Democrats & Liberals Archives

Lloyd's of London Recognizes Inconvenient Truth

The Guardian reports: “Lloyd’s of London, the oldest insurance market in the world, yesterday urged its members to start taking global warming more seriously, by increasing prices to avoid being “swept away” in a sea of future financial claims. Premiums will have to rise and some risks might even be classed as uninsurable due to greenhouse gases and rising sea levels, warned Lloyd’s in a report entitled Climate Change, Adapt or Bust.”

Posted by Woody Mena at June 11, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #156465

Al Gore is a fraud! And so is this global warming bit. 20 years ago you liberals were talking about global cooling. You have no facts to support any of this. Greenhouse gas is less than 1% of all gas. And every year since 1979 it has been falling!! So find something elese to hitch your wagon to. Maybe you libs can go sleep with your buddy hugo!!!

Posted by: nathan at June 11, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #156467


What are you doing surfing the Internet on the Sabbath? Go to church!

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 11, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #156471

“Greenhouse gas is less than 1% of all gas”

A good share of the other 99% is the result of Republicans spewing forth hot air.


Posted by: KansasDem at June 11, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #156476

i don’t know, nathan. i live in pensacola, and we’re all quite anxious over the onset of hurricane season. your talking points have some logic to them, as all talking points do; yet i can’t help but feel they are the usual justification for maintaining the conservative status quo. i did read the little link over on the right of the blog page, the one about how global warming is the biggest hoax — sure seemed like the article it linked to was more about blaming clinton and admissions that, yes, some scientists (1 in 6 or so) believe there is something to global warming, that some computer models predict serious problems, and that efforts on the part of humans can make a difference — but it would be VERY EXPENSIVE… and that’s the crux. Of course it would be expensive, but the real conservative complaint is that it would shift economic factors to other sectors, even to areas under the control of consumers themselves. gasp! Granted, greenhouse gasses contributed by humans may be “miniscule,” but global weather is balanced on many miniscule differences. other factors, off the top of my head, that may be involved could include long-term and widespread deforestation, decrease of reflective nature of ice fields, etc. i’m sure you have clever talking points all ready for these issues, but i’m not here to spend my days picking apart the logical half-truths that conservatives can employ scores of lawyers to generate. i just want to know why the sea levels are rising. they certainly do seem to be rising over the last century (i’m a maritime archaeologist — i can see this occurring at sites all the time) and we better find out why and develop an appropriate response beyond snarky assurances that all is fine.

Posted by: Jim C. at June 11, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #156478

Wow - denying Global Warming and God in the same sentence.

I’m shocked.

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #156479


“The United States emitted more greenhouse gases in 2004 than at any time in history, confirming its status as the world’s biggest polluter. Latest figures on the US contribution to global warming show that its carbon emissions have risen sharply despite international concerns over climate change.

The figures, which were quietly released on Easter Monday, reveal that net greenhouse gas emissions during 2004 increased by 1.7 per cent on the previous year, equivalent to a rise of 110 million tons of carbon dioxide.

This is the biggest annual increase since 2000 and means that in 2004 - the latest year that full data is available - the US released the equivalent of nearly 6,300 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

“Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now a third higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, and probably higher than they have been for at least 10 million years.

Scientists have suggested that if the international community is to try to stabilise carbon dioxide levels at twice pre-industrial levels then countries such as the US and Britain need to reduce emissions by about 60 per cent by the middle of this century.

Professor Read said there was mounting evidence to suggest that rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions were beginning to cause serious climate effects, such as a drop in annual rainfall in east Africa because of rising water temperatures in the Indian Ocean.

“If emissions continue to rise, we can expect even more impacts across the world,” Professor Read said. “The developing world will find it difficult to adapt to climate change and the industrialised countries, which are primarily responsible for the rise in greenhouse gas levels, should realise that they would also struggle to adapt to a world in which, for instance, sea levels are several metres higher,” he said.”


hmmmm…. I think you’re absolutely wrong.

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #156480

Higher prices & nuclear power. We can talk all we want about the problem; those are the solutions. Higher prices will encourage conservation and alternative. Although on our red side you can see how some liberals react to the reality of wind power.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #156482

“Higher prices & nuclear power. We can talk all we want about the problem; those are the solutions. Higher prices will encourage conservation and alternative. Although on our red side you can see how some liberals react to the reality of wind power.”

I would agree that higher prices will drive alternative energy options. I don’t see a very comfortable future with nuclear… way too expensive and the long term effects are disasterous (any idea which material we should store the waste in for the next 50,000 years?

Also, why do you automatically turn an attack on liberals? I know it’s in your nature, but I would hope you can see the futility in making this a political party discussion. Ever wonder why no a single political hot-button issue has been solved in the past 30 years? (Cause then the politicians would loose their strangle hold on their votes.)

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #156483

i agree, coonjay, but i think the change you envision is to bring all in line with a view of the universe that is highly particularistic and designed to appease a deity about whom no human has any insight. i think we’d be better off changing our hearts with regard to our attitude toward consumerist excesses, as exemplified by our energy policy.

Jim C.

Posted by: Jim C. at June 11, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #156486

Higher energy prices and nuclear power, and biodisel and hybred vehicles, and wind and solarpower, and less emmissions, and more trees, and then more trees..

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #156490

Id like to point people towards this website:

Its conclusions are as follows:

The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.

The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend — global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.

The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.

Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.

Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.

There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.


It does not deny ‘global warming’ or our contribution towards it but merely suggests that the causes for these changes are far more complex then we currently understand and that the causes of the increases in CO2 are not entirely due to the emittion of C02 from the usually cited sources.

