Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:53:30 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


, or so the evidence leads me to believe, I'm
personally agnostic on it being "ACC" but using the phrase "Global
Warming"
is simplistic and gives the wrong impression. I suspect that it
probably
is
in part down to humans but there's no easy fix and any fixes will have
to
be
technological in nature because we're not going to slow down development
for
the climate and nor are people going to give up cars etc...

Yes, and it doesn't matter whether or not we are causing it. If it's
a problem, then we need to figure out how to fix it. It remains
unclear whether or not it is. Certainly many of the nostrums put
forth so far (like Kyoto) are a cure worse than the disease, and were
more motivated by politics than a sincere desire to solve the problem.

I'd have more "green" sympathy if they included sensible policies like
nuclear power, more distribution of generating capacity, more
technological
fixes and so forth, but they are a little hemp shirts and sandals for my
personal tastes.

Mark down this day in history, on which Dave O'Neill and I agree.

I'm as stunned as you are.

Dave

What Could Climate Change Mean for Duck Hunters?
From the Website of Ducks Unlimited:
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/ec...gearticle.html
Wetlands in a Warmer World
By Mike Anderson, Ph.D.
How Will Climate Changes Affect Waterfowl?
Wildfowlers have long been obsessed with the weather. After all,
nothing has more impact on the fortunes of duck hunters than ice, open
water, and tomorrow's wind. Earth's climate, so far as scientists can
reconstruct it, has fluctuated markedly over the millennia. Glaciers
have come and gone. Droughts and floods have waxed and waned. Whole
continents have moved, and the seas changed with them. So, attributing
every unusual weather event today to human modification of the
atmosphere is nonsensical. But does that mean there is nothing to be
concerned about? Hardly. If you ask instead what trends are evident in
the climate record, how has the atmosphere been altered, or what
changes are unfolding in the world's oceans, the answers are sobering.

Although we can't discern the picture yet, it is clear that the
tapestry of water and birds across the continent is likely to change
in the years ahead. Coastal marshes are likely to lose birds as
wetland losses mount; big waters inland may do better, but only if
water quality can be protected. Warmer winters will mean birds, on
average, wintering farther north, as long as they have water for
roosting and adequate food. Having said this, there will always be
warm years and cold years, wet years and dry years, and cold fronts
and nor'easters to make average years exceptional. The bigger question
is whether waterfowl habitats in North America will be able to support
historical numbers of breeding and wintering birds in the face of
global climate change.

What Is Changing?
The earth's average temperature is the product of complex physical
forces including the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Several
compounds such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are powerful
greenhouse gases, in that they help trap heat in the atmosphere,
preventing it from radiating back into space. If the atmospheric
concentration of such gases increases, so does the temperature of the
globe. Depending upon the future emission scenarios and climate models
used, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change has upped its
projections for warming this century to 2.5° - 10.4°F.

While there is growing consensus about the general physical changes we
might expect as a result of global warming, there is much less
certainty about what the biological impacts of those changes might be.
That's because the current climate models are designed to predict
change over very large geographic areas-larger scales than biologists
typically use to study wildlife. Second, the predictions are imprecise
and depend greatly on what humans will do in the future. Finally,
things like timing of precipitation, and variation from season to
season and year to year, are hard to predict but can matter a great
deal to critters like migrating ducks.

Prospects for Key Waterfowl Regions
DU believes that the prospects of climate change are serious, and we
are taking steps to keep informed and do prudent contingency planning
for conservation. There remains, however, a great deal of uncertainty
about how this global drama will play out, and that too must be
considered as we plan for the future. Here's a sampling of projections
for some of DU's high priority conservation regions:
Prairie Pothole Region
The Prairie Pothole Region is the single most important breeding area
for waterbirds in North America. Average spring temperatures have
increased in this region over the past 50 years, and all global
climate models predict further warming.

Expected ecological changes include fewer wetlands on average; shorter
flooding duration for wetlands; greater annual variability in surface
water; changes in agriculture; and changes to water depth, salinity,
temperature, plants, and aquatic food webs.

Drought affects the breeding success of prairie ducks by decreasing
the likelihood of breeding at all; and by causing reduced clutch
sizes, shorter nesting seasons, reduced likelihood of renesting, lower
nesting success, and lower brood survival, collectively resulting in
fewer ducks being produced.

