A sharp man

[Bobby]

politically astute, nice vision for the world and the US's place in it.

"First, I worry about climate change," Clinton said in an onstage conversation with the founder of the World Economic Forum. "It's the only thing that I believe has the power to fundamentally end the march of civilization as we know it, and make a lot of the other efforts that we're making irrelevant and impossible."
======

Clinton won frequent enthusiastic applause _ not a common situation at the annual gathering in the Swiss Alps _ for articulating a global vision more conciliatory and inclusive than the one many of the assembled tend to associate with U.S. politics.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--worldforum-clinto0128jan28,0,2658428,print.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

[46zilzal]

a Rhodes scholar correct?

[Bobby]

Yes

[Tom]

A Randy Rhodes scholar.

Trailer park trash. :D

[Bobby]

Tom, he lives in your neck of the woods.

His wife is your senator. Over 60% of the vote.

[Tom]

I always said NY was a state of idiots - except for 40% of us.

[PaceAdvantage]

How much did the air, water, and general world climate IMPROVE under Clinton's 8 years in office? Anyone have any hard data to show me?

[toetoe]

Bobby,

I don't know where Neville Chamberlain matriculated, and he was probably no Rhodesian Scholar, but he could be VERY conciliatory.

[dav4463]

Global warming is a myth. If another ice age is on the way, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.

Humans have delusions of grandeur. We think that we can affect nature much more than we really have the ability to do.

[Tom]

GW probably comes from the same "scientists" who predicted the earth's surface would chain react and explode when we let loose with the first plutonium bomb.

Or the ones who predicted the population bomb that would kill us all in 20 years - written 40 years ago.

Or the ones who swore the world was flat.
Or the ones who thought the sun revolved aroudn the earth.
Or "alchemists anonyous.

Yaddda yadda yadda - scinece is more often wrong than right. It learns from its continual mistakes. It changes its story over time. It is.......LIBERAL!

:eek:

[CryingForTheHorses]

How much did the air, water, and general world climate IMPROVE under Clinton's 8 years in office? Anyone have any hard data to show me?

He didnt change my weather, Its still hot here

[Bobby]

the debate has shifted . . . as the article below aptly points out. The question is not whether human activity has caused global warming, its whether we can stop the dangerous trend. Except for a cluster of fringe thinkers (e.g., Oreilly), global warming IS NOT A MYTH. It's a fact. HArd to see why some of you guys think otherwise.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079935/

[lsbets]

Bobby - before you reach any conclusions, I suggest you do some actual research on your own. Frankly, I have no clue (nor do I care) what O'Reilly says about Global Warming, but the hard evidence shows nothing conclusive about human activity (actually it suggests that human activity has little to no impact, but science has become completely politicized over the past 40 years). 30 years as a sample? Come on, that's like building a horse racing system out of one race.

Warmest year on record? So what, the record only goes back a little over 100 years and until very recently most of that data was incredibly unreliable.

Here's a good example Bobby - that volcano erupting in Alaska will put more pollutants in the atmosphere this year (probably this month) than humans will in this entire decade. The volcanic activity of the 1980's produced more greenhouse gases than man has since the start of the industrial revolution. Global warming happens, so does global cooling - they are natural cycles that the earth goes through. Man's impact is minimal, if not completely insignifigant.

[Secretariat]

Bobby,

Don't let them give you the corporate line on Global Warming. The majority of scientists know better, as do most people who live near a smokestack or next to an interstate highway.

Repubs also like to talk about business competitiveness even though the average CEO's annual income is 431 times that of the average worker of that same company.

In 1982 the CEO to average worker difference was 42 times. In 1990 the CEO to average worker difference was 100 times. In 2004 the CEO to average worker difference was 431 times. Where does the greed and disparity stop? Last year CEO's received on average a 1% raise whereas workers received on average a 3% raise barely maintaining inflation levels. It's obscene, and yet they still want more. Bigger tax breaks for the wealthiest, no raise on the minimum wage, easier trade with sub-minimum wage countries in the name of globalization. And you'll hear the same refrain, we have to compete or we'll have to cut jobs. Unions are making more concessions now than ever, and what is the reward. More job cuts, and bigger raises for the CEOs.

