you are probably wise not to get two precise. mr gore
said we had only a decade about 18 months ago. and
based on that and the terms of sitting presidents i
came to the conclusion that he does not believe what
he himself said.
my logic was
1. at that time it was at least 2 years until an
election, leaving 8 years.
2. for real change one would have to have the
president on board.
3. the only person really pushing the environmental
issues at that time and still is mr. gore. none of the
rest will do.
4 ergo if gore believes what he says, then he has no
real choice except to run. he does not have time to
give a republican or hilery 8 years and then run
himself becouse time would run out.
he is not running so i conclude he really does not
believe what he is saying.
i'd actually be less a sceptic if the leaders were
acting like they really believed. ie: they get out of
the private jets, the caravans of suburbans, land
rovers, limos, they get out of the huge energy sapping
houses.
i know their schedules precludes them driving hondas
accross country, but, they could fly commercial and
not double up on the thousands of pounds of co2 put
out by their private jets.
am i making sense?
--- Peter Hunsberger <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Trisha Cummings <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > What is the mosr reliable research source you
> have seen on whether or not we have
> > reached the point of no return already - or its
> just around the corner we are turning now.
> > Here is the point where I am seeing more
> variations in the scientists community. I
> > know the Antartic ice sheets Larson A and B -
> truly have signalled a serious point
> > in the cycle.
> >
>
> The upcoming IPCC report tries to give a global
> consensus picture of
> what might happen, but apparently isn't perfect.
> There's an
> explanation of why not that also sort of summarizes
> the expected
> climate impact over the next century in near laymans
> terms here:
>
>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/regional-climate-projections/#more-442
>
> It's a bit dense, Scientific American regularly
> produces articles that
> are pretty easy to read and you might want to wade
> through their site
> for their articles though I think some of them
> require a subscription.
> www.reaclimate.com is a interesting web site, but
> clearly skeptic
> unfriendly. I trust it, but only because one is
> free to follow the
> debate and they link to the papers in question.
> However, if you don't
> want to dig into the actual Nature, Science or
> Journal of Geophysical
> Research then Scientific American may be the places
> to start.
>
> You may notice I'm sort of ducking your question.
> That's because I
> don't think there's a single easy answer. Best I can
> tell, some parts
> of the world are already in trouble (personally I
> wouldn't buy land
> in the New Orleans or the Florida Keys) and parts
> may not suffer
> adverse effects for 100+ years or may even benefit.
> I don't think
> there is a single globally applicable answer to your
> question.
>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
>
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