I would, however, be careful in these stats as there may be a vested interest to not be completely neutral on the issue as his profile suggests.

I hope this information helps, as for the neoconservative christians’ commnent, i agree we need to change peoples hearts, but id like to hear what your change involves. Also such a comment: ‘I tell you this out of love, not the brokeback kind, but true brotherly love’ implies a hatred or at least dissagreement of the idea of homosexuality. Why can’t the love of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ be extended to every human being regardless of their sexual orientation. Sexuality, afterall, is a social construction and no where in it lies a ‘truth’ of how one should act. Many civilisations have encouraged bisexuality, the Romans being a prime example, and if a person loves someone should it really matter what gender they are, and shouldnt people have the freedom to love whoever they want? Perhaps one should try to look at sexuality (not biological but socially) not as a binary opposition, of male on one side, and female on the other, but as a continum, with female characteristics on one side and male characteristics on the other, and every indivdual regardless of their biological gender should have the freedom to adopt socially assumed behaviours of each sex at any point along this continous scale whenever they wish and may even change it from day to day. Is that realy so against God?

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #156489


It is my nature. I think the word is pugnacious.

I am referring specifically to the article I wrote about wind power on the other side. There is too much precaution on the left end and not enough action.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #156494

“There is too much precaution on the left end and not enough action. “

Coming from the right - ummm, that statement rings extremely hollow. The REPs have had complete control of both Congress and the White House during a war that initially garnered more collective support in the US than we’ve seen in the past 50 years… So what do they have to show for it?

I will agree that the REPs have tossed caution to the wind and gone full-throttle on action, but without intelligence and forethought, well… we see where that gets us.

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #156502

Religionseems to set some people up for a lifetime of freedom from responsibility for the state of humankind and our earth, with the idea that “it’s all in god’s hands”. This denial of reality will be a shameful period in human history, if there is anybody around to remember us.

Posted by: justagirl at June 11, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #156506

justagirl -

I thought it was “the devil made me do it.” Guess it’s alot easier when you have a “get out of hell free” card.

I always imagine facing God and then trying to explain the mess we’ve made of things down here.

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #156513


The current cultural state excisting predominantly in 1st world capitalist countries is one of apathy and ignorance, somewhat fuelled by religion but also by the medias oversimplification and misrepresentation of events and the consumerist mentality where all ills can be resolved by just spending abit of money on some product. The eyes of the people have been deliberately redirected to matters of triviality, in order to reduce the power they should have (as a right in a democratic state) and therefore allow imperialistic, profiteering governments to excist and exploit the worlds resources and people. It is this denial of reality as a whole that will be the shameful period in human history. However, there are very rare periods in human history that arnt shameful. A result of human nature perhaps?

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #156516

Some of the comments presented here is concrete evidence that God did NOT create man in His image.

If God was that stupid, the universe would still be a big, dark, empty hole.

Posted by: ulysses at June 11, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #156517

ulysses -

Im sure Christians would simply argue that God created stupid humans as a ‘test’. Or, perhaps, God doesn’t excist and religion is a tool used by those in power to control those who are not. I mean if anyone but King Henry VIII wanted a divorce I don’t think they could have instigated a whole new church to allow them to do so. Hmm, now I wonder why that is…?

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #156519

…or maybe God created stupid, violent people so things wouldn’t feel so foreign to Christians.

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #156521

Saying that “liberals said” anything 20 years ago so therefore there is no global warming is exactly the type of response that I would expect from a churchgoer. Put your head in the sand and put it all “in Gods hands”. Us “liberals” need to understand that we cannot to talk a frog in the well about the sea, we can’t make the blind see, and we can make the ignorant understand.

Posted by: Paul at June 11, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #156524

Paul -

As to your comment on making ‘the ignorant understand’ id just like to quote the Matrix (don’t laugh, i believe it has a serious message between the lines)

‘The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around. What do you see?

Business people, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them
our enemy.

‘You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependant on the system, that they will fight to protect it.’

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #156525

The earth’s climate is changing from what we’re used to. That is an indisputable fact well documented by solid science. The phrase “climate change” is somewhat redundant because climate changes. It is not a static thing, but a dynamic process. On a geologic timescale, what we consider normal is unusually mild. The near universal fixation on trace gasses ignores the many factors which drive and influence climate.
The leftist mantra “man is causing global warming and man can stop it” is, at best, speculation and assumption. I’m not that generous, though. I believe it is part of a calculated campaign of fear mongering by collectivists to pursuade people to voluntarily surrender their liberty in exchange for supposed security.
Economics will drive technological innovation that will one day make oil based industry, especially transportation, obsolete.
There are many reasons to make our technology as clean and efficient as possible. Global warming isn’t one of them.
Lloyd’s of London is doing what I’ve always advocated regarding climate change. They are adapting.

The Fly,

“Is that realy so against God?”

Yes, it is. Rom 1:26-27 1Tim 1:6-10

Posted by: traveller at June 11, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #156527

traveller -

‘Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

‘In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.’

Ah, thanx for pointing me towards these, i see God is against open sexuality then. But i also found this:

‘If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.

‘People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.’

It seems then Mr Bush is as against God’s teachings as those pesky homosexuals…

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #156536

The Fly,

“Ah, thanx for pointing me towards these, i see God is against open sexuality then.”

God considers HOMOsexuality an abomination (KJV)/detestable sin (NLT). Le 18:22

“It seems then Mr Bush is as against God’s teachings as those pesky homosexuals…”

What’s your point? I didn’t like his daddy and I don’t like him. I think Bush is as bad a president as Clinton, to whom the scripture you quoted also applies, probably more so.

Posted by: traveller at June 11, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #156539


I leave this stuff up to the scientists. If the scientists, as a community, have a large majority opinion that this planet is in danger due to global warming, I listen. I figure it’s better safe than sorry when the whole planet is at stake.

You, on the other hand, get your science from Republican talking points. You know better than the scientific community (which is not political). When you hear about the planet being in danger, you think about yourself and what it might cost you in gas to do something about it. You figure you’d rather keep money in your wallet than be a proactively responsible person.

You’re a Republican. And you make me sick.

Posted by: Max at June 11, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #156542

traveller -

My point is that most Christians I have encountered in my life are very selective in what they follow from the bible. I was attempting to highlight Bush’s belief in the ban of gay marraige (based on a christian fuelled belief)yet him going against other areas of the bible in such a horrific and exploitative way. I believe the hatred shown towards homosexuals is wrong and that no one, not even Mr Bush himself, should have the ability, using his christian supporters as a power base, to instigate control over this group of people.

I apologise for assuming that you are a supporter of George Bush. It seems you think I am a supporter of Clinton. That is not the case, there is probably only one modern president I like, as I do not believe in the foundations of the current political system, but thats for another debate.

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #156548

Coonjay -

I am happy to see their is no hate from you, but it is undeniable that alot of hate does emit from this issue from many other neocon christians.

I also respect your beliefs and your desire to ‘help’ those that you believe need helping. But ultimately it is the choice of that individual and as long as their behaviour does not impact on your personal freedom then their is no reason why they should not be allowed to practice what they too believe is right. It is also, in my opinion, unacceptable for politicians to be able to control such groups for similar reasons.

I do hope your sharing of the ‘truth’ is not unreasonably forced upon them without their will and that a patrionising tone is avoided.

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #156549

‘How did we get into what God thinks of sexual orientations.’

It was my comment, which my beliefs led me to say, about your comment on brotherly love, but not the brokeback kind. That reassurance that you didnt mean gay love stood out.


I apologise for being the cause of a major diversion in this topic, for those who wish to see AN analysis of the scientfic research on global warming i again direct you to:

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #156555

The Fly,
People who profess to be Christians but who do not live by the teachings of the Savior are selective. People who are truly Christian are not. None follow perfectly as we are all fallen.

Some people do hate homosexuals but they are not in keeping with Christian values when they do. The sin, not the sinner, is what Christians hate. We pray that the sinner will renounce his sin and be redeemed. The attempt to insure that gay marriage is never institutionalized in America is a refusal to sanction it. Homosexuals can engage in their perversion all they want. When they demand that I acquiesce in it they have a fight on their hands.

Posted by: traveller at June 11, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #156557

Coonjay, from my perspective, it is twisted that you seem equally as certain of the existence of God as you are of the non-existance of homosexuals.

How ironical.

Homosexuals are born, not made. Ask one. Science has proven, in fact, that the brain patterns of homosexual men more closely resemble those of women than heterosexual men. Being gay is not a choice. Realizing that you don’t know what you don’t know, is.

Posted by: justagirl at June 11, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #156558

Wether or not one believes that global warming is occurring or even if one believes in the profoundly absurd notion that being good stewards of the earth God gave us is sinful, a good look at the balance of trade deficit ,the increasing shortage of oil, and our reliance on supplies from despotic,unstable regimes should be enough to convince the rational that it is time to pursue alternative energy sources.
We stand at an historic juncture,filled with challenge and opportunity. In the future,when historians look back at this administration,I suspect that they will point to the reticence to adress this as their worst error,surpassing their many others.
The insurance industry is a powerful allie in this struggle. Loyds of London is not given to flights of fantasy and this should be a wake up call to us all,even those simple enough to believe Texas has anything to do with paradise.

Posted by: BillS at June 11, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #156560

I say “cherchez the money” and you’ll discover what motivates those who write the anti-global warming editorials. 100% of the time, the writer is backed by a conservative “think” tank, which is in turn funded by oil and auto companies, intent on protecting their bottom lines no matter what reality and science demonstrate.

Case in point: The Competitive Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon Mobil) became a laughingstock after producing an unintentionally hilarious anti-global warming infomercial that intoned, “Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.”

We all need to examine this class of hogwash and start calling it what it is – dishonest crapola.

Posted by: pianofan at June 11, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #156564

“Dishonest crapola” is too mild. Looking at the distortions oil dependance has caused to US forign policy including the Irag adventure,I would call it unpatriotic,near treasonious. Would we be in Iraq if there was no oil there?Would we have placed the Shah in Iran generating endless emnity from the Iranians if there was no oil there? Our soldiers are being killed because of oil. Time to change.

Posted by: BillS at June 11, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #156565

Seems like after 9-11, our first order of business should have been to detach the U.S. as quickly as possible from utter dependence on countries whose philosophies and governments were at complete odds with our ideals. Instead, all of our efforts since 9-11 have just encouraged more dependence on oil. Drilling in every last inch of what little remains of American wilderness won’t translate to more than a few cents off at the pump.

Getting off the oil teat would help dispel the effects of global warming and even better: allow us to stop funneling our money to these repulsive mid-eastern totalitarian regimes every time we pull into a gas station.

I doubt that we’d ever have sent troops into Iraq if we weren’t so worried about war in the Middle East cutting our oil supply. I’d love to see which direction U.S.-Middle East policy would go if we didn’t have to approach these folks with a hat-in-hand attitude.

Posted by: pianofan at June 11, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #156567

Coonyjay and other non-believers of global warming have you heard of the Evangelical Climate Initiative? 86 and counting Evangelical leaders started this initiative because they believe wholeheartedly in global warming and the Bible’s directive that man must be a good stewart of the earth. God gave us the gifts of intelligence and science, so that we do not destroy ourselves and all He has created. I am a Christian and I absolutely will protect God’s creations. If you do not believe the scientists and do not protect God’s creation, then it is you who is going to Hell.

Posted by: wheredemballs at June 11, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #156573

As Christians, we are called to stewardship of what which God gives us. Our lives, the lives of our children, and of course, of the environment we live in. Do I think that God will look positively on those who were wasteful, destructive, and careless with the world God gave us, any more than he would look well on those who were the same with the other gifts God gave them? No, I think he would not.

It is not only important in terms of our relationship between ourselves and this present world God gave us, but in terms of our relationship with our children, and all our subsequent descendants.

How long would they have to suffer for our mistakes, if we continue down our current path? Certain Christians, who believe that the end is not so far away, would say that we can just continue our ways as we do now, since everything will perish soon enough. But as a person who takes God seriously when he tell us we will know the hour or the day, that he will come like a thief in the night, I will not act as if the end is guaranteed to come soon enough to save my children and my grandchildren from suffering for my mistakes.

By your logic, Noachian Geology would cancel out the credibility of Modern Geology. Here, consistency seems to be a hobgoblin of small thinking.

Global Climate studies have gotten considerably more sophisticated in recent times, especially given the increase in computing power necessary to raise the resolution and complexity of the models approximating the real world.

By your logic on atmospheric composition, Nitrogen would be the most important gas for people on this planet, rather than oxygen or water vapor (without which we would have no clouds, much less rain). Oxygen is only 21% of our air. Water Vapor can vary, but it’s usually one percent or lower. Small concentrations of many compounds in the air can have their effect. It’s fallacious to think that concentration is the only variable at work.

As far as decreases go, does this look like a decrease to you? Emissions are increasing. You just don’t want to admit it.

If you admitted it, you might in good conscience have to do something about it, and that might mean agreeing with us liberals, which of course would bring on Armageddon. So, denying global warming is really just your way of protecting us all. How considerate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 11, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #156575

you have said it quite well. Even 43 has stated we as a Country are addicted to oil, and the Christians are seeing the light and realizing the environment is worth saving. Its past time to break our addiction.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #156584


Why on earth, or in heaven, do you see the recognition of global climate change in opposition to God? Do you not believe we are commanded by God to be good stewards of the earth? If human induced climate change has the potential of creating great suffering for our brothers and sisters what is wrong with speaking up about it? Did God say, “thou shalt not plan for the future?”

Posted by: Chris2x at June 11, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #156594

Fly—it seems like you’ve taken too many “red pills”.

Coonyjay—seriously don’t bring religious topics here, I already forgot what the damn topic was.

Jesus was probably a schitzophrenic and his disciples disgruntled fishermen looking for an easy life through prosletization of a religionto bring the mass coinage through donations. God might actually be something of a more quantum physical nature that is moreso a body of quantum laws as opposed to a guy with sandals who looks a bit like Jerry Garcia. What if it turns out that the universe is really really big and we mere humans in the midst of it on the teensie spinning blue marble are looking for a means of stress reduction so we invented notions of the divine to suffice that drive. Maybe just some people want this world to be about more so we invent these systems or notions to perhaps attain power over others. All these crazy monkeys out of their own ego worlds wanting to mount other monkeys to establish top apehood by proxy of God is better than all and I lay claim that I can speak for it or him or her—whatever thus what i say goes or Youuuu go to the hell I just made up ten minutes ago. Look deep, reallize it’s ideogogical crapola that we serve to each other to stave off stress and fears that by and large make us all the more mature as adults by facing dead on AS THEY EXIST.

Satan loves you

Posted by: Novenge at June 11, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #156595

Coonyjay -

This is clearly a matter of principles and belief and as with most issues relating to religion their is no room for debate. I am sorry that you and many others believe in such things that do not and should not apply to a society that is far different and arguably far more evolved then the one described by the various selected ‘authors’ of the bible.

I do, however, condemn those that attempt to put religion in the same court as politics, the constitution after all declares this should not be the case. Clearly, the belief prescribed by the bible to which you cannot passively accept to be broken in our modern society, is a purely religious issue and should not be imposed through an apparently secular government on those who do not prescribe to your religion.

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #156597

Novenge -

‘it seems like you’ve taken too many “red pills”.’

You can never have too many…

Afterall we’re blinded by half truths and simplified constructions of reality everyday.

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #156600


There is no thread.

Posted by: Novenge at June 11, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #156601

Again, I ask the question: Is God really so petty and stupid as to care about who’s having sex with whom?

I believe the Creator of life has more important matters to think about.

I think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and that nutcase in Kansas are going to be in for a big surprise when they find a “No Vacancy” sign on the gates to Heaven.

Posted by: ulysses at June 11, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #156603

Novenge -

‘There is no thread’

What does that mean exactly?

Posted by: The Fly at June 11, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #156613

Lloyd’s of London are not dummies — so of course they’re already considering the ramifications of climate change.

“Go to church and listen to the Word of God. Leave the false church of earthism.”

Yeah, thinking about ones Imaginary Friend is always so much easier than thinking about Science. It’s also a very good way to immediately derail a thread every bloody time.

“There is too much precaution on the left end and not enough action.”

While there NO precaution on the right, and NO action whatsoever on this issue.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 11, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #156624

—-Woody—I was hoping to find something new about the environment other than Mother Earth Passes all her gasses on Sunday! Maybe you will have better luck with your next post.