Bobby, they can't contest those facts. The truth is the speration of wealth in this country is growing larger and larger. It now takes two people working full time to get by, yet Repubs talk about morality and stable parents raising their kids (even though both parents working puts a burden on raising kids). Don't get me started. Clinton was a flawed man, very flawed, but what is occurring today is what really borders on the obscene.

[lsbets]

Holy crap Sec - I post information about naturally produced pollutants and you respond "don't listen to them, check out what CEOs make". You get more entertaining every day.

[JustRalph]

I question any temperature readings and other stuff that relies on data collected a hundred years ago.............you think those thermometers and wind guages and such were accurate? How about "cloud density readings" which I read about in an article on global warning. I am sure those readings from the 20's were right on .............:rolleyes:

[twindouble]

Bobby,

Don't let them give you the corporate line on Global Warming. The majority of scientists know better, as do most people who live near a smokestack or next to an interstate highway.

Repubs also like to talk about business competitiveness even though the average CEO's annual income is 431 times that of the average worker of that same company.

In 1982 the CEO to average worker difference was 42 times. In 1990 the CEO to average worker difference was 100 times. In 2004 the CEO to average worker difference was 431 times. Where does the greed and disparity stop? Last year CEO's received on average a 1% raise whereas workers received on average a 3% raise barely maintaining inflation levels. It's obscene, and yet they still want more. Bigger tax breaks for the wealthiest, no raise on the minimum wage, easier trade with sub-minimum wage countries in the name of globalization. And you'll hear the same refrain, we have to compete or we'll have to cut jobs. Unions are making more concessions now than ever, and what is the reward. More job cuts, and bigger raises for the CEOs.

Bobby, they can't contest those facts. The truth is the speration of wealth in this country is growing larger and larger. It now takes two people working full time to get by, yet Repubs talk about morality and stable parents raising their kids (even though both parents working puts a burden on raising kids). Don't get me started. Clinton was a flawed man, very flawed, but what is occurring today is what really borders on the obscene.

Sec, I agree with most of what you said. Global trade is nothing new nore is the salvery you mentioned, it has existed for centuries. Like I said in another thead, slavery still goes on here in this country, it's just takes different forms. There's no question the tax system has to change and we have to take control of how our money is spent. I'm leaning toward a flat tax or consumption tax. What do you think?

T.D.

[lsbets]

This has been linked here before, and it is dead on:

"So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief. "

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

[ljb]

I could be wrong here ls, but I think sec was responding to the smart alec remarks made by the other posters prior to your post. He did wander a bit though. :D
Interesting data about the volcano. Think Robertson will have someone to blame that on ? ;)

[lsbets]

I don't know ljb, I don't see any other comments in the thread dealing with the pay of CEOs. Just call me crazy.

I'm sure Robertson would have an interesting take on it, just as good old Cindy Sheehan would. But, in Cindy's case I'm not sure who she would blame it on - did you see the quote when she was in Ireland and said Clinton should have been impeached because he was a murderer and just as bad as Bush? There's plenty of nuts on both sides.

[Secretariat]

Sec, I agree with most of what you said. Global trade is nothing new nore is the salvery you mentioned, it has existed for centuries. Like I said in another thead, slavery still goes on here in this country, it's just takes different forms. There's no question the tax system has to change and we have to take control of how our money is spent. I'm leaning toward a flat tax or consumption tax. What do you think?

T.D.

I wouldn't mind seeing a good debate on it, but frankly I think the pregressive tax system is a good one. It's just been burdened down by special interests. If ALL deductions were eliminated, you'd accomplish what the original authors of the progressive tax intended which was for those beenfittting the most by a capitalist system to pay the most. The disagreement comes here on what shoudl be that figure. Frankly, I think Eisenhower warned of this when he left office about the dangers of the expansion of the military industrial complex, and the lobbying by war based industries to "push for manufacture of their weaponry". Ike was spot on and here we are. Add to that the entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Soc. Security (which contrary to what some here say - people really do want to maintain by large margins in polls) and you're left with a budget that asks people to make sacrifices or pay for those things. Problem is the wealthy have strong lobbies and have pushed for not having to pay, even as I said the disparity between wealthy and poor continues to grow and poverty levels continue to climb. It's a mess.

Would a flat tax alleviate it? Steve Forbes from the right tried this, but America didn't buy it. Even Jerry Brown pushed it from the left and the American public woudln't buy it. The problem is the deductions issue more than a flat tax system in my opinon, and the differences between the progressive raises betweeen levels. Now, there are too few levels and the top rates are way too low.

