Some things require government involvement for the common good. The
sorry state of the Chinese environment is an example of what happens
when the government does little to nothing to protect its own
environment. They are even talking about closing all the factories
in Bejing just to try and clear the air for the Olympics.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The reason is the innate and congenital fear of business
regulation.
> We've seen with the toys with posionous lead distributed by
American
> companies how good industries are at self-regulation.
>
> On Dec 24, 2007, at 3:14 PM, asburycouple wrote:
>
> > I'm still trying to figure out why global warming and the
environment
> > is not a republican issue - or why it is a partisan issue at all.
I
> > think the right has decided to forgo logic and science simply
because
> > the left got there first rather than any real disbelief...
> >
> > And in a classic example of hypocrasy, despite being the party
> > of "states rights" the Bush adminstration overrules states rights
to
> > prevent California and 16 other states from implementing their own
> > emmissions standards. Similar to legalizing medicial marajuana
and a
> > host of other issues - the republicans rail on about states rights
> > unless states don't agree with the republican position, at which
> > point it is more important to mandate the solution federally.
> >
> > These issues are much of the reason why the republican party is in
> > such disarray (and don't deny that Tom, even prominent republicans
> > say it is). There is no longer any real philosophy and belief, and
> > no evaluation of issues based on merit. Just arguments and
arrogance.
> >
> > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Pitzer" <hinge98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's the same kinda BS that happened when a previously
unheard of
> > organization
> > > posted info about Al Gore living in a mansion that consumed high
> > amounts of resources.
> > > Nobody checked the source of the report, yet it still made the
> > rounds, in fact the report
> > > was one of the things that placed the term "carbon footprint"
into
> > the vocabulary of
> > > people who'd never even heard the term.
> > > It turned out that Gore's home is a great example of taking an
> > energy hungry old building
> > > and turn it into a great example of renovation. All of his power
> > comes from green sources.
> > > But unfortunately, in our culture of fast news from less then
> > reliable sources, people
> > > believe whatever they see on TV or the internet. Some refer to
> > people like this as "sheep".
> > > For me, i'd rather consider the possibility that there may be a
> > problem, and prepare for it
> > > accordingly. What's the downside? A cleaner environment, less
waste
> > and a healthier
> > > world. How can people complain about that? The only people who
> > probably can complain
> > > are companies like Exxon. I say screw Exxon. They've made absurd
> > amounts of money.
> > > I'm also fed up with this subject being debated on political
terms.
> > The truth is, most of the
> > > rest of the world is already doing things to improve the
> > environment. Germany and
> > > Holland are global leaders in this effort, and they could care
less
> > about dems and
> > > republicans. I'd rather follow the rest of the worlds lead and
> > actively speak out against our
> > > countries inaction rather then be one of the sheep.
> > > I'd love to hear somebody like Tommy convince me that changes
made
> > because of the
> > > possibility of global warming can somehow be a bad thing.
> > >
> > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
> > <jerseyshorejohn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "A Dec. 21 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh breathelssly
> > began: "A
> > > > new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent
> > scientists
> > > > experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide who say
global
> > > > warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot
legitimately
> > be
> > > > connected to man's activities."
> > > >
> > > > But it's not a "U.S. Senate report"; as Unruh himself states
in
> > a
> > > > curiously vaguely fashion later in the article, "The new
report
> > comes
> > > > from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's
office
> > of
> > > > the GOP ranking member." But who is that mysterious "GOP
ranking
> > > > member"? Unruh doesn't say. (It's Sen. James Inhofe, whom
Unruh
> > cites
> > > > later in the article but doesn't identify as the committee's
GOP
> > > > ranking member.
> > > >
> > > > Since it comes from the "GOP ranking member" and not from the
> > entire
> > > > committee, as Unruh falsely implied in the lead, it's a
partisan
> > > > report -- but Unruh never explicitly states that, either.
> > > >
> > > > Unruh also reflects the bias of the report, and his own biased
> > brand
> > > > of "journalism," by uncritically repeating its unverified
claims -
> > -
> > > > such as, in Unruh's words, "there probably would be many more
> > > > scientists making such statements, were it not for the fear of
> > > > retaliation from those aboard the global-warming-is-caused-by-
> > SUVs
> > > > bandwagon" -- and making no attempt to gather reaction to it
from
> > any
> > > > of the global warming scientists whose "consensus" the report
is
> > > > trying to debunk.
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile, it comes as no surprise that Noel Sheppard touts
the
> > > > report in a Dec. 20 NewsBusters post. Since Sheppard has his
own
> > > > biased history on the subject, he similarly ignores the
partisan
> > > > nature of the report, stating only that it was "just
published at
> > the
> > > > United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public works
> > website"
> > > > but not that it was published only by the Republicans on the
> > committee.
> > > >
> > > > Sheppard also states that "readers are strongly encouraged to
> > review
> > > > this entire document to learn the truth about what real
> > scientists -
> > > > those not receiving Oscars, Emmys, and Nobel Peace Prizes -
> > think
> > > > about this controversial issue," even though the report
ignores
> > what
> > > > "real scientists" have said that contradict the claims in the
> > report."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 23, 2007, at 10:25 PM, justifiedright wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple"
> > <asburycouple@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Choose a bit
> > > > > > more wisely next time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh one more thing: The report with the 400+ scientists
> > disputing the
> > > > > Global Warming claims, it came from:
> > > > >
> > > > > The United State's Senate.
> > > > >
> > > > > No wonder the New York Times didn't cover it and the
Washington
> > Times
> > > > > did.
> > > > >
> > > > > The NYT aren't very up to date on politics.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
