Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (136482)	4/8/2001 12:37:32 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Dear del. That 1997 list is for enders not starters. I do believe that the majority who signed no longer endorse the position as real engineering science has debunked the certainty alleged in the opinion. But at the time I suppose all were paid well for their signature. And del are you still an advocator of the 1% solution? tom watson tosiwmee

To: Krowbar who wrote (136482)	4/8/2001 11:21:39 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Unless the treaty deals with the pollution from the developing countries in Asia, the treaty is not going to improve the air much. The more accurate way to look at pollution is through pollution emitted in relation to economic activity. China emits half as much pollution as the US in total, yet per unit GDP emits 7 times as much as the US. China's GDP is only 1 trillion dollars. At the rate China is growing, it'll easily surpass current US emissions next decade. All one has to do is throw in the other Asian tigers, Mexico, etc. and you have a treaty that's basically ineffective. The water pollution over there is another major problem. I'm not against steps to clean up the air but this treaty does nothing but transfer goods production that are under more environmental supervision to countries that have no supervision whatsover. They need to go back and create a real measure towards cleaning up the environment.

To: Krowbar who wrote (136482)	4/8/2001 2:39:09 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Del, first of all, let's see if you will answer this question. Do you support the immediate approval and implementation of the Kyoto Protocols for the United States? Second, the Citizens of Concerned Scientists believe in the following: 1. Quit driving SUV's 2. Shift to solar power. 3. Stop funding missile defense system. 4. Stop population growth. 5. Sign the nuclear test ban treaty. 6. The United States should fully fund the U.N. I've copy and pasted below a couple of their alarmist warnings. What I can't figure out is why you bother listening to them, when all you have to do is read what Greenpeace has to say instead? Third, have you bothered to find out who funds their research? Of course you haven't, because they agree with what you have to say. Demonstrating once again how flawed your methodologies are. On the one hand, you're willing to completely ignore over 17,000 american scientists (many of which have specific knowledge of climatology), because the site which has posted their signatures (might have been given a research grant by Texaco or Mobile Oil. But on the other hand, you can't even be bothered with finding out who funds every grant given to the Citizens of Concerned Scientists foundation. One wonders why? And the answer is fairly simple. Because they agree with you, so it doesn't matter whether they were given grants from Greenpeace, Earth First, the U.N. Stop population growth network or for that matter the Chinese communist government, who have NO requirement to reduce emmisions under the Kyoto Protocols. You simply aren't interested in finding that information out are you Del? Yet, you're more than willing to dig and dig through the net for a web-page which proclaims 17,000 american scientists have been duped by a 10K dollar donation to a web site they probably had very little to do with. The only thing you've proven is a bunch of Nobel prize winners can be leftist alarmists proclaiming doom and gloom over man's effect on the environment. Big earth shattering discovery there Del. "The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that passenger vehicles and light trucks account for 20 percent of the carbon dioxide spewed into our air each year. Just imagine: each gallon of gasoline produced and burned produces 25 pounds of carbon dioxide". "Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition. No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished."