Zach

Human caused global warming is a crock.

Everyone needs to watch this.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

LineTroll

I'm less worried about emissions from aircraft and more worried about all the fuel spilled while disconnecting hoses/fueling overwing. It pains me to see all of the slicks running down into the drains. I think pollution like leaky aircraft and cars, abusive use of toxic substances, etc. are causing a lot more damage to the earth than emissions ever will.

TBoneF15

Let's invade Canada! (at least the french speaking part) Who's with me?

OldAg84

Don't think change- think rate of change.

I am a biologist/environmental scientist by training- although I don't "do" biology", I do sell environmental equipment. That's said for full disclosure.

The rate at which we are warming is what is alarming. Some of the data is likely the result of more accurate measuring techniques, etc. Satellites allow us to have a truly global view (pardon the pun). Large ice shelfs breaking off, etc., definately concern me personally. The world is a fragile web and there is a tipping point, that if we go past, we may never get back to.

Environmentalism has side benefits, especially resource management. Ponder these if you will-

1. We are competing with China and India (at an ever increasing rate) for resources. If we wean ourselves from these needs, at least as much we can, we have independance and are reducing emissions.

2. Water may become the most precious resource- relatively speaking, North America has plenty- but we need to conserve it and protect it.

3. We need (have needed for 40 years) a true national energy policy.

4. Nuclear power is a tremendously "clean", although not risk free, source of energy. I understand depleted uranium has to go somewhere, etc., but it puts out almost zero emissions. (I live within 7 miles of a nuke plant).

5. Perhaps global warming is a hoax, or partly so, but ask yourself what the price will be if it is not and we do nothing.

Just some thoughts.

FDXLAG

All of your problems are best fixed by the Free Market. Mandates based on junk science movies do more harm than good. Any doubts see the China Syndrome again. How come we can't drill off the coast of Florida but the chicomms can? There is no reason not to drill in ANWAR other than the environmental movement wants to artificially keep the price of oil high to force conservation.

Ask yourself what the price to the environment will be if we destroy our economy. Which are the cleanest countries in the world the rich countries or the poor countries? Asking yourself if doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason is better than doing nothing.

Led Zep

What a crock. Science isn't telling us that the earth is heating up, scientists are the ones doing that. And because the average Joe Sixpack is not well schooled in the sciences, the majority of people who buy into the global warming fallacy are blindly following whatever these "scientists" will tell them. If they tell the public that the sky is falling then a lot of people will just accept it as such - like goats being led to slaughter.

But who are these scientists and why don't all scientists agree on "global warming"? Typically, the scientists who tell us that the earth is in peril are people with a far-left, radical environmental agenda. i.e., they want to tell you and me how to live our lives. They have determined what they want the outcome to be and try their best to doctor the observations and analysis to best fit their predetermined outcome. Bad science or bad religion? Take your pick.

But there is more. Ultimately, money is the source of "global warming". Grants, speaking engagements, books, and media are big sources of income for those who preach the global warming sermon.

Fortunately, a lot of people see right through this nonsense - myself included. Would you like some inconvenient truth yourself? Guys like me see that "global warming" is nothing but an agenda-driven fallacy - and I don't lose any sleep over "global warming" either.

kansas

Weather is a cycle. It gets warm. It gets cold. Just when we think it will do one, it does the other. Global warming may be true, but it's just another step in that cycle that we can do very little to stop.

I read in National Geographic the other day that soil decomposition by worms causes 10 times more problems with global warming than the burning of fossil fuels. So does it make sense that if we quit burning gas that global warming will stop? No. Perhaps we should go out and kill a bunch of worms instead. My point is that the Earth has so many natural processes (volcanoes, soil decomposition, etc.) that have been happening for BILLIONS of years, that we aren't changing much with our presence.

OldAg84

A clean environment comes at price- don't want sweage running through the streets, don't pay for sewers, or to maintain your septic. Don't complain to me if some industry, working under free market principles, contaminates your drinking water. It's happened here in the US before, but I guess it's OK if we can make money at it.

As someone who also sells industrial, in addition to environmental equipment, the economy is already being destroyed by NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. A hell of lot more plants are moving offshore than are being built here in the US, but I guess that's what a "free market" gets you. And no, I'm not a socialist. I also know part of the problem is our higher environmental standards which added to our manufacturing cost. So I might be a protectionist and ask that items imported here meet our specs and manufacturing requirements, oh wait that's not a "free market". Of course, "Open Skies" will be good for US commercial aviation.

Speaking of "free markets", I'm sure a number of professionals on this board will tell you they don't like them- I read all the complaints about how the LCC's undercut the legacy carriers, but you won't hear me whining- because it works to my benefit, so I guess I don't care.

If you read my post, you would see that:

A. I'm hoping for a prudent, non knee-jerk response.
B. We need a national energy policy, if not for environmental purposes, to wean ourselves from the Middle East.
C. I favor nuclear power.

Global warming has been a cycle for as long as we can measure it, I said we should look at the "rate of change" and be concerned. No doubt, people are making an agenda as they are wont to do over any controversy. Personally, I'm concerned.

Finally, the reason we can't drill off Florida is that BOTH the environmentalists and those who made money in the "free market" and now own oceanfront property don't want it. So let's not blame it solely on the tree huggers. Besides, the communist leaders do whatever they want to their people, that's why it's communism.

Led Zep

I am a professional and personally, I am in favor of free markets. I say this because in addition to being a professional, I am also a capitalist. What is the alternative to a free market? It is one heavily ridden with government regulation. One look at Amtrak and it doesn't take long for one to realize that anything but a free market is a bad market.

I do not fly for a major or an LCC, so I have no dog in that fight. However, I am a consumer and I am one to purchase tickets instead of trying to jumpseat. The beauty of the free market is that the consumer dictates the price for a given product or service. One company can undercut another all they want, but ultimately it matters none unless they are able to convince the consumer to shop with them.

Sometimes I purchase a ticket on Southwest, usually when the journey is short and I am not concerned about amenities. Other times, such as on a longer trip, I am willing and able to pay more for comfort and greater amenities on a legacy carrier. Do you see a pattern? Airlines place their services in the marketplace and I, the consumer, am free to choose where to take my money. i.e., I will pay market rates and not government-mandated rates for a particular service I desire to purchase.

It is still very much a free market. The government (FAA) sets the regulations that the airlines must operate under in order to serve the marketplace. However, the FAA does not tell the airlines how much to charge or what services they can or cannot offer to the traveling public.

The same holds true for specs and manufacturing equipment. Imported goods should be held to a given standard, and that standard should be mandated fairly across the board. If a company decides to go above and beyond that standard, then that is their choice. Again, the consumer will dictate who is successful and how much the given product or service will cost.

So are countries without a free market economy immune from water contamination?

You are partly correct. To be more correct would be to include labor costs, and to a greater extent, taxes. Taxes (read: government ) are probably the single biggest deterrent to keeping a given plant or industry from moving offshore. The current mindset is that if a corporation is successful (read: profitable) then they must be "evil" and thus heavily taxed. This affects ALL business - both large and small. When government intervenes too much in the free market, those companies which make the market and the economy successful pack up move elsewhere.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll say this much about the topic. Having traveled extensively on both foreign and domestic carriers on long-haul international flight segments, the domestic carriers are years behind most international carriers in terms of services and amenities.

If U.S. commercial aviation suffers due to Open Skies, they have no one to blame but themselves. They are offering a service in the free market, and the consumer will choose whether or not to use them. Personally, if I am going to take an overseas trip, I am more than likely going to use a foreign carrier because I will get more for my money. The cheapest ticket is not always the most prudent purchase.

FDXLAG

What rate of change are you talking about? Most data I have seen shows no change or a slight cooling in the upper atmosphere temperatures since 1998. The Antarctic Ice Shelf is building since 2000.

Where are you least likely to profit by polluting a stream Mississippi, China, Vietnam or Venezuela? Ownership of private property places an incentive to keep your property value up.

Can't help the morons in florida, who is going to do a better job of cleaning up a spill; Exon or Fidel? Which wells will be more environmentally sound China Oil or BP? Who stops us from drilling in ANWAR? The property owners closest are all for it.

I agree we need a national energy policy, but that includes using more of our own energy resources.