I can tell you that when my grandfater immigrated to the US from Germany in the Late 1800 He read in the NYT that we were facing a reture of the Ice age... When My Fater was bort 1919 the NYT said we were facing global warming when in was in highschool 1950 my teachers said we were facing a return of the ice age Now my grandchildren are indoctrinated in the government schools that we are not only facing global warming but its our fault. I am not so arrogant that i think I can change Gods design for this planet & its people.

What can I say but "quod me nutrit me destruit",
(what nourishes me also destroys me).

I found a good list of simple things you can do to cut out your carbon footprint. Seems stoping driving and no flying are the best things! Goodness knows what we will do when we have flying cars!!

Here is a link that might be useful: Carbon Footprint

Well, I'm amused to find that this post survived my blunder. You see I cross posted it, not just to this forum, but to the Propogation Forum and the Tropicals Forum as well. That triggered a GW Spam trap in their program and I was locked out for a few days. When I finally got a hold of GW, they told me that multiple posts of the same info do trigger a Spam Trap in the software and they let me back in, but deleted the other two posts. They also advised that a thread of this nature should have been started in the 'Hot Topics' Forum.

However, while those two posts were there, I noted something interesting about the responders that might be of interest.

In the Propogation Forum, the response was RABID DENIAL that mankind could possibly be responsible for changing climate and called the post alarmest and Henny Penny, The Sky is Falling type stuff.

In the Tropicals Forum, folks were genuinely concerned.

The contrast was quite striking.

As for myself, I find Global Warming and Dimming as interesting as Earthquakes, Volcanos and Hurricanes. I love all that dynamic change stuff. I just don't like the fact that these sort of things cause suffering, and I do believe that we have the intellect and capacity to resolve the problem. I don't set mankind up as being outside of nature, but I do believe we are capable of using our intellect to work positive change in natural processes, instead of haphazardly causing what my be negative change. If anything shames me, it's that I am of a species that has the capacity to exercise discipline in action, but instead, the general expression of mankind is one of a more blindly reactive and wreckless being.
But who knows, maybe this will all work out for the best in the end. Just as you can't stop the Sun from shining, you can't stop an earthquake and a few other mega naturals, one being the activity of humanity.

:)

It is my opinion that most humans do not understand the importance of their impact on the environment (nature). Even the little things eventually add up to a serious impact, and most of that is on the negative side. It is my dream that every human steps back and examines his/her lifestyle and makes changes before it is too late. Just remember that most of the environmentally degrading behavior is based on wealth, if we eliminate that, we may have a future.

Wealth does not cause environmental damage. It is what mankind does to achieve wealth without regard to preserving the environment that causes environmental damage. I will agree that for mankind to seek quantity in life instead of quality in life is objectionable. But to find quality in life through wealth should not be considered a bad thing. Your dream is misguided.

To the contrary, you must have wealth in order to secure quality of life. You must have wealth in order to enable yourself to take the kind of mega-actions that are necessary to correct what is wrong with human treatment of our biosphere. In fact, you must have wealth to prevent further damage.

I have said it above. Most of humankind goes about life in a reactive way. We do not rationalize our actions, except to satisfy our immediate needs. So said, if each of us is allowed, individually, organizationally or nationally to persue wealth in unregulated ways, ways that do not restrict us to behave toward the environment rationally, then the environment does not stand a chance against the unbridled effects of ever expanding human population and habitation. Regulation. Laws. These are the ways that humanity keeps itself in check. When overall regulation and laws fail, we reap even worse tragedy upon ourselves and our environment through self-destruction - its worse form, being war.

Law and regulation keep the skirmishes small, the explosions small and the effects of change small. They can even help to Regulate and keep human population in check and in turn keep 'it' small.

As you dream, hope instead, that the politicians who form our world wide legislative embodiment wake up, when you wake up. It's a sad fact, but we humans, need to be regulated and hemmed in by the enforced guidance of law - or we will ultimately destroy everything, including ourselves.

