Science has always been supported by governments--that is why it is cultural and reflects the cultural values of the era. History! It would have been nothing had not politicians in the 17th century saw the writing on the wall and realized that the application of science could be very useful for the military and the perpectuation of their power. Science is funded by governments which to some degree drives the sorts of questions that are asked. Why the anti-science attitude?

Actually the George W. Bush administration was pretty anti science.

All endeavers of man tend to involve politics. Actually, cap and trade is the alternative to a carbon tax. Since when is the buying and selling of food, water and energy not taxed?

Kudos - this description sounds like a direct hit on the nail head to me ... now lets see if there are others present to help drive the point home!

Kevin, are you saying you believe in natural selection? Sounds pretty Darwinian to me.

You are completely and utterly wrong about what answer the politicians wanted from a study of global warming (an unfortunately misleading term). In fact, politicians and industries of all kinds desperately wanted to be able to keep doing business just as they've always done -- making money by despoiling the planet with impunity. The very fact that the "inconvenient truth" of global warming has convinced so many politicians and industrialists alike should tell you that only the CRAZIES (Flat Earthers, Birthers, Faux News, etc.) and those with a pro-business agenda (Faux News again) are still denying it.

As far as those controversial emails go, those scientists were simply trying to prevent small minds from exploding. They knew that publishing data that didn't seem to fit the simple story would cause people like Hannity, Beck and those who watch them, to scoff at "global warming" every time there was a snow fall.

This science is more a case of natural selection.

You mean it sounds like a case where the fittest theory is the dominant theory?

I'll buy that.

You are wrong leftcoastblue, the whole story is falling apart. Himilayan ice caps, africian drought, rain forest, sea rising. They have all admitted they have flawed science. With their admissions, how can you defend it?

Left coast, do you remember in the early 80's how we were all going to die from global cooling? After the warming is debunked, (consider the earth has not warmed since 1998. That was the last year that was warmer than the year prior) what is going to be the next left crisis?

what is going to be the next left crisis?

That one's easy ... the fresh water supply !!!

I used 500 gals last month water bill was $44.00, average use is 900 gals. bill $48.00, when I shower every day and do laundry like normal avg. consumpiton jumps to about 2000 per month and $55.00 bill.

at 500 gal. per month thats over 11 cents per gal for tap water !!!

okay ...my mistake ...8.8 cents per gallon

Actually, binder, I remember the 80s better than you. The 'cooling' story then was "Nuclear Winter" -- caused by nuclear warfare, which thankfully never came. And as for warming being debunked, that's only because you choose to believe what less than 10% of the scientific community is saying, and ignoring what the other 90% says.

And jojo, please tell me, just exactly what have the Himalayan ice caps et al admitted to? Sea levels are rising, and the coastlines are going to look very different in 2050 than they do today. If you plan on being dead before then, think about those you'll be leaving behind.

"that's only because you choose to believe what less than 10% of the scientific community is saying, and ignoring what the other 90% says."

once upon a time 90 percent of the scientific community thought

1: the world was flat

2: that maggots materialized out of thin air

3: that the sun revolved around the earth

4: that radiation is not harmful

6:sexual abuse of children is not harmful

7: HIV is transmitted only by anal sex

8: drinking alcohol is always bad

9: drinking alcohol is good for you

10: drinking alcohol is bad for you

you get the point....

just because most scientists believe something does not necessarily mean its true...and scientists do not always get it right....they are just as prone to mislead the public and have political agendas as anyone...they are human btw...not emotionless demigods who only see things with pure objectivity..they self perpetuate their own ideas without much room for "real objectivity" even the peer review precess is problematic...since the peers are other scientists with the same agenda, the odds are they will overlook the obvious flaws in research just to prove they are correct?.....they see themselves as setting the standard for objectivity that the average person cannot refute...because they self appoint themselves as the authority on all matters....if you decent because the data doesn't add up you are a heretic and ostracized for having a difference of opinion....they essentially can fabricate any data they wish and no one can counter it...its very much like the catholic church and their dogma..."believe what we tell you or we will make you out to be a pawn of the evil doers" scientists want to affect social policy as they see fit and little consideration is given to true objectivity.

Feel free to adjust your lifestyle based on data that is proven to have been manipulated; I'm gonna pass. Thanks.