Some low-risk adaptations to these threats might include:
1) targeting long-term waterfowl conservation actions to less
vulnerable subregions of the prairies
2) protecting native parkland habitats at the northern fringe of the
pothole region where longer growing seasons will favor agricultural
expansion
3) reducing existing human-caused stresses on wetlands (e.g.,
drainage, filling, road impacts) and associated uplands (e.g.,
overgrazing, intensive tillage)
4) restoring or protecting complexes of wetlands in order to hedge
against variable moisture conditions
5) contingency planning for large managed wetlands (e.g., securement
of water rights, engineering modifications).

Gulf Coast
Gulf Coast wetlands provide wintering habitat for many North American
waterfowl, so prospects for climate change here is of great interest.

Globally, average sea level has risen from four to eight inches over
the past century, due mostly to thermal expansion of the warming
oceans and melting of land ice. Climate models anticipate a further
sea level rise of 18 to 20 inches by 2100, and more thereafter.

The rate of sea level change along the U.S. coast has varied from
place to place because of differences in vertical movements of land,
alluvial deposition, and land subsidence from extraction of water or
petroleum. In historic times, relative sea level rise has been
greatest in Louisiana, high in Texas and New Jersey, and intermediate
along the Mid-Atlantic coast.

With a projected 18- to 20-inch rise in sea level, land loss along the
U.S. coastline, without additional shoreline protection, has been
estimated at: Mid-Atlantic Coast 900 square miles, Louisiana 1,350
square miles, other Gulf areas 900 square miles, and Pacific Coast 550
square miles. Clearly, humans and wetlands will increasingly compete
for space in coastal zones, because a 24 percent growth in U.S.
coastal county residents is predicted by 2025.

Between 1956 and 1990, Louisiana coastal wetlands were lost at a rate
of 25 to 40 square miles per year. About 40 percent of the nation's
brackish and freshwater coastal wetlands are found in Louisiana, where
seasonal flooding of the Mississippi River successively created six
distinct deltas over the last 7,000 years. During the last century,
however, dam construction on the upper Mississippi has reduced the
river's sediment load by about 50 percent, and the construction of
levees has greatly reduced flooding. Faster main channel flow also
means that less sediment settles out where it can build marshes. So,
currently, marsh building cannot keep pace with sea level rise.

Extensive loss of habitat in the Gulf Coast region would affect
species of concern like lesser scaup and northern pintail. Mid-
continent lesser snow geese also winter here in large numbers, and the
great majority of the world's redheads depend on shoal grass in the
Laguna Madre. Freshwater habitats near the coast are limited and
dependent upon uncertain precipitation. In recent decades, flooded
rice fields have greatly augmented natural marsh habitats in these
regions, but rice agriculture along the Gulf is on the decline in the
face of tough competition from other rice-growing regions. If Gulf
region coastal habitat losses are severe enough, with few options for
redistribution of birds inland, wintering waterfowl could be in
trouble in cold years when they concentrate at the southern end of the
flyway.

Mid-Atlantic Coast
The U.S. Mid-Atlantic Coast (especially Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay,
Currituck Sound, and Pamlico Sound) historically wintered large
numbers of waterfowl, although changes in these estuaries reduced
their attractiveness to ducks during the 1900s. Sea level rise is
likely to reduce further the amount of suitable shallow water habitat.
The latest assessment report for this region predicts a relative sea
level rise of 7.5 inches by 2030, and 26 inches by 2095. Chesapeake
Bay salt marshes do not receive sufficient sediment and organic matter
to keep pace with current rates of sea level rise, and the discrepancy
between sea level rise and sediment accumulation rates is likely to
widen in the coming years.

Changing climate also may affect stream flows that could, in turn,
affect local salinity, nutrient loading, and aquatic food webs.
Maintaining or improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and other
Mid-Atlantic estuaries will be challenging given the projected
regional growth in human populations. Species that are able to move to
agricultural lands for food may face fewer limitations than the diving
ducks dependent upon aquatic foods.

Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Uncertainty about future precipitation and runoff also clouds
predictions for the Mississippi River Basin, the third-largest
drainage system in the world. More than half of the land area of the
basin is devoted to cropland, much of that former bottomland hardwood
forests. Wetlands in the upper basin provide important breeding and
staging habitats for Mississippi and Atlantic flyway waterfowl. The
lower basin is the most important wintering area on the continent for
mallards, and supports large numbers of other dabbling ducks and wood
ducks.