I do not think wealth causes environmental damage, what I said was most environmentally degrading behavior is based on wealth. The promise of a better lifestyle (wealth) has caused a seriously negative impact on mostly (but not entirely) third world countries. These "behaviors" include deforestation, over-fishing, over-hunting, polluting of water and air. These behaviors are enforced by companies in the US (and other countries) which import these products for sale for a profit.
How much profit is enough?
One example in the US is farming practices. Removal of fence rows has become common practice in this country in recent years. They do this so they may get more bushel per acre. Fence rows cut down on wind (soil erosion), and also served as habitats for wildlife. Soon we will have thousands of miles of open farmland. Wow! I can't wait.

Fence rows, and other man made barriers, cut down the natural migration trails of animals and birds. It seems there is always a trade-off.

Lets see Every one agrees that the planet is warming BUT many say its mans falt SO>>>>
The temp has risen less than 1 degree Celcus in the past 100 years. Who says that (100 years ago) was the ideal temp & reamber we were recovering from a mini-ice age 100 years ago.
This area 300 years ago was TALL GRASS PRARIE no fence rows to "protect" wildlife.
Some say New York will soon be under water... Is that realy "bad"?
In the past 3 years we have discoverd 100's of new Famlies, Genis, Species" in the sea and on dry land How many animals & plants have become extenct in the same period?
IF and its a big If the polar ice cap should shrink ... a "North West Passage" will open up & we can reduce energy output to move everything from America to Europe & back.
Reamber Polar Bears can swim & survive in the San Diago Zoo!
The computer models that Al Gore & his followers use to predict the fate of the world do NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EFFECTS OF RAIN & CLOUD COVER Therefore they have not been able to predict huricanes & earth Quakes (also claimed to be the falt of global warming)
They predicted how many hurricanes to hit the U.S. Last year? (there were none). Said there would be 20+ this year & so far only 1.....
Finally If we were able to remove all life from the North American Content from soil bacteria to "Man" and all of mans influences would ONLY REDUCE WORLD POLUTION OF "GREENHOUSE" GASES BY 0.01%
Al Gore claimes that the 1990's (the Co-Presidency of the Clinton) were the HOTEST AVERAGE TEMPERATURES in man's history but reamber that OVER 400 TEMPERATURE REPORTING STATIONS FINANCED BY RUSSIA WERE NOT FINANCED AND THEREFORE NOT REPORTED. in reality the higest average earth temp were in the 1930's
THE FINAL CONCLUSION: MAN HAS ONLY MINIMINAL EFFECT ON THE WORLD POLUTION/TEMPERATURE/GREENHOUSE-GASES/AND WHAT EVER YOU WISH TO BLAME US FOR.........

Gosh I hate that word ... blame.

And hey, you don't have to yell.

That humankind is so industrious that mankind can effect global climate is to me something neat and interesting. It affirms that humanity is not separate from nature but is part of it. And instead of blame, we need to recognize the fact and prove something more about the 'nature' of humanity. That is, we need to demonstrate to ourselves that humankind is capable of recognizing, not just its own identity and intelligence, but how it effects the world humanity lives in and further to learn how to regulate the effect we have on our environment ... most certainly, for our own benefit, if not for the benefit of all life that we share our world with.

If you feel blamed, you may just feel guilty too. There is no need to feel either. But what do you do to assure that we responsibly regulate our actions with regard to doing the same for our environment? eh? Deny that we are significant enough in our actions to effect our environment globally? Or recognize that we do have the capability to significantly effect our environment and adapt, knowing too, that we have the capacity to regulate how we proceed from here on.

If the worse of the scenarios does happen take comfort in the fact that the earth has recovered many times from catastrophe, in this case it will again only, as before, we wont be around to see it...