Posted by: DAVID at June 11, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #156625

Al Gore is a fraud! And so is this global warming bit. 20 years ago you liberals were talking about global cooling. You have no facts to support any of this. Greenhouse gas is less than 1% of all gas. And every year since 1979 it has been falling!! So find something elese to hitch your wagon to. Maybe you libs can go sleep with your buddy hugo!!!

Posted by: nathan at June 11, 2006 10:26 AM

And another brillant posting from a Bush supporter.

Are there really Americans this stupid, who seem to be totally incapable of thinking beyond the mindless cult found in the ten foot square in front of a television tuned to some corporately manipulated crap pretending to serve the best interest of the American people?

Try thinking

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at June 11, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #156626

Hi all,

It is always fun to see what irrelevant tangents people get on… Gay, straight, religious, atheist, we are all going to cook together. On Earth.

Come to Texas, it’s a little bit of heaven on earth.

I went to the Alamo when it was 106. Felt more like another place.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 11, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #156628

Hey - when we say this is the Great Melting Pot - you’d better believe it!

Posted by: tony at June 11, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #156632

This is an important subject. Anyone else interested in proposed solutions?

I hate the idea but at this point it is necessary to place a floor on gas prices. Otherwise alternatives will never blossum. For example alcohol manages to come to market profitably at 2.50 a gallon OPEC will just drop the price of oil long enough to put the producers out of business. They could and would do that. These are not nice people. If they were an American organization they would be in jail for anti-trust. They also have comparitivly little production overhead. They just pump it out of the ground with minimal processing often capitalized by other peoples money.
With such price instability it is unlikely a large enough industrial base can be built privatly to replace a significant percentage of fossil fuel. We stabilize milk prices for the same reason. It takes time,money and a lot of work to build up a dairy herd and facility. Too much to do on a bet the prices will be high enough to make a living so the price is stablized by the government. Experience has shown that when we do not do this dairies go out of business and the price of milk skyrockets.
Wether price stability should be adressed at the pump or barrel is subject to debate. A barrel support would also effect plastics,building materials etc. that are more carbon neutral but still contribute to forign dependance. We need to sort out the goals.
I haven’t used the t-word but that is what I am talking about. When oil or gas falls below a set point the tax kicks in. It is the only way to bring stability.

Posted by: BillS at June 11, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #156633

adendum: Setting a floor is more politically viable than placing a per gallon tax to keep the prices high as some have suggested.
For all you free market folks out their. You have a point but we are not dealing with a free market.Prices are already manipulted by OPEC and others.
Too explain more the problems arizing from price instability: Ever get galled when the local gas station runs out and raises prices even though you know they have 10,000 gallons in the ground they got for the old price? They do not have a choice if they are going to stay in business. Lets say they paid 2.00 per gallon for their inventory and charge 2.25. The price goes upto 2.50 for their next shipment. If they go ahead and sell what they have at 2.25 thats great. When they get the new shipment they start selling it at 2.75. Then the price goes back down to 2.00. They can not sell gas at 2.75 anymore. No one would buy it so they have to sell gas for what the next shipment will cost plus markup.

Posted by: BillS at June 11, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #156635

In a very real sense the Earth is our mother. We are the Children of the Earth. This is where we evolved. Although we like to think of ourselves as independent individuals the reality is that we are interdependent with the rest of humanity and interdependent with the rest of the life forms on this planet. In a real sense the Earth is a super organism that we are all part of. This is where we evolved from the primordial goo together with all the other life that thrives here.

The Earth is our creator. It gives us life and sustains us. We must maintain her so that she can maintain us.

Because we are part of the life on this planet that all evolved together we are dependent on the other life on the planet. We eat them for food. Plants produce the oxygen we breathe. Bacteria in our stomachs digest our food for us. Without them we would starve. The Earth is a composite life force composed of all life. It can be seen as a super being that we are all a part of. We are all here together, evolving, trying to survive and improve ourselves.

The Earth is also our home. This is where we live in the universe. This is all we have. And it is up to us to take care of our home so that we can thrive here.

The Earth is the mother of all life on this planet. All living being on this planet are the Children of the Earth. This is where life on this planet evolved. We all grew up together here through billions of years of evolution. Life evolved from the elements of this planet that provided the right environment to create the hydrocarbon life forms that exist today. We don’t yet know if other planets have life but it is logical to assume that life on other planets would be very different than life on this planet. Our DNA came from the primordial goo (for lack of a better term) that resulted from Mother Earth’s unique environment.
Mother Earth is the mother of life on this planet. We grow together through evolution. All living being here are related to us. Earth is our common home.

We are related to all other life on this planet. We all share common DNA. We are all one big interdependent family dependent on each other for our mutual survival living together on our mother planet. We are all distant cousins of the same parent. All political affiliations should also be environmentalists because when we take care of our mother we help to ensure our survival.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 11, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #156640

tree hugger
I do find it interesting to observe religions.Most all have some sort of fertility goddess. Isis,mother nature,Mary,corn goddess etc. I prefer to keep things more simple,without the neo-pagan dirt worshipper twaddle. It just does not make sense to sh— in your kitchen.

Posted by: BillS at June 11, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #156645

—-BillS— Do you believe she is one of the meek who shall inherit the earth,

Posted by: DAVID at June 11, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #156646

The point I was trying to make,poorly it seems, is that rather than raise the wrath of those who resent the dieification of “mother nature” why not just use common sense. We need to be together on this and religious discussions have never brought forth much unity as I recall. Heck,you do not even have to believe in global warming to see the wisdom of lowering oil imports or conservation. I doubt you will find many pro-smog Christians.