JQ

AGW is not based only on data that has "proven to be manipulated. That just simply isn't true. Some data in the wide range of climate science may have been flawed for whatever reason, but such things usually get caught and corrected.

The scientific process can always be more open and transparent. There is always room for improvement. But only political hacks would claim that any particular set of errors turns around 30 years of climate science from independent researchers around the world.

Jock -

Explain to me what prompted Phil Jones, a renowned prophet in your religion, to say that there had been no significant warming in the last fifteen years. This is a perfect illustration of the devoutness people like yourself have for your religion. Even when a well known, well respected activist in your cause comes out publicly and states that the information indicates everything you guys have been up in arms about over the last decade is just untrue, you still choose not to weigh the aggregate information. This is why I cannot view this movement as anything more than a modern day religion. It is NOT based on science; it is based on blind faith and the information you guys choose to take seriously is so very selective. You choose to to pay attention only to the data and information that supports your cause, completely disregarding anything contrary to your faith. It's modern day Pantheism; hate humans and love the earth, blaming all of its woes on the parasite that is us. I'm all for making the individual choice to be more protective of the planet. I love the idea of making a personal decision to go out and pick up litter and doing your part to keep America beautiful. The problem that I have with your religion is that your leadership feels that everyone should participate in it and those that don't are infidels and heretics; sort of like the Taliban. Your side seeks to remake our great society into a shadow of its former glory in an effort to promote a science PROVEN to be largely a sham. I find it truly amazing how easily the weak minded fall prey to the whims of those claiming to be intellectuals but are in fact really just liberal ideologues.

JQ - I find it truly amazing how easily the weak minded fall prey to the whims of those claiming to be intellectuals but are in fact really just liberal ideologues.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Except GOP ideologues?? I find it amazing that anybody could take Hannity or Glenn Becks word over scores of reputable scientist's work over several decades.

Isn't that a pot calling the kettle "black"?

I listen to neither of those two. Actually, most of my skepticism is based on the information I have read and heard from prominent meteorologists who have spent their lives studying weather patterns and temperature fluctuations. I'm sorry, my information comes from individuals who really have no conflicting interest, unlike the field of climatology that is reliant upon doom & gloom scenarios to receive funding in the form of government grants. I'm not saying that they're all corrupted, I just have a real problem with any group that ostracizes and vilifies anybody with a dissenting opinion. What does a meteorologist have to lose or gain for taking a particular position on this perpetual debate? Why is it that the vast majority of them are skeptics of this science? I think you pick and choose which scientists you wish to regard with respect and which ones you wish to disregard entirely, based on either pre-existing biases or sheer incompetence.

Weather is not climate, JQ. You're making the same mistake that a lot of denialists do by equating the two. Meteorologists are not climatologists. It's their job to study the "trees," that is the day-to-day weather patterns. It's the climatologists' job to study the forest in general, to model trends in global averages. I'm not knocking meteorologists, but the have a very difficult, very SPECIALIZED field. It's not surprising they could get caught up in that and miss the forest for the trees. In case you hadn't noticed, all the piddling little errors you guys are picking on come from the section of the IPCC reports that are trying to model specific local consequences, trying to give local governments some idea of what to expect on a small scale. That's not what climatology is for.

Forget what you see as flawed science for a moment and think of this: one simply cannot expect to dump ever-increasing quantities of additional CO2, Methane, Nitrogen oxides, etc into the air (we're in the multi-gigaton range for CO2 annually, now) and not affect the environment in any significant way.

Look at it this way: We've ruined or permanently and significantly altered many thousands of ecosystems, local watersheds, etc over the course of human history. We've proven again and again that we certainly can affect our environment on a local scale with local action. We've got direct observational evidence going back over 300 years that mass injections of gasses into the atmosphere can have a global effect on climate (see: every major volcanic eruption in the span of recorded history - though in that case it was primarily sulfur dioxide causing sudden global cooling, it nontheless proves the possibility of global-scale change). It is profoundly illogical to assume that global action, a global industrial revolution, a continuous global mass-injection of warming gasses cannot affect climate on a global scale, that WE cannot affect our environment on a global scale.

In fact, even if you completely shove the AGW debate aside, a lot of the things climatologists and environmentalists alike agitate for (reduced emissions, air quality improvements, restrictions on fossil fuels, and environmental responsibility in general) contribute to the preservation of LOCALIZED systems that directly sustain our own lives and livelihoods.