Let me try one more logical approach. I live in central Illinois. At one time this area was covered by a salt water sea. Still later it was a swamp producing fern like plants 20-50 ft tall each year. (hence the coal, oil & gas deposits in our area. The Temperature was also high. & then on several occasions this area was covered by 1/2 mile of ice. Only during the end of the last ice age were there any humans in the americas SO the previous changes in climite, green house gases & other gases were not caused by man (since he did not exist) NOW you wish to say that man and only man causes global warming WHEN DID WE HAVE THE "IDEAL TEMPERATURE" SO WE CAN COMPARE THE TEMPERATURE OF TODAY.
The temperature on Mars is also rising how has man infulenced that temperature?
By the way...In the same time period..... 2 deer produce more greenhouse gases than my pickup!

Who said that man and only man can cause global warming? Whoever it was, they are a fool who doesn't have all the facts. The list of things that can and have caused global warming is long. However, you can not exclude mankind from that list. If microbes can do it, we can do it ... and are doing it. We can damn near do anything with our gregarious social nature, our intelligence and our dexterity and ability to manipulate.

For the fool who thinks mankind is not capable of effecting global changes, the topic is an old one. I'm 52 years old, but learned in high school ( back there in Illinois BTW ) that parts of Europe used to be thickly forested, but ever since mankind started using fire and building boats, oxcarts and other conveniences, those forests went into decline and soon, in places like Greece, there were plenty of naked rocky places to heard sheep, but nowhere in sight to watch a woodpecker. That sort of story has parellels all throughout mans recorded and prehistoric history. Our intelligence means we survive at the expense of other species, both fauna and flora. And in the process we change things on a mega scale. That has been the nature of the beast, homo sapiens.

Lightning can start a forest fire. But man can do it with a match stick.

And if you are still not convinced. Just ask yourself if it is true whether the current total number of nuclear warheads in all the arsenals of all the countries that have them can't turn half or more of this planet's terrestial surface into cinders and create that all too often refered to 'Nuclear Winter'.

Give yourself as a human some credit.

That's a bit harsh - it wasn't him it was his ancestors!

Oi, bearstate! What's all this with picking on Europe business? I don't see too many bison a' roaming the prairies these days, and if one wants to send a message via avian carrier - forget the passenger pigeon!
If we are going to have a discussion laying some blame for the worlds woes - let's have some balance, anyway it's fortunate for most of you that we Europeans (especially us Brits) learned to build some boats!

There's that word 'Blame' again.

Can't we put that in a back pocket somewhere?

I wasn't pick'n on Europeans. My example about forests being put into decline in Greece is just the first thing that first demonstrated for me back in High School, some 30+ years ago that mankind was capable of making huge and destructive changes in the environment.

Yes, you could probably say that Native Americans killed off the great Columbian Mammoth in North America and that fur trappers damn near decimated certain species of Seal, Buffalo and other fur bear'n critters. I'll agree whole heartedly to all of that. Why not? Mankind is on all the world's continents and all of its islands, even places like Antarctica and Diego Garcia.

Like I said. It's in our nature.

BTW: I'm a Navy man. But, I sailed on steel, not wood and as far as flying goes, I love airplanes and aviation. My ship was the USS Enterprise, CVN-65 and yes, I was part of a weapons system. So you might say, we dug this huge hole in the ground back where my folks come from, Hibbing, Minnesota and in the hole, we have nothing but a lot of air and some of the most enormous dump trucks the world will ever know, making the hole even bigger. Maybe there were trees there once. But I gotta admit, that open pit iron ore mine is a whole lot more interesting than a tree. And they put the ore on ships like the legendary Edmund Fitzgerald to sail from Duluth across lake Superior and Lake Huron down to Detroit and further, to the great ore smelters to be turned into steel. And more trees died from acid rain, in particular. Yep. Aren't we stinkers? Everyone of us?

:)

Once again Bearstate, your verbosity is eclipsed by your wisdom and amen to that.
I am however a man of few wo...