[Secretariat]

Well, obviously business leaders are beginning to realize the threat as evidenced in this report by the Conference Board which is about as conservative as you can get.

http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=2465

The melting of glaciers, the rising of the sea levels, the taking of core samples in Iceland tracking temperatures for 150,000 years all have shown the temperature rising. The great majortiy of climatologists concur.

We've been through this argument so many times on this board. It'd take a Florida to go underwater until they start thinking its possible.

[PaceAdvantage]

We've been through this argument so many times on this board. It'd take a Florida to go underwater until they start thinking its possible.

See, we have a credibility issue, once again....

Absolutely NOBODY on here, that I am aware of, is under the impression that it is NOT possible. Nobody has said it is NOT possible.

You go slinging around these hyperboles (akin to the "worst President in 80+ years" and "Just like Vietnam") and you lose your credibility.

Sec, who on here has stated that it is NOT possible? Of course it's possible, but the evidence presented so far is lacking when studied with an unbiased, critical eye.

Cause and effect in this case has been elusive.....depending on your political slant, you can make the case for any number of scenarios.

Unfortunately, more often than not, this has little to do with the TRUTH.

[46zilzal]

and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing.

hmmm from the British Antarctic survey:The extent of ice shelves around the Antarctic Peninsula has been catalogued using various data: reports from expeditions, aerial photographs and satellite images. Around 8000 km 2 has been lost since the 1950's. In the same period meteorological stations measured an increase in the air temperature of about 2°C. The two observations can be linked, because there exists a climatic limit of viability for ice shelves related to summer temperatures. Warming has pushed the limit south and all the ice shelves that are now outside it have retreated, including Wordie Ice Shelf, the ice shelf that occupied Prince Gustav Channel, and Larsen Ice Shelf A. The final stages of the loss of Larsen Ice Shelf A in 1995 were particularly spectacular; in fifty days an area of ice shelf the size of Surrey broke up into thousands of football pitch-sized icebergs and floated away.

What caused the warming which attacked the ice shelves is not yet clear. It is possible the climate in this region is subject to natural cycles or that the warming could be related to global climate change. If the warming continues more ice shelves may be threatened.

[46zilzal]

. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

THe studies of BIOACCUMULATION were started with this one as a classical example before the cholrnated biphenyls were studied
I guess folks just make this up then.http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html

[lsbets]

"No DDT-related human fatalities or chronic illnesses have ever been recorded, even among the DDT-soaked workers in anti-malarial programs or among prisoners who were fed DDT as volunteer test subjects — let alone among the 600 million to 1 billion who lived in repeatedly-sprayed dwellings at the height of the substance's use. The only recorded cases of DDT poisoning were from massive accidental or suicidal ingestions, and even in these cases, it was probably the kerosene solvent rather than the DDT itself that caused illness. Reports of injury to birds could not be verified, even when one researcher force-fed DDT-laced worms to baby robins. Reports of fish kills have been greatly exaggerated, resulting from faulty data or aberrant, massive spills or overuse of the chemical that do not hint at a general danger in its use.

Even the December 31, 1972 EPA press release entitled "DDT Ban Takes Effect" noted that DDT had been a great boon to human health. Dr. Norman Moore, the British scientist who first claimed that DDT might be the cause of declining eagle populations (one of the chief non-human-health arguments for eliminating the chemical), conceded that the pesticide's huge benefits might easily outweigh its purported effects on animals: "[I]f I were living in a hut in Africa," mused Moore, "I would rather have a trace of DDT in my body than die of malaria." Moore's calculation seems wise.

Nonetheless, because groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund encouraged the EPA's ban, for three decades now, malaria has again been allowed to wreak havoc. In South Africa, for example, malaria cases increased by 1000% in the late 90s alone (but dropped 80% in 2000 alone in KwaZulu Natal, the one province that made extensive use of DDT). Some 300 million people a year are debilitated by malaria, at immense cost to both human health and the economies of poor nations. "

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp

30-60 million people have died from malaria worldwide since the banning of DDT.