The extent of winter flooding in the valley affects body condition and
winter survival of mallards. Currently, however, different climate
models offer contrasting predictions about future river flows, leaving
us with little ability to predict future flooding patterns in the
valley and, thus, the future suitability of the region as waterfowl
habitat.

Great Lakes
Great Lakes shippers struggled last winter as water levels from Duluth
to Montreal continued to recede. Now some 39 inches below 1997 levels,
the lakes are edging ever closer to record low levels. Reduced
precipitation and runoff, coupled with warm temperatures (which means
reduced ice cover and more lake-effect snows) are keeping it that way.
If climate modelers are on track, the Great Lakes of 2001 will be more
the norm than an anomaly. For waterfowl, this could be mixed news.
Certainly, in the short term, lakeside wetlands could suffer from
lower water levels. Reduced water volume could also concentrate
nutrients and pollutants entering the lakes, degrading waterfowl food
supplies. On the other hand, if we can muster support for far-sighted
coastal zone planning, there may be opportunities for enhancing and
protecting new shallow-water habitats for wildlife as water levels
gradually recede.

Central Valley of California
Until the 19th century, the Central Valley of California contained one
of the largest complexes of wetlands in the United States. Drainage
for agriculture and human settlement eliminated some 95 percent of
those wetlands, although many basins have been restored in the last 20
years, and flooded rice fields provide thousands of acres of
supplemental habitat. The densities of waterfowl wintering in
California are generally the highest to be found in the United States,
so DU views any threat to the integrity of these wetlands with
concern.

Recent studies predict that warmer temperatures will cause more
precipitation in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to fall as rain. More
rapid runoff and earlier snowmelt would lead to higher winter flows
and reduced summer flows in most California rivers. Decreased summer
stream flows would intensify competing demands for water. Moderate
flooding in the Central Valley probably benefits wintering waterfowl
by increasing the amount of feeding and refuge habitat available to
the birds, while simultaneously reducing crowding and the likelihood
of disease transmission. So, if future winters are wetter than today,
waterfowl may benefit. The value of this flooding, however, depends
critically on underlying land use. If the extent of rice culture in
the valley were replaced by less-wildlife-friendly crops or if it is
reduced in the future (for instance, if irrigation water becomes too
costly), then winter flooding of agricultural land would be of little
value to waterfowl.

Along the California coast, sea levels are projected to rise by eight
to 12 inches in the next century. Shallow tidal habitats could be
reduced substantially because human development will limit inshore
"migration" of coastal wetlands. Increased winter stream flows
following decreased summer flows to the Delta and San Francisco Bay
are predicted to result in higher concentrations of contaminants in
the estuary. Diving duck habitats are generally more limited along the
Pacific Coast than the Atlantic, so any deterioration of habitat
quality would be cause for concern.

Western Boreal Forest
The vast Western Boreal Forest of Alaska and northwestern Canada
supports some 14 million breeding waterfowl. Many more birds use these
habitats for molting or staging, or as a retreat when the prairies are
dry.

Boreal forest ecosystems could be among the most-affected by global
warming because of the greater temperature changes expected at high
latitudes. Ecological predictions include lengthening ice-free seasons
on lakes and rivers, earlier runoff, melting permafrost, and northward
range shifts by plants and animals.

Substantial areas of western Canada's boreal forest were in drought
conditions through much of the 1980s and early 1990s.

The biggest obstacle to anticipating impacts of climate change on
waterfowl in this region is a lack of understanding of the basic
ecology of boreal wetlands and breeding ducks. We know little about
what limits waterfowl populations breeding in the region or the nature
of wetland food webs on which ducks depend. This is a serious
knowledge gap because while several duck species (scaup, scoters) in
this region are declining, resource development (oil and gas,
forestry, mining) is rapidly expanding, and climate change impacts are
expected to be profound. Farther north, some arctic regions seem
destined to experience greater warming than anywhere else in the
northern hemisphere. Longer ice-free seasons will mean longer and more
favorable breeding seasons for arctic geese. For some species, this
would be great news; for the white geese, however, increased
production could aggravate problems with overgrazed breeding habitats.

What Should Conservationists Do Now?
People are challenged to make important environmental, social, and
economic decisions in a world pervaded by uncertainties. The prospects
of global climate change pose especially difficult challenges for
conservation planners because of the scale and complexity of the
problem, the long time required to learn about impacts, and the high
degree of uncertainty associated with some of the predictions about
future conditions.