JQ: "What does a meteorologist have to lose or gain for taking a particular position on this perpetual debate?"

Not much, because they don't study climate. So what you are saying is, instead of listening to the experts who actually study the subject, we should listen to people in other fields because they would be unbiased.

Do you people even listen to yourselves when you say this kind of nonsense?

JQ: "I'm not saying that they're all corrupted..."

Yes, you are. Because if some are not, then you might have to listen to them. There are hundreds of full-time climate scientists around the world, and the majority of them think that humans are contributing to climate change. (If anyone tells you differently -- and they will -- they are LYING.)

So have you read the research of those that are NOT corrupted? Of course not, because you ARE in fact "ostracizing and vilifying anybody with a dissenting opinion." You ARE assuming that they are ALL corrupted, without even knowing who they are OR what they have said.

That is so hypocritical and pathetic that I'm having a difficult time refraining from insulting you, so I'd better stop....

JQ: "Even when a well known, well respected activist in your cause comes out publicly and states that the information indicates everything you guys have been up in arms about over the last decade is just untrue, you still choose not to weigh the aggregate information."

That is absolutely false. Yes, temperatures over the last 10-12 years have bounced around without any obvious trend, but temperatures do that all of the time. Greenhouse-nduced climate change operates over the scale of several decades. Many other factors will affect climate in the meantime.

Your error is in assuming that since Mr. Jones (never heard of him - but there are too many climate scientists to keep track of)... because he says there has been no upward trend over the last ten years that all AGW science is wrong. That just shows that you have no idea what AGW science even SAYS. It is NOT dependent on observed temperature trends, and CERTAINLY not on year-to-year variations. It is based on the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which no short-term temperature variations will change.

But you wouldn't know that because you have not even tried to learn what the climate scientists are actually saying, because YOU ASSUME THAT THEY ARE ALL LYING. This seems to be much worse than whatever bias you are trying to accuse THEM of.

jock since you like to ask questions allow me to pose a few to you:

What caused the last ice age to end? Mankind wasn't adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere then. For that matter...what caused the last ice age to begin?

What caused the higher than now temperatures during the medieval warm period?

Why has every actual study I have read regarding the relationship between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature show that CO2 increases follow temperature increases and temperature decreases precede CO2 decreases? (here's one to get you started http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/ )

I have many others such as.... when using "tree-ring" data to guess at what the temperature was in the distant past and/or in areas without monitoring stations why did the scientist only use the few trees that seem to agree with the AGW therory and discard all others? He openly admits this is what he did. In fact from 1950 to 1999 he disregarded "tree-ring" data altogether. This is the "trick" to "hide the decline" that is written about in the emails.

The honest truth is that Global Warming is just a distraction. When you lump together a bunch of issues and then give them one term, you are just ignoring each of those individual issues. It is exactly like our governments legislative process of taking a bill and throwing in a bunch of other policies so that it can be passed as a whole, allowing you to ignore the individual parts.

Is there air quality issues in the US? Quite possibly, although some regulations have already increased quality to the point where the regulations may need to be altered to a less restrictive level.

Are we using our supplies of fossil fuels to the point where it will run out? Not exactly no. Basic economics tells you that you can never run out of a commodity, barring government intervetion. That is because as the supply decreases, the price increases and the market pushes for alternatives. Our issue is that our government subsidizes fuels and pays countries to keep their prices low.

Are human populations having an adverse effect on the environment? Obviously yes. The question is, how do you decrease this impact? Until you are ready to remove freedoms and restrict population growth and sprawl, there is little to be done other than the incremental technological advances that may decrease our impact - but even that has only a minimal affect.

I could list many more issues, but that is not the point. The point is that we need to squash the Global Warming debate and start looking to fixes to individual problems. That way government can make responsible changes instead of extreme changes based on sensationalism and fear.

Wow- way to decrease your argument's strength by making broad defaming comments about others.

Just like the media and those that wish to continue this Global Warming Facade, you like to point out merely that the environment is changing, that it is becoming more extreme and that no one refutes this.

The truth is that the Earth's climate has always changed, it has always hit periods of calm change and "extreme" change. The two question are, 1. In the midst of natural events (i.e. volcanic eruptions) how much of an effect does human activity have? 2. While trying to maintain a world with freedom of choice, what level of restricitions will be required to decrease human's effect?

We all like to spin our wheels with philosophical questions of minimal importance. (Is the world flat or round?) We need to worry about the important questions that impact our lives. (If the world is round how will that affect population growth, trade, etc.).

You can use any argument, any theory and it will always come back to basic economic theory: everything has a cost. Do you want zero pollution? Ok, well you just need to either stop all production or spend a large percentage of the US income to reduce it. Even if you were to concede that human activity does have not only an effect but an adverse effect to the environment, what then? It is easy to take an isolated approach to fixing the issue by merely saying that we need to reduce emissions, but unless you take into account of social and economic effects from that policy, you are blindly implementing policies which could destroy the US economy and US lives.

Let's get away from Global Warming and start trying to make real, responsible change.

Sorry, ewalk, you don't even use the term "defame" correctly. I made cogent points in minimal space. Your arguments are circular and lame. I win.

I am concerned with your attitude of "I win", the analysis of my use of "defaming" and the representation that I was merely using circular "lame" arguments.

1. There is no winning, it is merely a discussion and exchanging of ideas. The only thing that these posts can do is to present different viewpoints and beliefs and to allow people to express those beliefs. Relegating the process to "winning" merely means that you either take this way too seriously or have a strange conception of what these posts are for.

2. You said that people who believe in creationism, over Darwinism, are scientifically illiterate and not equipped to discuss global warming. You said that those that do not agree with your basic points and assumptions lack an ounce of curiosity and would therefore either be unable or unwilling to read posts on global warming. This is the defamation, besmirching or impugning of the reputations of those that may have a christian belief or one that doesn't comport to your beliefs. There is nothing that say one cannot be completely blind to or wrong in the aspect of one issue and not have a valid point or curiosity on another. The belief or faith regarding the origin of the species and its evolution has nothing to do with global climate, economics or the affects of current efforts to curb Global Warming.

3. I do not think that my arguments were lame or circular. They may have been wordy, but were in fact quite straightforward. It is quite simply that the Earth's climate changes, we do not know the exact or full extent of human impact on the Earth's climate and therefore should not waste time arguing about what the exact affects of our activities are on the global environment but instead look at our proposed fixes and their possible costs and effects. We can argue till we are blue in the face that there is or is not global warming caused by humans, but that will get us nowhere. The issue should be relegated to the local climate and environmental issues and the policies and regulations we place on individuals and companies to remedy those issues.

Every choice we make has a cost, therefore lets analyze our choices.

Let's hope that this post is not in vain. However, I am fearful the "I win" statement shows your unwillingness to even consider any other ideas.

Try to remember it is the ideas, not the people and therefore defaming the people does not aid in the discussion of the ideas.

If the government believes CO2 emissions are a problem and gives out grants to study it, why should a scientist produce an answer contrary to what the government believes. Doesn't make sense to bite the hand that feed you.

You think this way because you aren't a scientist. For one, the government does not give out grants that are contingent on a particular outcome. For another, scientists actually get rewarded for discovering evidence that shatters the status quo, not chastised. Most importantly, scientists are held to ethics. Occasionally, a scientist will lose sight of this and fudge things, but it's a big deterrent knowing that your career is over if you get caught. This idea that almost all climate scientists would sacrifice their integrity to conspire to help Al Gore sell books is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Apparently you don't even buy logic.

DB, you speak of earth sciences, but what do you know of the chemical sciences? I ask this not to make a fool of you, but to point you in the right direction.

Cycles or not, if you heap things onto it, it's going to make a difference. It's easy to call any change a part of normal fluctuation if you don't crunch numbers because your personal experience with the weather varies from year to year.

What bothers me is that people ignore the logical consequences and try to use whatever explanation they can think of to justify what makes them most comfortable.

It is undeniable scientific fact that methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They hold heat in. So, when we spill billions upon billions of tons of these gases into the atmosphere and scientists report that average global temperatures are rising at an alarming rate, what makes someone decide that those billions of tons of greenhouse gases aren't having any effect? What makes someone who trusts many, many things on faith alone to suddenly doubt?