Posted by: BillS at June 11, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #156653

—BillS—Most likely the wised post on this page of the Day thanks!

Posted by: DAVID at June 12, 2006 4:41 AM
Comment #156659

—thanks Stephen, If just a little of your character rubs off on some of your readers, this will be a good thing!

Posted by: DAVID at June 12, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #156667

The rise of stupidity in this country is frightening to say the least. To read that some equate wanting to save this planet is somehow a disconnect from being in touch with God is appalling. If you truly believe, would you think that the man upstairs would be happy about not being a steward to his masterpiece? It took millions of years (seven of his days) to create this miricle, is it not totally against God to destroy it?

It amazes me that those who claim the loudest that they are believers in Christianity and in Jesus are the ones to ordain those who would destroy the Earth for their greedy monetary gain. When you elect greedy oilmen and their minions, you should smile widely every time you bend over at the pump.

They are also the ones who wave their flags when they hear of our killing and torture of those who wave different flags. We are all God’s people no matter what flag we wave and I seem to remember a little commandment that says killing is not such a great thing.

Those are also the same that vote to keep the rich, richer and screw themselves and others who are the “meek” in the process. There are some that are so brainwashed that they rival those in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s who followed a barbaric leader despite the fact that it was agaisnt their interests and against the teachings of peace and understanding and forgiveness.

And twice they elected a man that they could see as “someone they could have a beer with”. I think that finding the dumbest guy in any local bar and making him President would likely have left us in a better place than where we are right now. Why is it that we do not demand intelligence, thoughtfulness and compassion as traits in a president? It is the studipification of America.

You can not hijack my religion and my beliefs just because you claim to somehow have the inside track. I think that claiming the tag “Christian” and promoting greed, neglect of the needy, destruction of the Earth and the killing of innocents is about as unchristian as one can get.

Words of the most famous, poor-loving, bleeding heart liberal, revolutionary: The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.

Posted by: s gleichman at June 12, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #156669

As an accomplished environmentalist, I know that religious, political or any other argument doesn’t matter when you have no earth to have it on. To err on the side of safety and conservatism, seems like a good idea to work to stop fouling our nest. As a spiritual activist, I wonder-what would Jesus do? I look around and see all the wars and destruction of all species of life and destruction of Earth and I think- it’s wrong to destroy what Creator made… And-why aren’t Jesus’ people becoming more like him? I have heard about passages in the Bible suggesting that people should protect the Garden. As one interested in our country being the best it can be- I think- how great it would be to have another industrial revolution-an alternative industrial revolution-doing everything again but working with environmentalists and the earth-to make all that money over again (but this time ALL the money as there’d be little spent working against environmentalists-from one who’s been told countless times I don’t understand the Bottom Line-and who’s spent WAY (WAY WAY) less than business working to stop their destruction)… and regain our stature in the world instead of standing in the minority opposing change. Shouldn’t we be using our energies to constantly search and strive for new and better? What would be wrong about this? What would we have to lose? We pride ourselves on American ingenuity, and I look with gratitude to those working to use it and making strides despite the forces (big government and big money) working against them.

Posted by: sneakers180 at June 12, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #156672

If you want to see how far we’ve gone in fouling up our nest - go to google and type in “Fish, no children under 12 should eat”

It’s really that simple - we’ve contaminated pretty much every possible water source with so much mercury (thanks to our power industry) that we should no longer EVER feed our children fish.

And worse even still: this seems to be the governments answer: just slap a “warning label” on the fish.

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #156675

And worse even still: this seems to be the governments answer: just slap a “warning label” on the fish.


It is just insane. It is one of the perfect foods for our bodies to eat, digest and convert, and yet we if do eat it, we are slowly poisoning ourselves.

“If you eat tuna, your a defeatist”.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 12, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #156694

Don’t get your panties in a wad over mercury in fish.

Posted by: traveller at June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #156699

The subject of the article was interesting enough, but what really suprised me was the number responses from people who are living with their heads in the sand beliveing that their God will take of them. These Christian Rightists are a real threat to this country with their evangelical actions and promotion of ignorance and civil responsibility.

Posted by: teebrooky at June 12, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #156716

The Center for Consumer Freedom wrote the article at the link you provide in your post above:

Please be aware that this group is a special interest PR/lobbying group that works for a “coalition of restaurants and food companies”. They are not truly a non-profit organization, so don’t think they have YOUR best interests at heart.

Hard to know WHO to trust isn’t it?

Posted by: rvmorr at June 12, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #156759

I think you guys beleive one piss ant can destroy the whole universe.Do you have a clue as to how vast our world really is?The boogy man is going to get you!!!

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #156762

RED ALERT RED ALERT The ice in my refriderator is melting.Oh i forgot to shut the freezer door.Another natural disaster foiled!!

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #156771

Are you going to dispute the content of the article or just shoot the messenger?

Posted by: traveller at June 12, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #156776

traveller -

been trying to post several articles that do just that - refute the message of the articles you posted… haven’t been able to post here all morning

lookingout -
wow… zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #156789

OK - since I can post now - here goes.

1 - I only wear panties when my wife isn’t home. (how’s that for an opening argument?!)

2 - (just a bunch of numbers to make my argument look impressive)

3 - read the reports speficially for your area… they cover the actual mercury contaimination from local spills & super fund sites (btw - pretty much every state has these areas.) I know, as an argument, people can say that there’s not an overall problem with eating fish, and that the level of mercury in particualr fish vary. But that’s a global argument - there’s are specific warnings based on specific areas. I’ve basically been reduced to eating fish caught north & west of the I85/I95 corridors… but one particular body of water in that area (near my house) has insanely high contamination of PCDs from an old transformer plant. Again, the power industry.