But uncertainty doesn't preclude the need for conservation decisions
today. The immediate challenge for DU and like-minded organizations is
to judge what adaptations to future conditions are prudent now, even
if we are unsure, and, second, what should be done to improve our
understanding of climate change and options for future adaptation.
Scientific monitoring is essential in those systems that seem most
vulnerable (e.g., Prairie Pothole Region, coastal zones, Western
Boreal Forest). Improving our understanding of how current swings in
climatic conditions affect wildlife populations and their habitats
would allow us to anticipate climate impacts much better than we can
today. Monitoring changes in other sectors that impact wildlife
conservation (e.g., agriculture, forestry) should yield early signals
of impending challenges or new opportunities.

DU will seek opportunities that might be lurking in the global
greenhouse. Some regions might become a good deal wetter-and for
ducks, where there is water there is opportunity. Conversely, where
freshwater becomes scarcer, a wider segment of society should value
the role that wetlands, grasslands, and forests can play in ensuring
that clean water flows from our watersheds. Some waterfowl habitats
may have potential to help remove CO2 from the atmosphere and thereby
bring new funding partners for habitat restoration.

Waterfowl habitats throughout the continent have been affected
profoundly by human development. Any effects of climate change will be
imposed on top of existing pressures. In most places one obvious
adaptation would be to reduce existing stresses on wetlands (e.g.,
nutrient loading, toxic chemicals, filling, drainage, soil erosion,
urban encroachment) and, thereby, reduce vulnerability to further
climate-induced alterations. This may be the single most important and
achievable thing that we can do today to prepare for a warmer but
uncertain future.

Want More Information? Visit the following Web sites: The US National
Assessment and Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.

Nature's Carbon Traps

Ducks Unlimited and its conservation partners are exploring
opportunities for using wetlands, grasslands, and bottomland hardwood
forests to take up, or sequester, atmospheric carbon. If this works as
well as some scientists predict, it may provide added incentive for
North American society to conserve and restore waterfowl habitat.
Power producers, energy companies, and other private industries are
already investing speculatively in international carbon credits. The
basic notion is that industry or governments might be allowed to
offset some portion of their carbon emissions by restoring natural
habitats that remove carbon from the atmosphere and incorporate it in
plant tissue and soil organic matter. Restoration of bottomland
hardwood forests seems tailor-made for such a program. Carbon cycling
in other habitats, like prairie wetlands, needs additional study to
test their carbon storage potential. DU is actively exploring these
opportunities and facilitating research needed to guide the way.

Dave O'Neill wrote:


I'd have more "green" sympathy if they included sensible policies like
nuclear power, more distribution of generating capacity, more technological
fixes and so forth,

I advocate those things.

I am also happy to see homebuilders again advertising the r-rating of
their homes or carmakers the mpg of their vehicles.

Concern for the environment != anti technology and anti business.


but they are a little hemp shirts and sandals for my
personal tastes.

I don't have any hemp shirts but do occasionally wear sandals.

Hop

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:22:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Dave O'Neill wrote:


I'd have more "green" sympathy if they included sensible policies like
nuclear power, more distribution of generating capacity, more technological
fixes and so forth,

I advocate those things.

I am also happy to see homebuilders again advertising the r-rating of
their homes or carmakers the mpg of their vehicles.

Concern for the environment != anti technology and anti business.


but they are a little hemp shirts and sandals for my
personal tastes.

I don't have any hemp shirts but do occasionally wear sandals.

I wear them most, days, living in south Florida...

"Lloyd" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 30, 11:35 pm, "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
"Joe Strout" wrote in message

...



In article . com,
Einar wrote:

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

That's a fair summary. A warming climate is going to change weather
patterns, causing droughts and desertification in previously fertile
areas, and increased rainfall (leading to soil erosion and flooding in
places) elsewhere. And, of course increased sea levels, putting most
countries' most valuable real estate underwater. All fine and dandy
from a 1000-km, 1000-year view, but quite a bit of a bummer if you
happen to be living someplace where you've become accustomed to growing
food, or having topsoil, or not having your house underwater.

And oh yes, it also can result in some substantial local climate
changes
-- illogical as it seems to simple-minded deniers, a global warming of
climate may well plunge turn most of western Europe's local climate
into
something more like Siberia, as the currents which currently cause its
temperate climate shut down.

