My point was not to be the defender of Bill Clintion , i understand you are angry against him because he give a ridiculous image of USA, however, this affair was built by Starr to embarasse him. So some Americans where also angry against Starr, because he let pass politic (not the best one) after the image of USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No Clinton did those things all on his own. Starr didn't make Clinton get on TeeVee and lie to our faces. Also Starr didn't make Clinton use the White House as his stable of whores.
First of all I'd like to say; due to my age and my lack of knowledge in this stuff, I'm not the person to say who was the best president in the US. Even though I think that Clinton was a very very skilt president.
What really concern me about the discussion is that all you seem to care about is terroism and whether Clinton got a BJ.
What about economics and enviorment. Take fx the Koyto ageement that the US has just rejected. US is the country in the whole world who is producing most CO2 per captia and still they don't seem to think that that is a problem - to me that's plain stupidity.
IMHO Clinton did many good things to the economy and the poor people in your country.
He was a fair man.
And a comment about the BJ: Here in Denmark we were laughing so much so all the danes pissed their pants not because of the BJ. But because of the way the opposition reacted - in a truly desperat way. I couldn't care less if he was getting a blowjob by Mrs. L. She is most likely not the only one who has given the president a blowjob besides the wife (and that goes for all the presidents).
Here in Denmark it's a official secret that our "president" (we' have a monarchy) wear womens clothing and his even right winged. But people don't care. It is off course funny, but hell it's none of our business.
What about economics and enviorment. Take fx the Koyto ageement that the US has just rejected. US is the country in the whole world who is producing most CO2 per captia and still they don't seem to think that that is a problem - to me that's plain stupidity.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kyoto is a perfect example of Clinton's failure to lead. While the treaty was being negotiated the Senate conducted a test vote. Not a single senator voted in favor of it. He greenlighted it anyway. If all you are interested in is looking good, that's what you do. But if a President is really concerned that this is a serious issue and he wants a treaty that will make a difference (I'm not saying there's such a thing but you seem to believe it's possible) then he has to listen to the other side of the debate. Clinton didn't.
Kyoto is a perfect example of Clinton's failure to lead. While the treaty was being negotiated the Senate conducted a test vote. Not a single senator voted in favor of it. He greenlighted it anyway. If all you are interested in is looking good, that's what you do. But if a President is really concerned that this is a serious issue and he wants a treaty that will make a difference (I'm not saying there's such a thing but you seem to believe it's possible) then he has to listen to the other side of the debate. Clinton didn't.
First: I was not saying that Clinton did thr right thing. But I was saying that I just don't get what Bush is doing - alloowing oil-drilling in Alaska and bring up the co2-productiion per capita (that's the consequences of his plan). The climate is getting varmer and varmer (it's a wellknown fact) but still he doesn't see any problems with that. We're slowly distroying the enviorment.
By the way; it wasn't Clinton who wrote the treaty in Kyoto. The many other countrys involved in this treaty had allready taking a lot of comprimisses so that the US would agree. But I guess many americans just don't know or care about the severity of this problem.
The problem is Bush way to focused on the production and GDP, so the enviorment don't bother him. But the thing is that is so egoistic because when the co2 production gets higher in the US then it is'nt only the US that will suffer from it but the hole world. But what the heck it's only Holland and other unimportant countries that will be floded when the indland ice starts to melt.
All in all I think it's a very bad excuse to say that Clinton has the fault of Bush making the enviorment suffer even more.
First: I was not saying that Clinton did thr right thing. But I was saying that I just don't get what Bush is doing - alloowing oil-drilling in Alaska and bring up the co2-productiion per capita (that's the consequences of his plan). The climate is getting varmer and varmer (it's a wellknown fact) but still he doesn't see any problems with that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
a.) Kyoto would have failed to ameliorate the problem.
b.) The question of whether greenhouse gases are causing global warmimg is not at all settled. (You must be aware of your <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=100001698"; target="_blank">fellow Dane</a> who is of the opinion that the enviroment is not at all in the dire staits you imagine.) However, even conceding that the planet is getting warmer (since the early 19th centuy) that doesn't mean this is a consequence of a buildup of greenhouse gases. Most of the temperature increase came before the greatest increase in CO2 emissions.