4 - both articles ignore the localized problem and also suggest safe levels of mercury consumption. I look at my two little girsl and wonder, how much poison am I willing to serve them to prevent proper clean up costs to the various polluters? How much poison are you willing to eat?

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #156807

lookingout is a troll. do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: troll hunter at June 12, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #156808

“How much poison are you willing to eat?”

Tony, spot on. This is the sort of question it all really boils down to. How much poison are we willing to eat, breathe or drink? How much do we appreciate life on earth as it has been? Are we all willing to do something to ensure that life on earth will continue? Common sense stuff here, folks.

Btw, has everyone gone to see “The Inconvienient Truth?” I just saw it yesterday afternoon — and thought it was a very compelling and well made film. Too bad that Gore keeps insisting he’s not going to run in ‘08, because I think it’s going to take someone with that kind of intelligence and conviction to actually move America forward on this issue.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #156809

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada’s Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.

Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will accelerate this warming.

Posted by: Instant Expert at June 12, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #156813

You make a good point but you also miss one.
Virtually all fish has mercury in it, much of it from natural sources. The toxicity of any substance is related to its concentration. At very low concentrations, such as in the tables you reference, mercury has no toxic effect.
All but one of the fish in the tables are below the FDA threshold of 1 ppm. This threshold has a safety factor of 1000%. You would have to eat a tremendous amount of fish to reach toxic levels.

This thread is dealing with commercially sold fish. Unless you eat several hundred cans of tuna every week for years you won’t see any toxic effects from it.

As for localized problems, yes, there are places all over the country where the fish are not safe to eat due to various contaminants. Knowledge and common sense should be your guide.

Refusing to be panicked by fear mongering and calmly looking at the facts is not the same as wishing to absolve those who have fouled our air or water of their responsibility to clean it up.
I was raised with my mother’s doctrine that if you make a mess you clean it up. I believe that should apply in the world at large.

My family are big fish eaters. My son loves fish and probably ate more fish than beef or chicken growing up. He’s currently in medical school studying to be a neurosurgeon. My brothers’ and sisters’ children all eat a lot of fish and there isn’t a dummy in the bunch.

It’s prudent to be cautious, especially where your health or your family’s health is concerned, but there’s no reason to panic.

Posted by: traveller at June 12, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #156819


I believe it is part of a calculated campaign of fear mongering by collectivists to pursuade people to voluntarily surrender their liberty in exchange for supposed security.
Ever heard of Occam’s Razor, traveller? When confronted with the fact that the vast majority of scientists believe that there is some sort of global climate change occurring, you can believe:
a) since most of them agree, the scientists are probably right, and we should look for one or more solutions
b) since most of them agree, the scientists are ALL engaged in a world-wide left-wing conspiracy to fudge the numbers, just so they can destroy the good ol’ USA.
Here’s a hint: One of those two is a sign of paranoia.

You also said

God considers HOMOsexuality an abomination (KJV)/detestable sin (NLT). Le 18:22
I have a question for you. According to Leviticus, the same book you quote, God also considers shellfish to be an abomination. My wife and I both love clams, mussels, and oysters. Does that mean we’re gay and don’t know it?

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #156826

traveller -

You might want to look through the huge listings that come up within google. Pretty much every state is listed there, and that is the problem. Yes, I know that fish contain mercury, here’s a pretty good synopsis of the issue:

“Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and can also be released into the air through industrial pollution. Mercury falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and oceans and is turned into methylmercury in the water. It is this type of mercury that can be harmful to your unborn baby and young child. Fish absorb the methylmercury as they feed in these waters and so it builds up in them. It builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than others, depending on what the fish eat, which is why the levels vary.”

However, the groups that debunk the argument that mercury in fish is not harmful, and looking at the global amount of “uncontaminated” fish - in other words, the nartually occuring levels of mercury in fish. That’s not my concern - look at the number of brown zones, superfund sites and other toxic contamination sites across our country, and then tell me you feel good about eating fish. In North Carolina, I’d go with the farm raised fish… anything caught in the wild has almost 100% chance of being truly contaminated - by local pollution.

This isn’t a problem within fish - it’s a problem within our bodies of water.

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #156828

Elliot, my husband and I are crazy for those delicious abominations also. Additionally we’re very fond of Dungeness and King crab, Prawns, Scallops and Lobsters. I guess this means we’re even more gay than you two?
If so, we really like being gay with the fruits de mare.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #156829


You think the shellfish are an abomination because they’re bi-valves?

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #156830

In that case, I’d better plan on having my bi-cuspids pulled immediately!

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #156839

You think the shellfish are an abomination because they’re bi-valves?

Well, I don’t! (Maybe I’m shellfish that way?) But I think traveller does.

“In that case, I’d better plan on having my bi-cuspids pulled immediately!”

I wouldn’t if I were you — imagine life without the joys of bouillabaisse, paella, gumbo, etc.? But even sans teeth I’d bet you would still find a way to suck down a Bloody Mary and a half dozen oysters on the half shell! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #156845

Adrienne, Elliot-
The reason many shellfish were considered unclean was that they were creatures of chaos. In their view, things in water had fins, things on land had legs, and anything that broke such rules was a result of an unholy mixing of things which should be separate. This also informs the thinking on clothing, on blood contamination, and on other improper mixings.

