4,000 happened when GW was in knee pants. ...And to imply that Chicago would not have had an "ozone day" if Kerry had been elected is really far fetched.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 4, 2005 17:32:01 GMT -6
The weather has a lot to do with air quality alerts even in winter. If you have very little or hardly any air movement for a couple of day it will cause problems. I know that happens out here a lot in the winter when lots of brush burning is taking place in the vineyards and people have their fireplaces going. Somedays it pretty thick around here. ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) I don't think, no I know for a fact that Bush didn't cause your one day alert DT. Need to find something else to pick on. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 4, 2005 17:33:47 GMT -6
Okay Lou your turn. What has Canada done to help the environment and global warming in the last couple of years? Please keep it to 100 pages or less. ;D ;D Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 4, 2005 18:31:58 GMT -6
Now honestly folks,
You can love, hate, follow, or run from the Bush dynasty. But there is no way, that anyone in his right mind, can say that Bush is environmentally looking out for the country or world. He has the worst record environmentally speaking, of any president ever. This is indisputable fact. Now, is he looking out for profits and gains....all the way baby!
Deb
|
|
|
Post by luckyhedo on Feb 4, 2005 18:43:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 4, 2005 19:31:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 4, 2005 20:00:21 GMT -6
I am aware of the Kyoto. Your site information is from 2001 and give a very good insight of Canada's plans. What have they done recently? Like 04 maybe? Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 4, 2005 20:38:07 GMT -6
Didn't we nuke them in WWII?? HUH??? ............Bob ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 4, 2005 20:43:22 GMT -6
Now honestly folks, He has the worst record environmentally speaking, of any president ever. This is indisputable fact. Now, is he looking out for profits and gains....all the way baby! Deb Deb you might have something there. Then again, no one has ever PROVEN that his policies or those like them have any significant REAL impact on our long term environment. And THAT sweat sister is a FACT! Or, do you think the "global warming" that caused the ice-age glaciers to melt back was somehow due to today's policies? What strikes me as COMPLETELY IDIOTIC is that Lib'ruls KILLED nuclear energy years ago, forcing us to burn MORE fossil fuels, releasing MORE bad stuff into the atmosphere and now you CRY FOWL and want to blame Bush? Are you nucking futs?? ............Bob ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 5, 2005 0:30:13 GMT -6
Now honestly folks, He has the worst record environmentally speaking, of any president ever. This is indisputable fact. Now, is he looking out for profits and gains....all the way baby! Deb What have you been smoking lately my dear?? ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) Read this and weep a little. www.satyamag.com/oct96/clinton.htmlSo I guess old Slick Willy and Uncle Al where out there personally cleaning everything up and sticking it to the big companies. Yeah in a pigs eye. They were two of the biggest environmental FUCK UPS this country has ever seen, and you Liberals ate up every bit of bullshit that they told you, about how go they were. ![:'(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cry.png) How sad ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 5, 2005 8:20:24 GMT -6
The real issue in the global warming debate is not really the warming but the EFFECTS of the warming. Rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures have had a stastistically VERY SIGNIFICANT correlation over the past 50 years and a SIGNIFICAT correlation for 100 years prior to that. If you have ever taken a statistics class you know the meaning of the highlighted terms. But these are really only the measuring sticks and NOT the problem. Bob, yes the ice ages came and went with no human influence required. And there are a number of theories as to the whys. But most revolve around the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here is a link to an Austrailian site that is looking at the effects of atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 160,000 years, temperature, and sea levels. www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/nswmanual/appendixb12.htmlI direct your attention to Section 3 (midpage) and the graphs there. Here is another information source www.geocities.com/combusem/CO2HIST.HTMI would like to point out a couple impotant factoids... And also point out the graphs mid page. There is a LOT of information from scientific sources there and most interesting are "Recent CO2 Atmospheric Concentration" from Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, and the Vostok Ice Core CO2 graph, two graph sets below it (showing that recent levels of CO2 have spiked off the chart). The REAL issue is what will be the effect on us