It's really simple. It's called convenience. Many if not most people in the US don't like the idea that anything is finite, that anything they can do could possibly f the world up, or that they might have to sacrifice a few of their higher luxuries if we're to leave a good inheritance to our children and grandchildren.

I apologize if I am stepping on the feet of RedNail, but while it is an accepted fact that methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gasses, it is not well known how much each increase in these gasses equates to heat capacity. There have been studies of current CO2 levels that show that CO2 has pretty much hit a saturation level and any increase has a minimal effect. Additionally, it has been shown that plants grow faster and larger in a CO2 rich environment and that they grow utilizing less water. I am not saying this to promote increasing CO2 emissions, I am merely saying that we are trying to make fixes without knowing the full picture or the impact of our fixes themselves.

The problem that global warming activists are going to face is in trying to convince people of a gobal impact of their activities and that there is indeed something they can do to fix it. That is why the only way they will ever create change is to take issues local. If you want to decrease pollution in an area because it is causing poor air quality or is impacting the environment on a local level, you will have a much easier time inacting policies that the people can support. When you try to tell the american public that because they drive to work every day the world's climate is being altered,you are equating something out of their sphere of influence to what is within their sphere of influence.

Good ewalker,

Yes, the truth is that real scientists havespoken out against this Global Warming pseudo-science. Dr Happer, a physicist that actually studies infrared radiation, testified before Congress in 2002 that 80% of Climate change is caused by water vapor. He also states that CO2 in the atmosphere has already reached a saturation point and adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no additional effect. This is from a REAL scientist. This poll put on by MSNBC is a farce. The position that there is a consensus of opinion is simply not true and no pole of public opinion can change that fact.

Dr. William Happer, Princeton University, testimony to Senate Energy Committee

ewok, you're spreading nonsense again. There is no credible study that CO2 has reached a meaningful saturation point. Carbon dioxide doesn't change its ability to absorb heat at any concentration we are likely to see in our biosphere.

To whose study exactly are you referring?

While it is true that the planet has undergone gradual warming and cooling trends long before mankind showed up, it is happening much faster this time around. Ice core data indicate that this is a direct result of increased greenhouse gasses.

I will agree that ice core data does show that some greenhouse gasses have increased prior to climate changes. However, CO2 has not been one of them. In the study of CO2 levels, it has been shown that the level of CO2 increases after climate changes, not before.

Secondly, you need to look at more data other than just - many years ago climate changed, and based on ice core data it is currently changing faster. I have serious reservations about the extrapolations scientists make. There is one thing we have always known about science: it is the ever changing of theories and ideas. Theories change. With more data, more knowledge and more experience we gain new understandings of our world and the way it works. To jump from the limited data of ice cores to the certainty that climate is changing faster now because of humans is ludicrous. There are too many variables and changes to the earth to pinpoint the culprit or primary source for "Global Climate Change." Therefore stop using Global Climate Change as the reason for policies and regulations and stick to reasons the public can get behind - air quality, water quality, animal populations.

Sad, but relatively true.

While I agree with population control as a means of preservation in theory... good luck getting any meaningful policy in place. China actually tried, and look where it got them. The culture placed such a premium on male heirs that they now have a major gender-imbalance in parts of the country, and it didn't really produce much meaningful slowing of population growth anyway, especially not if you consider Southeast Asia as a whole.

The real problem with population control is that it will never be enacted voluntarily, because it goes against every natural drive we possess... i.e., "must. propagate. genes." It'd be nice to think that as self-aware beings, we could rise above those basic drives, we're basically reproductive zombies.

I don't think our society has risen to a level of self-awareness that would allow it to regulate itself in that way, and I don't hold out much hope that it will. At least not in time.

Gran... you can do it for yourself, truly. I agree with most of the posters here and that :) for me is unusual. BOTH positions are well thought out by such posters as Patriot Tom, ewalker, and others.

Now for my two cents worth, and gran, I provide a link in bold font here that is a summary which, at least for me, was about all I am knowledgeable enough to deal with... but... first... definition of terms!!!!!

Perhaps modern public schools are bereft of good science teachers? Ok, I am being facetious. But, I remember distinctly in General Science as a high school freshman (it was required in those days for a 12th grade diploma), we learned about Global Warming. The REAL Global Warming. And believe me, humankind and its industries, smokeless and otherwise, have a minuscule effect on true Global Warming.