Hundreds of millions of people driving cars, trucks, boats, aircraft, military vehicles and putting out more CO2 than natural sources like Volcanoes do is no small contribution. Just in this country alone we consume 19.65 million barrels of oil a day. That’s hundreds of millions of gallons a day, and many billions of gallons a year. This isn’t opening the Refrigerator door, it’s opening the doors on every house in the neighborhood.

As for the ability of CO2 to trap heat has been known since the 1700s. What’s more, a study of heat absorption in the atmosphere determined that roughly 12 percent of heat absorption could be traced to Carbon Dioxide. It’s a trace amount, but its an important one. If you want to know what a lot of that substance can do, take a gander at Venus, with it’s lead-meltingly hot atmosphere. The only question is how does the added heat that’s trapped affect the system. It’s no coincidence that the founding studies on chaos theory emerged from a study of the weather. There are all kinds of secondary results of that gas’s input.

One can talk big about how unimportant CO2 is, or how insignificant our contribution must be, but that’ll be just talk.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 12, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #156847

Link on the gases.

Link on oil consumption.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 12, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #156863

—-Accomplished environmentalist- Billions of our tax dollars have spent over the past 40to50 years cleaning up oil spills chemical spills an remember three mile island? Our taxes have been used to replant our forests after the loggers left barren mountain sides.Silver and gold mines left toxic chemicals to leach into our streams. Guess what? In the past six years President Bush has sold and is selling millions of acres again the logging co,mining co,an even tried to sell our sea ports. What next? Some States have sold their toll-Roads to Foreign Countries. All we can do is Vote for Change ..If you do not vote don’t complain! ! ! !

Posted by: DAVID at June 12, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #156874

—-Excuse me I left out a few words, I have smog in my eyes I guess. By the way if you can find an environmentally friendly Republican vote for them. I didn’t think I would ever say such a thing. After all it will take everyone to do their share regardless of political or religious persuasion.

Posted by: DAVID at June 12, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #157066

I think you guys are thinking of yourselves and being totally shelfish. Why not have a little more mercury just for the halibut?

As in all things, this comes down to money. I think the Occam’s razor argument is an excellent one. Aside from evolution, global climate change is probably the most peer-reviewed topic in science. Funny that they’re both under attack from the right.

Posted by: DavidL at June 13, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #157241

Sigh, there seems to be too much debating…READ Nigel Calder, Rachel Carson, and all of the older writers, including GEORGE MARSHALL from the 1800s, this is something my own 82 year old father has warned us all about since our childhoods, and my father-in-law, who is 84. Why? They don’t need SCIENCE, they are both Master Gardeners, and have keen senses of observation. Anone willing to observe nature everyday, cannot ignore the truths of global warming, and I suggest getting Jeremy Rifkin’s book THE ENTROPY LAW, from the 1980s, it has nothing to do with “liberal” —which is a media-created term, and “conservative”, which used to mean something ENTIRELY different than it does today—it is an issue that won’t take sides, and I have been vigilant in my own duties to lessen my own impact while I live, fromt the flooring I have always used, to the amount of packaging, to everything, it is a life-long habit, but, we are in the minority, and no one would listen to us, now, look. A bunch of youngsters running around with all their ipods and nintendos and being flat-out ignorant by choice, not by ability. I am angry at the “me, me” ideology..we are a community, even as large as we are, and it is time to put these differences aside and realize we are all humans, as God said, equally responsible, and our own choices as a spoiled rotten culture have done this, INSUSTRIAL my eye, TOXIC and WASTEFUL and SELFISH more like it, dad nab it!! Don’t argue please, my own four boys knew better, just remember, all of you who know it is true, take a bow, and all of you who refuse to read and learn and want to keep up your selfishness, just be quiet, and go play your ipods, and be “cool”, or whatever it is you do, if I sound like a mom, I am, and I apologize, I never post,but it is getting so old, when for 34 years, I have fought against NUCLEAR everything, (remember, Americans used to be smart, and kept up on these things) and to see someone say “NUCLEAR POWER will solve everything”, it just makes me crazy—buying into the Industrial Nuclear Complex, the propaganda I am seeing put forth, here we go again, VERY REGRESSIVE, go to and, if you want to argue FOR nuclear, you best become a bit more savvy on your silly reasons for thinking it is the answer, it is beyond that, and after growing up hiding under desks, I should know..well, I have rambled enough..sigh, and double-sigh, HUGS AND PEACE TO ALL..

Posted by: Phoienix at June 13, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #157389

“Lloyd’s of London are not dummies — so of course they’re already considering the ramifications of climate change. “

So is our Pentagon. Are they left wing nutcases?

Maybe if we floated a story that it was part of the “gay agenda” to promote global warming so everyone could walk around in short-shorts and tank tops all year, THEN the right wing nutjobs would take it seriously?

What’s even FUNNIER is that bush HAS aknowledged climate change-

yet through his typical corporate fuzzy logic, he thinks the solution is INCREASED use of fossil fuels-
“Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment.”
President George W. Bush

So, if we just burn ENOUGH fossil fuels to really rev up the world economy, THEN we can afford to cut back????

Posted by: norby at June 13, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #157673

Stephen how long will it be before you call for all humans and animals on the face of the earth to stick corks in their ass to cut down on natural gas emissions? Just Wondering.

Posted by: lookingout at June 14, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #157902

Well, let me give you a clue:
Don’t hold your breath. Unless you happen to be next to one of the asses in question, because they’re stinky.

Now that’s cleared up, what’s your take on the rest? Do you have one, or will I read more whining about how Democrats apparently want the impossible?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 10:50 PM
Post a comment