[Tom]

I question any temperature readings and other stuff that relies on data collected a hundred years ago.............you think those thermometers and wind guages and such were accurate? How about "cloud density readings" which I read about in an article on global warning. I am sure those readings from the 20's were right on .............:rolleyes:


Jay Leno pointed out something similar to this the other night – when the first temperatures were recorded, people were taking dumps in the woods, some had wooden teeth, they used leeches to suck out evil spirits, and rotated horse shoes every spring. They read by candlelight and carried water inside in buckets.

Now, since the whole global warming thing revolves around the earth heating up by a couple of degrees on average, isn’t it a stretch to imagine that theses folks had their fingers on the most accurate, repeatable thermometers around?

[Tom]

We've been through this argument so many times on this board. It'd take a Florida to go underwater until they start thinking its possible.

Wake up, boy, smell the coffee. This is the way the earth evolves - humans have nothing to do with it. If Florida sinks, it will sink - we didn't cause it and we can't stop it. The world is an evolving thing - get used to it.
I can't believe you are so worried about nature in action and what will happen in the distant future and are so unconcerned over current threats and stop at noting to portest our actually doing someting about them.
Sec, every post you make somehow cuts down and puts down Bush and the conservatives and whitewashes the same conduct and policies by the libs.
Your political agend is so transparent is isn't funny. "Ohhhh, what can we do? big bad busniess is killing the planet? Oh meeeee!"

Grow up, Chicken Little.

[Tom]

"30-60 million people have died from malaria worldwide since the banning of DDT"

Killed by empty-headed liberals.

[lsbets]

"30-60 million people have died from malaria worldwide since the banning of DDT"

Killed by empty-headed liberals.

That's a lot more people than George Bush has killed!

[JustRalph]

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/12/14/178999.html

John Stossel on DDT

50 million dead kids can't be wrong..............

[Bobby]

Louisiana goes under water 2 football fields a day - RISING SEA LEVELS. No, LA is not the most attractive place to visit. It's definitely not FL, but it's sinking and was sinking long before the Hurricanes.

====

LS: you really believe that second hand smoke is not a health hazard and never has been? That the govt banned DDT for no reason?

[twindouble]

Louisiana goes under water 2 football fields a day - RISING SEA LEVELS. No, LA is not the most attractive place to visit. It's definitely not FL, but it's sinking and was sinking long before the Hurricanes.

====

LS: you really believe that second hand smoke is not a health hazard and never has been? That the govt banned DDT for no reason?

I would never hang my hat on any study, name me just one that has stood the test of time when it comes to our health.


T.D.

[lsbets]

Louisiana goes under water 2 football fields a day - RISING SEA LEVELS. No, LA is not the most attractive place to visit. It's definitely not FL, but it's sinking and was sinking long before the Hurricanes.

====

LS: you really believe that second hand smoke is not a health hazard and never has been? That the govt banned DDT for no reason?

I don't think DDT was banned for no reason, I just don't think it was banned for any good or honest reasons, and the facts support that view.

Let me ask you Bobby - why do you believe the things you do? On the basis of what information.

[Secretariat]

"Ohhhh, what can we do? big bad busniess is killing the planet? Oh meeeee!"

Grow up, Chicken Little.

Interesting the link I put up expressing serious concern about global warming was from the Conference Board which is a group of conservative businesses around since 1916. But did you read the link? Of course you didn't, but gave your usual knee jerk dittohead response. These are businesses saying this, not "liberals" who recognize the seriousness of global warming and thier responsiblity to do something about it. I thought you supported business. As to temperatures being taken. Well, Tom, temperatures can be determiend up to 150,00 years ago by measuring the ice cores in Iceland and Greenland. Professors have done so and it is quite evident from their measurements over 150,000 years that the earth is warming rapidly. But put your head back into the sand. We're used to it here.

[tahoesid]

Seems to me what they don't tell you about all these kids dying is that they have so many kids, that it is a self inficting cause....they can't feed all these kids and they have all these kids because they know that a good percentage will die. They want to have a few surviving kids...blah blah blah.


Just to say that all these kids die and not look at all the underlying causes is a shame. To blame it on just one thing or the other is just burying your head in the sand. It is all politicized and depends on whom you talk to and who is asking for your money.

[Lefty]

Tom says:30-60 million people have died from malaria worldwide since the banning of DDT"

Killed by empty-headed liberals
_________________________________---
That's a triva q. Who's responsible for more deaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rachel Carson?