humans and is it more economical to deal with the issue now or later. The primary issues are FOOD SUPPLY and SEA LEVEL. The effects on the growth of food staples could put extreme stress on a world with a population duble what we currently have, and mostly in regions that are already poverty stricken and sources for radical ideologies. The US grain belt is particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures, mostly in the form of increased droughts (in fact some predictions push the prime growth area of the grain belt out of the US and into Canada), and that the US could eventually become a net grain importer. Rising sea levels... these will be the global ultra slow tsunami. Many of the areas hit by the December tsunami will be permanently under water, and many Indian Ocean and South Pacific countrys will disappear completly (Maldives and Bangla Desh most dramatically). The evidence of warming is all around and cannot be argued. Old photos from the 1800's show European glaciers where there are open valeys now, the African mountain Kilimanjaro is now almost snow free, and the North Polar ice cap is HALF the thickness is was only 50 years ago (15 feet versus 30 feet), and Russian ice breakers now make regular tourist trips to the pole through the ice. Last week, Nature magazine published an article on global warming, summarized here on a Discovery Channel web page. dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050124/globalwarming.htmlLike I said near the top... global warming is nothing new to the earth. Nature has put this world through a LOT WORSE than what looks to be in store in the near future. The REAL issues are, 1. What will happen to the world we know and love (are we going to have ch-ch-changes that are completely unacceptable to our 'human' future, and be clear nature dont give a fuck if we are here or not, if we disappear of the face of this world, nature goes on). 2. What are the costs/benefits of doing nothing versus being proactive. I cannot think of any reason for CO2 levels to spike like they have in the past 100 years except for the explosion of human use of hydrocarbons. If someone else can show that volcano activity has been EXTREMELY high please show me. The 2003 blackout in the NE US provided an accidental experiment to the effects of human activiy on the atmosphere. In brief from the abstract DAMN IMPRESSIVE for only 24 hours of cleansing. Its true that no one weather event can be pegged on 'global warming' but the trend is established, and the human influence on the trend is extremmely difficult to deny. Its a theory, just like evolution, a strong theory, which fits the data VERY WELL. Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 5, 2005 14:31:37 GMT -6
Several observations re: global warming
1) Back in the 1970's, the same crowd that is telling that we have an urgent problem with global warming requiring immediate drastic action was telling us that there was a global cooling problem requiring urgent action. A lead (cover story) article in Newsweek, quoted "experts" who urged us to spread soot all over the polar ice caps so as to warm them, melt them, and prevent drops in sea level. Hard to come back a few decades later with the opposite problem and be taken seriously.
2) The Earth cools and warms. We have been coming out of the last ice age for approx. 1,100 years. According to ice cores (an accepted method of determining mean temperatures over a several thousand year period), the general warming trend was interupted in the nineteenth century, which was one of the coolest centuries on record (in the last several thousand years) according to the ice cores. It also happens that the nineteenth century was when we started keeping modern weather statistics, giving an unusually cold baseline. When the warming trend continued, compared to niineteenth century baselines, it appeared to be much more drastic than it actually was.
3) The Earth has been warming and cooling for several billion years. Why would it stop doing this just for us?
4) The answer most often offered up as a cure for global warming is the Kyoto Protocol, which even its strongest proponents don't claim lowers world emissions of CO2. It does, however, have two effects: In limiting carbon dioxide emissions in many countries (including the US), and exempting them in many other countries (including most of the far east where our manufacturing jobs are going, Kyoto:
a) Gives Europe a big competitive advantage because they didn't buy into the hippy dippy anti-nuclear horseshit of the 70's and the Europeans generate a far larger amount of their power from nuclear than does the US.
b) Gives the "developing countries" a big competitive advantage because they are exempted and can blow out as much CO2 (and anything else) as they like.
The effects of Kyoto are to allow an increase in total CO2 emissions while moving jobs from the US to Europe and Asia. Is there any surprise that the Europeans and far easterners are more enthusiastic about it than the Americans. If there is a problem and it is indeed something caused by man, may I suggest coming up with proof and a solution.
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 6, 2005 10:25:38 GMT -6
Opinions about the causes of Global Warming, and the effectiveness of Kyoto are strongly divided, even between opinion leaders. There are some interesting and conflicting views here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4074911.stmThe desire in Europe to tackle global warming is very genuine and not intended to gain economic or trade advantages over other countries. It really is a huge issue here, and barely a day goes by without news reports of the latest projections and developments. Here in the UK our climate has already changed noticably over the past few years with longer hotter summers and shorter mild winters. In the summer of 2003 we experienced the hottest temperatures ever recorded, about 15% above average, while today I have been outside washing the car in a t-shirt when it should be too cold to even consider stepping outside without a couple of extra layers and a winter coat. What really is worrying is that I could count days this winter that have been that cold on the fingers of one hand. Kyoto may give Europe a competitive edge because of the current widespead use of nuclear power, but I'm not sure I would totally agree with this after the British government had to bail out loss making British Energy, who control half of our nuclear power stations, to the tune of £650 million to prevent their collapse. Belgium, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the Holland are all planning to phase out nuclear power, while Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal have either abandoned nuclear power or never established programs in the first place. The only EU countries that officially maintain faith in nuclear power are France, Britain and Finland. However, British Energy's power stations are scheduled to close by 2010, and the remainder run by British Nuclear Fuels will close by 2023. This will leave only Sizwell B, which is about 30 minutes from where we are in the south of England, running until 2035. This is due to them reaching the end of their 20 - 25 lifespans and there are no plans to replace these facilities, though the future of Britain's nuclear industry is to be reviewed this year alongside plans for a major increase in funding to the renewable energy sector as the Government's preferred way of providing power in the future. The conference held by Tony Blair in the UK recently of the world's top climate researchers may not have provided the desired proof that human activities are the cause of global warming, but I believe it has gone some way towards sowing the seeds for a solution www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107558612666&call_pageid=970599119419 The article also had this to say about Europe's commitment the issue of climate ch-ch-change : Whether or not mankind is the cause of global warming, I don't believe we should continue to pump CO2 into to our environment the way we have been for the past 100 years. The way I see it Europe and the USA are both at the same crossroads regarding the future of providing energy to power their nations, we've just arrived there from different directions. We have the opportunity now to make the right choices and to use whatever pressure and incentives we need to prevent developing countries from continuing where we leave off. Simon
|
|
|
Post by luckyhedo on Feb 6, 2005 11:18:14 GMT -6
Well said Simon! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Edited to add: And less than 100 pages Joe ;D LOU
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 6, 2005 12:05:00 GMT -6
I'm all for far more efficient energy use based on supply and other environmental considerations whether or not global warming as a result of CO2 emissions is a valid concept. I do understand that the summers the last several years in Europe have been unusually warm (and widely reported). Here in Texas, the opposite has been true and the last several summers have been the coolest in a century or so (not so widely reported). Weather patterns ch-ch-change over decades, and this is part of the normal long term climate of the world according to many climatologists.
If there is a serious warming problem (and one that can be solved by some human action), rather than just cyclical warming and cooling trends of the earth that are normal and beyond our control, and the cause is determined definitely to be caused by rising man-made CO2 emissions, the Kyoto Protocol does nothing to address this. If everyone signed on with Kyoto and complied 100%, worldwide emissions would rise (and entire industries would move from the US to Asia). If there is a problem and it is indeed global, then emissions in Kuala Lumpur are as bad as emissions in Houston. I might add that the air is a hell of a lot cleaner in the US than in most any city you might care to choose in SE Asia, China, Japan, Korea or any of the other Asian industrial centers.
I understand that in Europe that global warming is taken as gospel. We owe it to the British (and a few of the other Europeans) to take their concerns very seriously. We should also remember that over 60% of the French said that they believe that the 9/11 attacks were a sham orchestrated by the CIA and almost 2/3 said they hoped that we would lose the war in Iraq. Their credibility is less than zero with many in the US, including myself. I believe that the image of France (and much of the EU) in the US is that of a corrupt bunch of ingrates who are looking for a bribe.
Any attempt to clean up the world's air has to start in the Asian manufacturing centers. In the US and Europe, all of the low and medium priced and much of the high priced technology to clean the air has already been implemented with a fair degree of success. On Asian city streets, half or more of pedestrians wear masks due to the noxious gases. In China and Vietnam particularly, but to a large degree all over Asia, the dirtiest high sulphur diesel is used, along with widespread use of benzene engines, which are inefficient and high polluting, but cheap. I might add that China and Vietnam also have the fastest growing economies in the world in 2004.