Of course, I live on the front range of the Rocky Mountains; there
won't
be much flooding here (the ice caps melt every summer anyway), and it's
already quite dry. Things could get a bit worse for me, but not a LOT
worse. It's the people on the coasts that I really feel for.
Unfortunately, more than half of all people in the U.S. live on or near
the coast, and the situation is probably similar for other countries
with significant coastline. Sure, they can all relocate inland, giving
up New York, San Diego, LA, Boston, Washington DC, etc. etc., but you
may see that this is a rather expensive and messy proposition, and best
avoided if possible.

I suspect that many of the deniers are simply hoping that it won't
happen until after they're dead -- screwing our children and
grandchildren for perceived short-term gains. But that's not a
philosophy I would subscribe to, even if I didn't hope to be here for a
long time myself.

Fortunately, the tide has shifted, and the deniers are now a pathetic
minority with no power. Even the Denier-in-Chief has publicly admitted
reality, and started making the right sort of noises about it, albeit
without much enthusiasm. The next President will no doubt do more.
It's probably not too late, at least not to avoid the worst of it.

But we do need some new carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources, and
we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be
quite
promising.

I do not deny that the climate is warming, our instruments seem to
indicate
that it is (have we accounted for all of the sources of error?), but the
idea that the warming is man-made, and that it will increase without
bound
to cataclysmic proportions is untestable speculation.


False. We know the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels, and analysis
has ruled out other possible causes.

True. There, I said it. That makes it so. Ruled out how? By testing what?
Computer models don't suffice - they amount to testing your own hypothesis
with your own hypothetical model.

Do you think you can confidently predict that warming *is* man-made, and
*will* increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions? How did your
preferred scientists test their hypothesis?

There are plenty of
stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the
Sun)
that historically track the data better than AGW and hopelessly
inadequate
computer models.

Do you think science hasn't looked into these? Geez, man, do some
reading!

There is an increasing number of scientists who are speaking up about this,
but it isn't the bandwagon to be on if you want research grants these days.
I just don't believe everything I read.

What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur
if
governments worldwide increase their control over societies, forcing them
to
fall into line with dreamed-up regulations, economies be damned. That is
historical, reproducible and testable, and I think that has a much higher
likelihood to be a global disaster than any climate change.


Yeah, you and Rush. Geez, talk it to a damn talk conference; you are
scientifically illiterate.

Well if Rush agrees with me, that's great! But no, I have studied basic
economics, that's all. Sadly, economics isn't taught in school anymore. And
rejecting popular junk science doesn't make me illiterate.

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Hop David wrote:
: :
: : wrote:
: : :
: : : Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : :How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
: : :
: :
: : How's this statement: CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, having much
: : smaller impacts than many others like water vapor and methane.
: :
: :
: :Which still makes it a greenhouse gas.
: :
:
: So's oxygen. Shall we do away with that?
:
:
:We are not pumping tons in the billions of oxygen into the
:athmosphere.
:

All those nasty plants certainly are. We should raze the Amazon rain
forests in the name of preventing Global Warming!


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly
: :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion,
: :even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production
: :could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two
: :countries, and the world wouldn´t be able to rescue them preciselly
: :due to the size of theyr respective populations.
: :
:
: Then you'd think these two countries would be all in favour of
: radically restricting their own output of CO2. They're not. Why do
: you think that is?
:
: :
: :If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries
: :have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over
: :large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as
: :nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried?
: :
:
: The rest of the planet could vanish into a new stone age tomorrow and
: in a just a few years India and China would have things right back
: where they are now. Then what?
:
:
:It´s not an unknown phenomena throughout history that leaders of
:countries behave stupidly.
:

So why do you think we should exterminate ourselves in their
interests?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Jul 31, 7:22 am, Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,





wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:56 pm, Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:
If you stick to serious scientific journals, like Science (which I've
read on a weekly basis since college), it's clear that there has never
been any serious controversy about whether the current warming is
anthropogenic, nor the extent to which CO2 and other gasses are to
blame
(and yes, there are others, but that's the main one).

No such theory exists. All we have are vague, untestable notions.

Nonsense. We're talking about detailed climate models here; nothing
vague or untestable about them.

Bull ****. Put up or shut up.

I did, about five lines further down. Three detailed models (including
one meta-analysis showing that the models with the highest effect of
increased CO2 are likely to be the closest match to reality), easily
found in a minute or two of Googling.

Ker-plonk.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Models are worthless, absurd. The aren't the crystal balls you
whackos wish them to be. This is real science, not Harry Potter
science.