[Posted by bearstate 9 CA (My Page) on Sun, Sep 9, 07 at 18:19 "Have you ever thought that by posting to a web-site such as GardenWeb that you were unwittingly leaving behind a historical legacy regarding the changes occuring for plant life and the earthly environment? I began posting to newsgroups back in the 70s and oddly and surprisingly, enough can still find some of my early posts. Some of those sites get archived and even after being removed from on-line systems, are available to historical research and all sceinces as a resource for years to come"]

In reference to your original question, I would say that yes I have wondered about that possibility. Also I have wondered of the effects of certain fauna going to areas of the nation that they are/were never indiginous to to begin with. The trading of plants and seeds with members across the nation. I never would have thought I could grow cacti in my backyard, or bamboo, thought it was only for desert areas or asian nations.. boy was I wrong, and I probably never would have considered it if it were not for this website. Does that mean however, that by my attempting to grow these plants in my own little backyard corner of the world mean that in some way I am contributing to the warming? Possibly but not probably. And as far as future generations (are we talking about 200 years from now?) looking up archived posts from this website and being able to say "HERE IT IS I FOUND THE REASON THE WORLD ENTERED THE NEW ICE AGE, it was because of this particular post,", you never know but I find it doubtful. That doesn't mean that I don't understand what your referring to, yes we are by being members of GardenWeb.com in a sense making history, but we are all doing that everyday anyway all around the world. We have just found a faster way than the bird that eats the seed and migrates and poops it out over some sunny meadow and a new plant grows where it wasn't before.. and nature might or might not propagate that plant into thousands more in an area it may never have been in before.. it is all nature and the cycle of life..

I don't think that having exotic or tropical plants in your backyard will contribute to global warming.

I do think that by having those plants in people's backyards, they have a better chance of surviving and not going extinct as native habitat is gobbled up or comes under pressure from introduced species.

I was reading that Yucca Elephantipes, the Giant Yucca exists from Central America to Mexico in its normal domain, but that it may no longer exist as a wild species. In other words, you find it in landscapes and gardens, but nowhere elese.

I'm sure there are other examples.

As far as archives go, I don't know if GW archives. But if they do, there will be good search tools to drill down and find what you want to find.

I have been trying to show that "Man" can not be responsible for GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL COOLING.
It is easly shown that "man" may influence local conditions. Our city has diverted a river & created a lake for water, electric plant & recuration. We have planted more trees than ever existed in this are & created habitates for wild life. In my own 1/4 acre there is greater bio diversity than any time in the past billion years. BUT at a cost I have to water often & use chemicals (natural & man made) to keep them healty & growing.
But reamber no area is static it is undergoing change. Succession of plants & animals has occure over the past billion years & will continue over the next billion. Change is not "good" or "bad" BUT is change; and, that is often hard to accept.

Change is wonderful.

I'm sorry but I'm basically your average Darwinian Geek. I believe that diversity is important. Even in the society of man, it allows for something to succeed where something else may fail. And since we all tend to support each other in some way or other, that works out just fine, even if say I were the failing part of that diversity.

Cool -eh?

I can't wait till someone says "Another small step for a man; one heck of a giant leap for mankind." by setting down his foot on Mars. I hope I live that long. The rovers are cool, but a game of golf on Mars would be Fanatabulous.

:)

I agree that man can not be blamed entirely for major (or minor) atmospheric changes. Global warming/cooling does have causes that are beyond human control. Humans, though, can be blamed for contaminating the soil with lead, and other toxic chemicals. They can also be blamed for contaminating our water with herbicides, pesticides, mercury, and bacteria. They can also be blamed for such trivial things like soil erosion, soil salinization and even eutrophication of waterways. These things are all caused by humans.

Blame Blame Blame! Stop using that damn word. It provokes antagonism. Man is part of nature and what man has done is natural, however destructive or beneficial. It is also man's nature to learn from his mistakes and to regulate himself so that he doesn't make the same mistakes over and over again. That is our salvation.

Having said that, can you now add to your list the following ...

