"ENVIRONUST"

Of course pollution is "real" and global warming is "real." The "real" problem however is some want to make it a political problem, and it is not. The debate is not whether there is pollution and global climate change, but if it is indeed caused by man. Do a search of site that point to the position of the sun and its activities, tectonic plate movements, historical cyclical climate changes etc., then decide where you stand, WBMA

mike

ToMh wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

How can you "deny" something that is pure conjecture to begin with?

There is plenty of open-minded discussion -- ignored by the activists.

It's easy to find. Google, for example, these names: Richard Lindzen Zbigniew Zawaowski Habibullo Abdussamatov Hendrik Svensmark Nir Shaviv David Orrell Nigel Weiss

Or you can just follow the link below...

Not even close. Outside of the mainstream media and the activists, man's role in global warming is very much in question, with most scientists saying there's precious little evidence that man has any effect at all on global temperatures.

Oh, and that IPCC summary? Even it says there's no real evidence man has anything to do with it, once you get past the scary sea-level-rise bumpf. Go read it -- the parts BEFORE the conclusion --, you'll see.

Of course. I regularly buy gas to put in my car so it will get me to work. Does that count?

ToMh wrote in news:1181149559.291729.326450 @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

No they don't.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in news:D7y9i.9808$ snipped-for-privacy@news01.roc.ny:

And smog is down 57% from 1970. Happy now?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in news:Fdy9i.9837 $ snipped-for-privacy@news02.roc.ny:

If millions of dollars means minuscule change, yes. And that's exactly what we're getting.

Current levels of pollution are not injurious to human health.

ToMh wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

If there had been real property rights to begin with, this wouldn't have happened.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in news:4JB9i.9823$ snipped-for-privacy@news01.roc.ny:

No. You can thank Richard Nixon, with his price controls.

In 1971, the wellhead price was capped at $5. By 1974 the world price was over $13. Those US wells remained shut until 1983, giving the Arabs and the Commies a bonanza to exploit.

That doesn't matter.

Depends on where you're talking about. Which cities are you specifically referring to? In some, air pollution is a tangible health issue.

What I meant to say was that you can thank OPEC for the kick in the ass, which lead (slowly) to changes here. Or, Nixon, as you correctly pointed out.

In article "GO Mavs"

Well, gee, Spelling Police. Shouldn't that be, "click" send? After all, one PRESSES "Enter", but one CLICKS on "send".

He communicated very well and literately, and anyone with half a brain got the message. IT'S USENET, NOT A SPELLING BEE.

Get a life. Or go grade some more freshman English papers.

- Larry A.

No.

Someone is funding the work of the "sky is falling" scientist as well. I read more articles that alleged that scientist that didn't the chant the "global warming is all our fault" mantra lost funding for their research.

You are willing to believe that corporations influence research by who they fund. Why don't you believe the same about other funding sources?

Suppose I was a professor and wanted to get funding for my climate study and I said, "I don't believe man is causing Global Warming and I want to prove it." Who is going to fund me? NOAA? The Republicans? The only likely funding sources are oil, gas, and coal industry groups.

Ed

So the opinion of the vast majority of scientist has always been right?

Two more random thoughts:

- The environment has never been stable. There have been periods that were hotter than now, and periods that were cooler. Why is this change so different that we are sure it is our fault?

- Suppose everything the global warming fans says is true - is the end result good or bad?

Ed

That's just ignorant. That is a fact, unless of course you can prove otherwise? I'm not saying science is a democracy, but what I said is indeed a fact.

innews: snipped-for-privacy@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

Talk about close minded.

I'm sure there is, and more so by the conservatives.

Name one major scientific organization that agree's with this. I'm waiting.

I think there is credible evidence to the contrary. I'm open to all sides of the debate, unlike you.

In between oil companies and Greenpeace, there is a wide spectrum of funding sources, many of which will not lean on researchers to bias their work in a particular way. But, for purposes of this newsgroup discussion, these foundations and other organizations are assumed to not exist. Imagine what could happen if someone mentioned the name of a foundation, and one of the cave people here (Scott, for instance) recalled hearing that the foundation donated money to NPR. Oh my.

And then of course, in true conservative fashion, ignore all other studies that may conflict with the party line.

You are referring to the Bush hating lefty kooks, right? I never heard them as being called conservative lefty kooks, however LOL

mike