Global warming due to CO2 emissions may or may not valid. If it is valid, Kyoto does zero to address it, on the contrary, it would move entire industries out of the US, where their emissions are well regulated, to Asia, where they would be almost unregulated.
I don't doubt that Britain will get some major concessions from the US on other issues, but Kyoto is deservedly dead on arrival.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 6, 2005 12:43:43 GMT -6
And less than 100 pages Joe ;D LOU Lou, that was Simon not you. ;D And yes it was well said. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 6, 2005 12:59:51 GMT -6
And yes it was well said. Thank you Joe. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 6, 2005 18:04:29 GMT -6
....Lib'ruls KILLED nuclear energy years ago, forcing us to burn MORE fossil fuels, releasing MORE bad stuff into the atmosphere... You are so right, Bob. Air pollution and this alleged global warming belongs squarly at the front doorstep of the environmental whackos who put the brakes on nuclear energy. And besides, more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in US nuclear power plant accidents (and oldie, but a goodie!).....Jake
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 6, 2005 20:36:52 GMT -6
Please, please please..tell me why it is everything we say something about Bush, you "CONSERVATIVES" have to bring up past presidents. I did not say the past was handled right. I did not say "O my, the Dem Presidents have handled everything hunky dorey and were perfect!" When will you understand that I (yes me personally) could NOT (yes Jake, see, I am learning proper grammer) care less what the past "leaders" (HA-leaders) have done. I only care about now and the future. The past is past, what is done is done, and we can only correct those mistakes. Please quit putting me in a democratic box. I don't live there. I think Bush sucks on his environmental policy. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the future. he only cares about the almighty dollar. We, as Americans, could do so much in leading the world into a better enviromentally friendly future but are we? Hell no! Oil is god! Make hybrid cars or at least high gas mileage cars mandatory. Research better ways. Let's get away from oil dependancy. Let's open back up Nuclear power but make sure it's safe. Hydro and Solar power--all the way. Until we stop this infantile labeling, we're not getting anywhere. We are Americans, all of us. We want clean air. We want clean water. We want our grandchildren to be able to see the giant redwoods. We want bears, deer, elk, beaver, owls (yes spotted), clean, untainted fish (ours have mercury poison). etc. We don't want to be dependant on Arab oil. Do you disagree? I don't put you guys into that little conservative box. I think you are more than that. O god, I hope you are more than that. I would appreciate it if you offer me the same consideration. Thank you ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) edited: due to typos from wine I have been drinking that a dear conservative friend sent me from CA. Three Mutt Merlot. A nice fruity merlot, with an woody aftertaste. Mmmmmmm. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 6, 2005 21:33:49 GMT -6
My dear Liberal friend who is drinking the Three Mutt Merlot I sent her, I showed Clinton because you said Bush was the worst ever. I do disagree with you, and was just showing my postion of this issue. ;D
The Merlot will cause typo errors, I am glad you are enjoying the wine.
Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 6, 2005 21:43:33 GMT -6
.....Bush sucks......He doesn't give a rat's ass.....only cares about the almighty dollar.... Deb, congrats on your mastery of grammer! I'm proud at you. Now, we'll have to work on your unfortunate penchant for unsupportable emotional hyperbole and cliches, and get you thinking in terms of logic and actual facts......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 6, 2005 21:44:58 GMT -6
Until we stop this infantile labeling, we're not getting anywhere. We are Americans, all of us. We want clean air. We want clean water. We want our grandchildren to be able to see the giant redwoods. We want bears, deer, elk, beaver, owls (yes spotted), clean, untainted fish (ours have mercury poison). etc. We don't want to be dependant on Arab oil. Do you disagree? Deborah, I agree with you. But until they (Demos&Reps) in Washington stop the infantile labeling we are not going to get anywhere. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 6, 2005 22:29:43 GMT -6
SPLAT!!
No FUCKIN' MERLOT HERE!
RUM & COKE![/color]
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 6, 2005 23:15:06 GMT -6
size]
No FUCKIN' MERLOT HERE!
Did you see Sideways??? Joe
|
|