On Jul 31, 6:39 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:22:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:





Dave O'Neill wrote:

I'd have more "green" sympathy if they included sensible policies like
nuclear power, more distribution of generating capacity, more technological
fixes and so forth,

I advocate those things.

I am also happy to see homebuilders again advertising the r-rating of
their homes or carmakers the mpg of their vehicles.

Concern for the environment != anti technology and anti business.

but they are a little hemp shirts and sandals for my
personal tastes.

I don't have any hemp shirts but do occasionally wear sandals.

I wear them most, days, living in south Florida...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What I find interesting is when people attempt to falsely portray a
very complicated issue with a sarcastic tone, and in terms of black or
white, and see no grays for compromise on the subject matter i.e.
"concern for the environment = anti technology anti business".
Concerns for our environment have resulted in improved governmental
regulations such as EPA standards to protect our nations water supply
set by the Clean Water Act implemented in 1972, or the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Now the Acid Rain program established through the
1990 Clean Air Act could be perceived or portrayed by some as "anti
technology anti business" (ie an either or argument), but such
successful implementation of environmentally motivated change in our
economy is possible through finding area's of compromise or grey
areas. Market based incentives and phase in periods give companies
the freedom to make voluntary make modifications or changes due to
environmental concerns. And so it is incorrect to state that "concern
for the environment is anti-technology anti business", when there is a
self motivated diverse group such as US CAP, which includes a
membership of businesses who have voluntarily set a goal for them
selves based on environmental concerns to reduce emission of green
house gases.

Don't you think it is a businesses responsibility to provide their
product or services with in the law or a set of morals and ethics?

Man made aerosols are effecting the climate, now if this effect has
possible secondary adverse effects on the nations economy and
businesses wouldn't it be a prudent business action (much less morally
and ethically correct), for those business who emit man made aerosols
to voluntarily find smart market based business solutions to reduce
those emissions in providing their service or product?
tom

White House's FY 2003 Budget proposal for EPA funding.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy03/pdf/bud25.pdf
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 page 307
"Markets Work for Environmental Protection
The Administration believes that innovative and market-based
approaches can achieve
clean air cost-effectively. The Administration is working on a
legislative proposal for a flexible,
market-based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions of
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and mercury from electric power generators. The program would be
phased in over a reasonable
period of time, provide regulatory certainty, and offer market-based
incentives to help achieve
required reductions....
Although the next generation of environmental protection relies on the
cooperation inherent in the marketplace, market-based approaches are
already demonstrating cost-effective air pollution
control. EPA has pioneered the use of economic incentives and market
based approaches that allow pollution sources to buy and sell emission
allowances. For example, the Acid Rain program was established by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to control power plant emissions of
sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, both of which contribute to
acid rain.
Water Quality and Safe Drinking Water
Like air quality, water quality has significantly improved since the
Clean Water Act became law
in 1972. The gains are so large, in fact, that stormwater runoff from
homes, streets, and fields (called"nonpoint source pollution"), now
cause more water pollution than industrial sources."

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall wrote: : Einar wrote: : : :
: :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China,
preciselly : :due to the share size of theyr respective populations.
A disturbtion, : :even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of
theyr food production : :could very quickly have things falling
apart over in those two : :countries, and the world wouldn´t be able
to rescue them preciselly : :due to the size of theyr respective
populations. : : : : Then you'd think these two countries would be
all in favour of : radically restricting their own output of CO2.
They're not. Why do : you think that is? : : : : :If you yet
again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries : :have
got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over :
:large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as
: :nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried? : : :
: The rest of the planet could vanish into a new stone age tomorrow
and : in a just a few years India and China would have things right
back : where they are now. Then what? : : :It´s not an unknown
phenomena throughout history that leaders of :countries behave
stupidly. :

So why do you think we should exterminate ourselves in their
interests?



All the right-thinking blogs say liberals want to exterminate the human
race for their deity Gaia! They even have a book about it. Here's their
blueprint, sold right on Amazon for everyone to see!

http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-.../dp/0312347294
http://www.worldwithoutus.com/



Any REASONABLE person can plainly see it is the liberals' DIABOLICAL
PLAN to kill humanity. OMG OMG OMG. No bizarre conclusions here, no siree:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/20...l-fantasy.html



C'mon. If you really want to kill the human race, do it the right way:

http://www.subgenius.com

C.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net