E-Mail: Password: SIGN UP for free Forgot my password Hello Visitor! You aren't a registered user here. Won't you consider registering with our site? You can unlock more features of the site, leave comments and even elect to receive our "Weekly Shoveling" - a summary of all the coolest stories added each week! It's totally free and takes a few seconds. We don't give out your e-mail or personal information to anybody! Try it! Main Home Page BSAlert Radio! Info/FAQ Links Feedback Fallacy List Bookmark BSAlert FreeThought Wiki BSA on Twitter Articles Submit Article (Login required) Latest Articles BSA Exclusives Article Summary Articles by Main Topic Most Popular Latest Comments Active Articles Features Fairness Doctrine Great Recession Crypto-currency Visit the BSA: Bumper Sticker Store   T-Shirts & More Web bsalert.com   Utilities Have a GREAT day!

U.S. Committed To Battling Global Warming, Except When It's Not Posted by ueberbill (7625 views) [E-Mail link] [Environment] The head of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. climate conference in Nairobi (motto: "Good GOD it's hot") says that the U.S. is committed to battling "the serious global challenge of climate change." This after Secretary General Kofi Annan told the conference that those who would deny global warming (*cough*America*cough**hack*) and delay acting are "out of step" and "out of time," and that there's a frightening lack of international leadership on the issue. The U.S., one of two industrialized nations not to sign the Kyoto protocols and with an outgoing Congress that believes global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people", is committed to battling global warming, for sure, as long as it doesn't affect the economy. A recent British report says that the environmental catastrophes that will result from unimpeded global warming will cost between 5 and 20 percent of global domestic product (that's a lot of potatoes). President Bush said that the Kyoto protocols, the only global effort thus far to reduce greenhouse emissions, would harm the U.S. economy (so we're clear, that's the economy of the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases) and that there should be more controls on developing nations. Many think negotiations on greenhouse gas and global warming control will only take place after the Bush administration has left office in 2009. Details   What tools Posted by wizeGurl on 2006-11-19 22:02:08 This kind of thinking is just like Hurricane Katrina. Restore Louisiana's coastline (which would almost certainly have diminished the effects of any hurricane hitting Louisiana, including Rita) at a cost of $14 billion? Too expensive. Improve the levee system in the New Orleans area to deal with category 4 and 5 hurricanes (remember, Katrina was a 3 by the time it made landfall) at a cost of $1-5 billion? Too expensive. And now, the very same government will have to pick up the tab of fixing the area, to the tune of $200 billion, without a large chunk of the tax revenue lost due to the destruction. If these guys think that a 1-3 foot rise in sea level (most conservative estimate), stronger hurricanes, more droughts, floods, tornados, changing weather patterns and crop suitability, not to mention the flood of refugees from countries with less resources to fall back on when disaster strikes, won't hurt the economy, they're even bigger idiots than I thought.   Comments   Name: (change name for anonymous posting) Title: Comments:     1 Article displayed.

Pursuant to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), BSAlert is a user-contributed editorial web site and does not endorse any specific content, but merely acts as a "sounding board" for the online community. Any and all quoted material is referenced pursuant to "Fair Use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). Like any information resource, use your own judgement and seek out the facts and research and make informed choices.