Deforestation
Industrial burning of fossil and other fuels
Flourocarbon sprays
and ...
The ravages of war

I can't imagine why you didn't mention these.

BTW: Soil erosion is NOT trivial. Current rates of deforestation can cause an enormous amount of erosion and erosion takes away nutrients that can rob chances for reforestation, leaving only rocky pastures fit only for sheep and goats ... or worse, rocky and sandy places fit only for lizards, snakes and insects that live in borrows during the day and come out at night to feed. Maybe you missed the recent news about a mudslide in Griffith Park in the LA area, caused by rain after a series of fires that burned away the trees and scrub there that held the soil in place.

Just because some things are beyond our control does not mean that we don't tip the scales by our activities and escalate processes that might have otherwise been in stasis, having small cyclic deviations, instead of runaway trends.

Now let me head off another blame post. Who is to blame?
Heck, I don't know. Let's blame it on some fictional characters, Uncle Ted and Aunt Julie and their dog Chloe who likes digging holes in the backyard. Howzat?

Do you think we can stop pointing the finger of blame and simply say "Hmmmm. Looks like we tripped over our own two feet again. What can we learn about that and what can we do to correct this, our umpteenth turn off the path, so that we proceed on a more reasonable course into our future?"

I mean, we did clean up Lake Erie didn't we? Well, didn't we? Or can we still light the whole stinking lake on fire with a single match or walk to Canada on a carpet of dead Alewives and Lampreys while holding our noses?

Have you heard of any Love Canals lately? Have you seen any news articles on any pesticide problems where bird chicks are being found dead in their nests with two heads and other deformities? And just how bad is the Acid Rain problem in Pennsylvania these days? Have you read about any ugly scars due to strip mining coal? If you haven't heard about any more of these problems, it's because we've learned and regulated them away so that they do not recur.

But I'll bet there are some things we haven't regulated away yet. Next time you gas up the family wagon, calculate how much of the tax goes to your state for environmental reasons ask if that isn't regulation at work.

That's the way it works. We blunder. We study our blunder and its effects. We learn. We regulate. We abide by the regulation and avoid further blunders of the same type. If we could only do that once and for all with war, what a fine thing it would be.

:)

BTW, I was being sarcastic about erosion. Also, if there was no blame, would there have been solutions?

Ok so I will not use " blame" which word would you prefer responsible?, error?, falt?, accuse?, condem?, wrong?, declare guilty?, concvict?, wrong doing? etc. etc. etc.
Deforestation! plants/trees are cut daily YET 2 new plants /trees are also planted for each one that is utilized for human benifit. Reamaber that plant/animinal succession is going on all the time. No area is static as/to the flora & fauna. This is neither good or bad ... it is a chage
Indistral use of fosil fules: So we burn fosil fules... well "mother nature" or what ever YOU wish to call it. compisates by (1) increasing plant production (2) increasing the seas ability to utilize bicarbonate & increase the production of sea shell etc etc etc Yes there is a time delay BUT ballance is achieved over a period of years. The reverse is also true reduce carbon dioxide & plant & Sea life will be reduced...
When you wish to "accuse" CAPITALIZATION for the PRECEIVED problems & threats to the world. Well this a philosophic argument we will have to agree to disagree....
Flourocarbon sprays.... The "ozone hole" existed before the introduction of flourocarbons & will exist long after the removeal of all these offending chemicals.. IT is a function of solar energy.
Ravages of war..... This a a human activity & has been going on since man entered the scene. This is just another Of "man's" activities that in some way effect LOCAL CONDITIONS but in no way affects GLOBAL WARMING AND/OR GLOBAL COOLING.
MAN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THIS "CRISIS" IS promoted by Al Gore, The United Nations the European Union, George Sorors and the moveon.org and all others who HATE America.

"Gewiss! Seguro! Oui!" or as Curly of the Three Stooges would say "Why Soitenly!" You don't need blame to face a problem. You just say "Hey, that's a problem. Let's see now ... how can we fix that?"