[Bobby]

I didn't realize that DDT is not as harmful as once thought. However, with that said, I think its pretty clear that if the avg temp on earth rises just 3 or 4 degrees over the next say 50 to 100 years, then big trouble for the coastal regions, particularly the east coast. It really doesn't matter if human activity is exacerbating it or not, the fact is is that earth is warming at an alarming trend. No one can deny that.

[lsbets]

Bobby - when you look at your 10 day weather forecast, how reliable would you say it is 10 days out? Now you want to believe projections going out 100 years? I'm not saying global warming doesn't happen and it might be happenning now. What I am saying is the earth's climate changes, always has and always will, and there is very little we can do to stop it.

Here's a way to help deal with the problem of property loss in coastal areas subject to flooding - don't pay for the damage to people who don't have insurance. They will either have to get insurance or, because of the cost of insurance, they will move away from those areas, and in the long run less lives will be lost and less property will be damaged due to coastal storms. It sounds harsh, and it is, but our current policies do nothing to disuade people from living in areas that might not be the best areas to live in.

[chickenhead]

Bobby,

Don't let them give you the corporate line on Global Warming. The majority of scientists know better.


http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to. "

[Tom]

Interesting the link I put up expressing serious concern about global warming was from the Conference Board which is a group of conservative businesses around since 1916. But did you read the link? Of course you didn't, but gave your usual knee jerk dittohead response. These are businesses saying this, not "liberals" who recognize the seriousness of global warming and thier responsiblity to do something about it. I thought you supported business. As to temperatures being taken. Well, Tom, temperatures can be determiend up to 150,00 years ago by measuring the ice cores in Iceland and Greenland. Professors have done so and it is quite evident from their measurements over 150,000 years that the earth is warming rapidly. But put your head back into the sand. We're used to it here.
Sec, Sec,Sec.
*sigh*
What to do with you?
Yes, temp can be ESTIMATED from a long time ago - and it is estimated that the worlds was warmer in the middle ages than it is today.
And once, the world was overed with ice. It got warm, the ice melted, civilizations flourished. The earth stated out very hot, then got very cold, then warmed up, then cooled down again, no with is warming up again.
It is called "cyclical" and the earth goes through many of them. We are in one now. We will be in another one someday. Get it through your head - the earth will do what the earth does and we cannot stop it, help it, or run away from it. We can affect very small things - like how we planted stuff an avoided another dust bowl in Oklahoma - but we didn't stop the winds. They still blow (resisting....resisting.....:rolleyes: )
Why would I care what a bunch of conservative businessmen think when they are wrong? I am not a lib - I don't believe people because are the same political group as me....that's nuts.

[lsbets]

Careful Tom, he might call you a dittohead again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change

By Juliet Eilperin / Washington Post

Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

[lsbets]

Wow 46, that looks like the oped Bobby posted earlier. Guess you didn't notice it looking down from four 6'3" perch. :lol:

[46zilzal]

saying it twice doesn't change it

[Tom]

"Tipping point" is how much booze you have to consume to buy into all this crap! :sleeping:

[46zilzal]

the idea was presented in the book of the same name by Malcom Gladwell author of BLINK

[Tom]

BLINK or DRINK ? :D

[Secretariat]

To those with their heads still in the sand. From GW's number one fan (Beleive me, I take no joy in this posting):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060130/wl_afp/britainenvironmentclimatewarming_060130150925;_ylt =AjpFS3sjEaUrwcr0Xlj5PRZrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9 mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

LONDON (AFP) - Global warming could cause ice at both poles of the Earth to start melting this century, driving up sea levels, according to a major study published by the British government.

...

British Prime Minister Tony Blair added his voice to the warning on Monday. "It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought," Blair said in the study's foreword. "It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."

[Lefty]

46warns: Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act
_____________________________________
I remember Ted Danson back in the 80's saying the Oceans and us had only 15 yrs left if something wasn't done. Hmmm, Oceans still here and we're still here. How can that be?

[JustRalph]

I saw a clip from Larry David, you know, Seinfeld, Curb your enthusuiasm guy?

It was back when Seinfeld was first getting popular and he was somewhere with Ted Danson and they were talking about how by the year 2000 the oceans would die. ..............:lol: :lol: :lol:

[lsbets]

I'm still waiting for the bird flu epidemic. Didn't the "consensus" say we would have millions dead by now? What's the number up to - 40, 50? Not million, just 40 or 50.