Why? Because some ignorant "pseudo-environmentalist" picked up the phrase, no doubt having heard it somewhere (it's been around a century or so), and undoubtedly thought it a catchy phrase to promote guilt, politics, panic, and a healthy fund of dollars to administer. It was that primarily which made me lose respect for those people. The total absence of checking their facts!!!! And worse, creating inaccurate semblances of scientific information.

The correct definition of the term Global Warming describes the true warming dip thousands of thousands of years or so between the Ice Ages peaking in each of these cycles. The entire cycle of an Ice Age is that of long climb to a zenith of frigid, unimaginably cold climate, briefly interspersed with a melt down... the Global Warming period.

These cycles have been established archeologically and geologically and even geographically for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years for one cycle. And these cycles themselves have been repetitive for hundreds of millions of years.

Research "paleoclimatology" for a better discussion of the Ice Ages and Global Warming, especially showing charts which show the millions of years of peaks and dips in climate long before man stood up on his short and wobbly legs.

Paleoclimatology is the study of climate change taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses records from ice sheets, tree rings, sediment, corals, shells and rocks to determine the past state of the climate system on Earth. You might try a decent summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Actual Global Warming is a very minor blip. And former blips, some far more extreme than now, are found in Ages going back before any trace of humankind has been found.

Well, at least, to planet Earth and to the cosmos, Global Warming is indeed minor. However, our very political environmentalists want us Chicken Littles to consider a one-inch melt at the edge of a glacier ice field to be a “falling sky” and drive us to running around squawking hysterically while those canny foxes herd us into a corner where they can feed upon us (financially) at leisure.

Nah. I don't buy it. At the same time, we have to realize Nature and humanity have a symbiosis. There are far worse abuses of Nature than CO2 emissions (i.e., what does every human being on Planet Earth emit when breathing in/out? hmmm?).

In my book the rape along the Amazon (centuries in the making), of North Africa (go back to the Phoenicians) are far more critical. Shoot, I am prepared to tie myself to a redwood tree rather than send any more of them abroad. And no, not a red cent, please. Rain or shine :)

So, you see? I guess it is what is most important to each of us. Politics. ugh. That crass, highly rationalized entity is not, you know, restricted to government, and has been with us since wobbly legs pushed another one over and grunted, in effect, "Me boss."

The Golden Mean is a very tough row to hoe. But it is what we should strive for. "A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

The downside is admitting that a liberal might have been right about something. Apparently that is more important to some people than the well-being of people around the world.

It is true that there is no downside to cutting back pollution in local populations. The problem is that our government is making uninformed decisions. The data from California has shown that our air quality is improving every year, but at the same time we are trying to implement CO2 reduction policies as well as others which has lead to some of the highest taxes and the most restrictive regulations. This has lead to many companies moving out of state or country to stay competitive with the national and global markets. We cannot blindly say that we need to reduce pollution, we need to know what kind of pollution is being emitted, what impact it is having on a local level and regulate it that way. It's all well and good to raise our noses to corporate america and "big" business, but the US has a large population that needs to be supported despite lax international trade policies. You may ask what does trade policies have to do with pollution, well if we do not tariff or restrict items from other countries where they have virtually slave labor or do not follow any environmental protections, then our companies will never be able to compete, therefore if the government wants companies to still employ US citizens and reduce pollution, we need to reign in foreign trade first.

ewalker -

Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate response.

Please excuse me for being skeptical, but do you have data concerning the high taxes and restrictive environment? The last time I visited LA, it was the only place I ever saw that still sold leaded gasoline! And just the huge numbers of people make the pollution monumental.

Also, industry always loves to use the mean old environmentalists as whipping boys and, really, any environmental controls that have ever been proposed have always caused dire warnings of the "death of an industry". When paper mills had to stop using mercury that was their "death knell", yet they found more benign methods and stayed in business for another fifty years.

It may be true that California mandates are "overkill", but I have yet to see any environmental regulations that were not called overkill, and yet all of them have been good and reasonable in the end.

I value you thoughts on this!

er… you folks on Patriot’s thread may not like this… but has anyone admitted what the SOURCE is of the “environmental abuses” you all are concerned about? We are simply not being logical. Dealing with bits and pieces isn’t going to hack it, including my vigil by my redwood tree.

If the environment must be maintained fresh, new, natural, we need to go beyond all the extraneous by-ways. First sources must be identified… otherwise we are a bunch of dominos tripping and toppling down a row and mad at the domino who just preceded us.

Of course, our first and primary source is one and only one… a livin’ breathin’ Gestalt. Literally.

Humans.

Exemplified by the “progressing civilization” of mankind.

We deify technology… to make things easier, “safer.”

We are horrified by primitive medical practices, and medical science crawls up on its pedestal to keep us alive and well longer and longer and older and older (which believe me, is fine by me… and don’t most folks feel that way, too?)

We make it easier to get an education so that more and more people might climb that ladder of upward mobility.

We have made it necessary for there to be Experts in all aspects of our lives… not just Medicine, Science, Technology, Education, Contracting, Crafts on crafts at every level of skill… shoot you can fill in my blanks. If I tried to name all the kinds of Experts who are needed by other Experts… well I know you get the picture.

But there is a bottom line of our Gestalt… It is the world’s population explosion.

Do you see where I am going?

Is this untrue? Wish you could say it is.

How can we reconcile human rights? It is a lovely phrase but awash with contradictions: One individual’s right is another’s disaster if that “right” should be implemented.

I am just asking the questions. God knows, I have no answers.

And I think all the Experts in the world do not have them either.

SecondSight, I completely agree. The issue is not based on Global Warming, but human impact. Since we are the species that is filling the earth like a pestilence, I agree that the question is what can be done? Instead of taking the question head on and looking to what can be done and what must humans give up or sacrifice to fix any issue, we make minor band-aid fixes hoping that we can put off the bigger questions until they are someone else's problem.

People love to say stop pollution, stop the pollution of cars, stop etc. The issue is the same as oil drilling and nuclear plants, you get the same response: "not in my backyard." Everyone can agree to stop certain activities or condemn certain people, as long as they don't fall under the group being condemned or who's actions are being stopped. China had the right idea with population control, not necessarily the right implementation. The issue comes down to the different philosophies of governing. Do we think that the change will not be made unless the government forces us to change or do we want people to have the choice to change? Most will agree, based on past experience, that without government influence, the change will not be made. Therefore, we need to decide what type of society we want and what rights we need to give up in order to curtail the human sprawl.

I also agree that the "Population Bomb is Everybodys' Baby". Someday, sooner or later, we will have to address this emotionally charged issue. If we think Social Security is tough, imagine telling people that they cannot procreate at will!

Sadly, we require more commitment (license, training) to drive a car than to become a parent (at lease a biological parent). I do not know how to solve that, either, but I know that if I was Dictator of Earth, I would make birth control mandatory for everyone until they had passed courses in parenting, had a job and means of income, and were old and mature enough to make a commitment to raising a child.

I also agree that China at least tried to do something. I attended a business seminar where the main speaker glorified population growth as creating more of a market! Talk about myopic! Of course, he lambasted China for trying to slow growth.

Are there abuses in the Chinese model? Of course! Are a billion people going to bed hungry every night right now? You bet? Are we losing species at a rate of a hundred or more a day? We sure are!

Population, like pollution will require choices, and those who perceive that they might lose will always resist changes.

However, even without population control, pollution control is important and the right thing. We should not ignore one because we cannot address the other!

The issue is that a scientific problem requires an economic and political change. Therefore, you get your "arrogant authorities."

The truth is that the US has a large population of people who want jobs and to eat. The US is also a part of a global economy in which we allow the importing of goods from countries with extremely low wages and no environmental controls. Therefore, when we implement economic and political change to fix the scientific issue, we sacrifice jobs and income to those countries that do not pay their employees or care about their affect on the environment.

The US will not make a change if it cannot protect its citizen's livelihoods. Therefore, we need to bring farming and manufacturing back to the US and restrict trade with countries unwilling to use fair market and environmental practices.

In point of fact, ewalker, the US already has the largest agricultural output per capita in the world. The problem is that for the most part, it's not being done in a sustainable way. That's how you end up with massive agricultural pollution in all of our major waterways, and dead zones in places like the Gulf of Mexico and off the Oregon coast.

Global warming aside, people are making a bloody mess of the planet. And we can't keep doing that indefinitely, or we're going to screw ourselves over in a big way.