Let me throw a big word out there that I learned a long time ago ...

Tautology

This word has a lot to do with repetition and the dictionary will tell you that the nature of the repetition is needless or useless.

How does it apply to this discussion? Well on the face of it, I would have you know that once you have encountered a problem, it is indeed useless to go and repeat the same encounter with the problem. In my own mind, I relate it to the more auto-actualization or reactive nature of rational beings like humans. We learn to drive a car and it comes naturally. After we master it, we no longer devote any mental energy to it. If there is a problem with the way we drive an automobile, we no longer think about it or devote any rational mental resources to it. We just go about it by rote. But in fact, there were problems with driving automobiles all through its history. And to get us all to change, we had to be hit in the face with a shovel, changing laws, taxes on fuels and finally, hybrids and alternative fuels. But before we are forced to change, we cling to the tautological repetition of the problem. In immediate terms, it is a less expensive solution in terms of brain power; We refuse to expend any energy on the problem, unless forced to. So, the long term problem escapes solution, if left to ourselves as individuals. Thankfully, there are enough of us that some of us see the train coming, step off the tracks and start yelling at everyone else on that tracks that the train is coming.

Some folks have described this tautological nature of mankind as 'The Frog in The Frying Pan'. The frog is at first comfortable sitting in the frying pan. As the heat is turned up ever so slowly, the frog doesn't budge. It doesn't want to make the effort to analyze the problem and eventually, we have a frog that 1) leaps out of the frying pan with a burned underside and feet or 2) a fried frog.

Our nature then can be very reactive and much less disciplined, especially if we feel that the change threatens us - greater expenses or some associated cost, having to learn something new, etc.. We react first and learn later ( if at all ). Many people in fact, fear change for reasons such as these. Fewer thrive on it.

So, the tautological nature of humanity, based on the way the human brain operates by rote as a means of keeping rational energy expenses low, combined with fear of change ... makes people behave in cyclic or repetitive ways which most of the time is not a problem, even if the repetition is useless. But sometimes, it traps us into a cycle that is self destructive.

A person who understands what I have just said then, will realize that the human mind can both, fall into the trap of potentially destructive tautological functioning, but also, that the human mind can be trained. They then set about disciplining themselves, so that when they face a problem, they avoid defensiveness and the tendency to avoid expending rational energy and acceptance of rote repetition. They train themselves instead to react by recognizing that the problem may possibly be real and further, to trigger the expediture in rational energy to analyze it. By doing so, they evolve solutions and either adapt to change by changing their ways or auto-effect change, something most folks are not often capable of. They are the first to step off the tracks in the face of an approaching train and warn the others.

'Thinking outside the box' is therefore a bit different than what you may have always accepted it to mean. Many people don't even conceptualize that the box has an inside and an outside.

I prefer not to be a frog in a frying pan. But in reality, sometimes even I do not avoid it. And I have for a long time now, practiced disciplining my mind to react by expending the rational energy, hopefully, not needlessly.

BTW: Crisis management is well, tautology in action, after the shovel hits someone in the face.

:)

Hmmm. I suppose I can be long-winded and wordy at times. People have told me that. Luckily, flapping ones lips doesn't prevent ones feet from letting them step off the railroad tracks.

George,

Would it surprise you to know that I am a Republican?

Yep, that's right ... your average Darwinian Geek Republican. Personally, I'd prefer not to have had to say it, but I thought by saying so, it might help you out a bit to understand that there are no 2 sides to this coin.

I don't think I'd stand on those railroad tracks with a train coming at me, pointing the finger of blame either. The thing to do is 'get the heck off the tracks'. Then, hopefully, somebody will regulate the tracks so that the railway right of way has fence around it to keep people off it and crossing guards where sidewalks and streets cross the tracks.

