New Bush Climate Change Study

[Ar-Cunin]

One could wish that Bush would deal with the possible threat of global warming like he deals possible threat of WoMD in Iraq - "We can't wait until we have a smoking gun" etc.

Originally posted by WillowIX: Then I would like to beg for forgiveness MagiK. I misunderstood your words and I am sorry if they caused you any distress. But isn´t the first two paragraphs Timber´s thought on this topic? [img]graemlins/confused2.gif[/img] If they are not his words I have misunderstood those as well I guess. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No worries Willow [img]smile.gif[/img]
I did not realize that his words were not part of the article.

TL [img]smile.gif[/img] Environmentalists deserve all the crap they get from administrations and people who won't believe them that they get. When they started exagerating, over stating and out right lying about things, they doomed their chances of getting anything done. Had they not lied about the Brazilian Rain forest, had they not over stated air polution worries, had they not lied and over stated the dangers of Asbestos, Dioxins, Mercury, Lead, Second Hand smoke, and a whole host of other issues then people like me would be more likely to back them..but they took the low road and now no one really listens.
That is the danger of exagerating your claims to get attention...once you get the attention and it is exposed that you exagerated....you are kind of screwed.

All those things are important and serious, but they were hyped and over blown....

[ 02-27-2003, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

You say environmentalists are overstating things.

Read the last link I provided. I have never seen such overstatements - well, except Enron's representations of ChewCo.

Both sides adopt the most extreme of possible scenarios to support their cause. While I agree with the "middle road" philosophy (primarily because credibility is IMHO the one commodity a lawyer has to sell) that does not mean everyone with a cause should temper their view.

How can you require environmentalists to be uber-honest in representations without being pissed at articles like the one I posted or like any you can find on oil production websites. That's a double-standard, and you are not holding your side of the argument up to the behavior you are holding my side up to.

There's no reason one side should be honest and the other shouldn't.

Unless you admit we're the good guys and you're the bad guys.

Good to see you today, BTW.

You can also take some heart that a full 50% of the Initiatives laid out by the Vice President the other day were about pursuing renewable energy sources and increasing gas milage of cars and suv's. Of course the numbers aren't as big or as dramatic as the libs would like, but hey, at least the issues are being promoted and pushed.

I also found it quite interesting that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Who is bashing Bush et al for not doing enough to help solar and wind power projects is himself an attourney working to block the implementation of a wind farm near his Kennedy homeland in Martha's Vinyard ...he won't even discuss the issue..he just dances around the subject.

TL im not saying both sides don't over state things...Im saying that if you overstate and then get exposed don't whine about no one believeing you...thats the situation as it stands. The enviro-enthusiasts are reaping the rewards for trying to scare us silly all through the 70's and 80's. Now no one takes them seriously.

The point of your original post was on the side of the enviro-nuts (no offense ment there) so thats why I pointedout the reasons people do not listen to them. The other side exagerating is a whole different issue.

[ 02-27-2003, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

And in reply to your hello [img]smile.gif[/img] I would have been here but for some reason couldnt get in from work. DNS issue again