rgr22j

No, it cannot. There is significantly more evidence for the law of gravity than there is for human-derived global warming. You will not find 19,500 credible scientists who say that there is no conclusive proof for the effect of the earth on gravity; however we have 17,000 scientists from the National Academy of the Sciences and the UN who say we cannot definitively link human emissions with global warming.

The point is not to say that the theory might be true, but we should have a measured response until more information comes to light. For example, there is some evidence that mobile telephones can cause cancer, but we do not ban them all. There was significant evidence in the 1970s that the earth was going to go into a cooling phase, but we did not start firing up coal plants left and right to try to "reheat" the earth.


First off, you should see some of my other posts discussing Bush's "dodgy" evidence. Not true. If anything, Bush and Blair have come out ahead in a superior position, especially with Andrew Gilligan's recent retraction of all of his specific accusations.

It's also estimated that were the world to revert to environmentally-friendly "organic" farming, there would be enough food for only half the population. Isn't the threat of 3 000 000 000 people starving to death all over the world a much bigger threat than making people feel good that the environment is supposedly cleaner?

This is the problem with "environmentalists": too much blind fanaticism, too little science. Let me give you an example. The Bush Administration was castigated by environmentalists for "relaxing" the rules on SuperFund cleanup. Previously each site that was contaminated had to be cleaned up 100%, no exceptions. The Bush administration relaxed it so it had to be cleaned up within reason. As with many things in life, cleaning up these sites suffers from the law of diminishing returns: it takes more and more money to get closer to 100%, it is not a linear relationship. For example, it might take the same amount of money to clean up the first 90% as it does the last 10%.

So what was happening is very few sites ended up being cleaned up because of the exorbitant amount of money it required to get that last 1%. By relaxing this restriction, Bush allowed the cleaning crews get what economists say is the "most bang for the buck": we clean up 10 sites up to 90% instead of 5 sites at 100%. The environment receives a net gain. Sure, Bush cannot claim that he cleaned it up 100%, but he sacrificed the political headline for a better environment. However, he was roundly demonized by the "environmentalists" who wouldn't know science from Shakespeare if it hit them in the face.

We need a measured response, not knee-jerk fanaticism. If you really wanted to make a difference, we should start by aggressively promoting hybrid vehicles in terms of household savings per year (as Toyota is currently doing). I would tax SUVs as luxury vehicles (like Benz and BMW in the USA) and turn around and give those monies back to minivan owners.

I would turn the automotive union (the Detroit factory workers getting rich off of SUVs) out on their rear ends and split the bipartisan support for SUVs in Congress. UAW supports SUVs to Democrats, the Big Three supports Republicans. And you wonder why we never get any real SUV reform. You should seriously consider taking off your anti-Bush hat and target real, specific offenders. It seems you only have suspicions towards American conservatives. Rid yourself of this perception.

-- Alvin