I could care less about Gore and Soros. Stop mentioning them and maybe they'll go away. The less we hear about them, the better. That's the rational thing to do. Showing your anger, resentment and fear is definitely an exercise in tautologic futility. Expend a little disciplined brain energy and stop wasting energy belly aching about the clowns on the other side of the politcal fence. They don't need the publicity. Expressing your political motives here is on a par with blame and I'd say worse.

Thanks in advance for not mentioning them further.

Would it surprise you that I am a old fashion Democrat Not a progressive as some wish to be called.
There are two opposing philosophies. (1`) that "man" is a parasite to the earth OR (2) "man" has a symbiotic relationship with earth.
In the first case Man only feed's off the earth. Man does not help or aid nature in any way & man eventually will make the earth sick & "kill" it in part by polutition, erosion, deforistation etc.....
In the second case "man and the earth both benifit from the interaction. The "Carbon Cycle" is speeded up by human intervention, the aquatic cycle is influnced by this enteraction. The Nitrogen cycle is also made more efficient by man's intervention. This interaction permits man to adversly effect the earth Or for earth to adversly effect man but for the survival of both .. each must work together. The other basic principle of this relationship is that it works on a small local scale & not on a global scale.
The Title of this post is GLOBAl WARMING>>>The bottom line is that I will NEVER be able to change your mind & you will NEVER be able to change me. So lets agree to disagree & move on to other things we can agree on.

There's also a thing called dogma and another called seeing things in black and white terms only, this way or that way.

Humanity's interaction with the Earth is more complex than simply saying that humanity is biosphere parasitic or biosphere symbiotic. Many of mankind's relationships with nature, the planet, other humans, etc., are both parasitic and symbiotic. Intelligence, cognizance and the ability to manipulate the environment make human beings very complex, the most complex species ever to inhabit the planet. Our behavior is a complex mesh of paradoxes, not the least of which is that we are both highly intelligent and at the same time ... stupid.

You are correct of course, that this discussion wandered out of the garden. We may have talked about how husbanding plants in the garden might save them from extinction or how current conditions, global dimming in particular effects the growth rates of plants and in particular, for this forum, the initial growth of seedlings. But we didn't. I would have preferred that we did, but I'm not unhappy with where things went.

We instead, demonstrated how people, when confronted with a global issue such as this seem to want to do one of four things, deny the issue exists, blame it on someone or go defensive seeking to avoid blame. The global warming doesn't exist as a cause of man's activities because man's activities are not global is ... well, an amusing sidestep and a Do Si Do with a stubbed toe. The fourth thing which seems to be avoided in the discussion, is to approach avenues for correcting the problem or adapting to it.

Have a nice day.

My Cycas Revoluta seeds are germinating and of the ten, I have one sprout. I am content.

One Republican, one Democrat, loads of rhetoric. You guys could not agree if the world was going to end. You both would take up the limited time spouting off useless information. How about this. Industrialization has changed the environment, and not for the better. Policies initiated in the past 40 years have been an attempt to reverse the damage. Period. Who is to blame? Who cares. Let's fix it.

rbrady,

I agree at least, with somebody.

:)

And perhaps I even have grounds to agree with George on something.

Maybe George doesn't like that word 'Global'. I would agree with him too, on the point of not wanting to see another attempt at a 'One World, One Government' and agree that we, here in the USA, should determine for ourselves how best to solve the problem, without being penalized for our efforts which have been going on long before the Kyoto protocols and Al Gore, Soros and any attempt to have a Treki style Global Federation of Countries. Our entire history as a nation is based on being free from the dictates and meddling of other governments, so that people may steer their own way through representation and agreement upon regulation. You state 40 years above and that's just about right for environmental protection issues to be reversed. We've been proving that we can recognize, analyze and regulate away a whole panoply of pollution problems. Our EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency ) was founded in 1970.

George, we have at least that, in agreement. It just isn't Darwinian at all to have a 'One World, One Government' pushing its weight around when we know we can do the job without that kind of coercion. And it just plain isn't American. International Law is the vehicle for global issues, not a centralized world federation.

Thanks for your input rbrady.