The thing about Kyoto was to lower the co2 production in the western countries gradually. Noone believes that such thing happens overnight. But it would lower the production seen over a timeperiod. If it wasn't for the US who wasn't willing to do so. Unless if they could sell their pollution to countries who wasn't producing as mucg co2 as the western countries.
Yeah and I know all to well about my fellow dane. And the funny thing is that his studys is based on one pair of statistic oberservations and he found there was no connections between co2 and global varming. But if you talk to any other biologist or proffessor in enviorment then you would hear something else. Everywhere he has posted his work he get bashed because it's so easy to proove other. Many articles by real scientist in "the sceintist" and other respected forums has shown this.
The only people who listen to lomborg and thinks he is right are those people who wants him to be right. Here in Denmark we've just got a new Government who wants to close all the institutions involving enviorment studys and open only one new based on Mr. Lomborg ideas. The only dane who claims what he does. But because it fits so very well with the right winged policy that the government practice they think he's right. And they justifice it with there are to many laymen that get time in the medias eventhough they don't know what they talk about. So we've got a government that decides who are right.
My point is if you want to believe then you believe even though it's an "one against all others".
About the alternate proporsal. It's excatly what I'm refering to in my previous post. It allows the USA to rise the co2 per capita even further. I would though like to say there are one good thing about the proposal, and that's he is interested in getting more windmills. But as long as he will be drilling in Alaska and build evenmore powerplants.
Maybe people should learn to turn of lights, computer, tv etc. when leaving home and work.... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote]The question of whether greenhouse gases are causing global warmimg is not at all settled. <hr></blockquote>
This is so absurd I can't believe it.
Who pays these guys!?!?!
Everytime the issue has come up, for years, there is one whack pulled out of the wood pile that has a possible question, and that is enough to legitimize inaction when everybody KNOWS to the contrary, and everyone fmeans a lot a lot a lot of trained scientists with mounds of very compelling data!!!!!!
So much for the notion of peer review if there is a possible corporate/political position
Meanwhile its still OK to drive my Ford Excursion-3-mile-a-gallon-in-the-city-to-get-to-work stylish monster . . .after all there is one payrolled assistant professor scientist out there somewhere (i know it if not I have to up the pay) that says there might be questions.
Even if there is no global warming (which I think there is overwhelming evidence to show that there is GW), actions to prevent global warming have the nice side effect of not doing anything bad while also reducing air pollution, water pollution, etc. When you reduce CO2 emissions, you generally also reduce CO and O3 emissions at the same time, which means less smog, less people sick due to bad air quality. There is no reason to not invest in a switch to renewable energy resources other than cost.
I don't know but Mr. Christy's data was used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it issued it's last report. Also, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has said that, "there is very little consensus" among experts in his field. We don't know if it will continue to get warmer or if the warming that has occurred is a consequence of human intervention.
Roger, I think you're going where even Bush doesn't go. I don't believe he denies that human-caused global warming is occurring. His reasons for being against earlier proposals are that it would hurt our economy too much and it was internationally imbalanced. Not because he doesn't believe in human-caused global warming.
<strong>Roger, I think you're going where even Bush doesn't go. I don't believe he denies that human-caused global warming is occurring...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't denied that it's occurring!!! Please read what I've written.
edit: Okay I failed to carefully read your post. The words "human-caused" are an important qualifier. I don't think that has been established. Yes, Bush hasn't gone there in his arguments.
Comments
<strong>
My point was not to be the defender of Bill Clintion , i understand you are angry against him because he give a ridiculous image of USA, however, this affair was built by Starr to embarasse him. So some Americans where also angry against Starr, because he let pass politic (not the best one) after the image of USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No Clinton did those things all on his own. Starr didn't make Clinton get on TeeVee and lie to our faces. Also Starr didn't make Clinton use the White House as his stable of whores.
<strong><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020218/ap_to_po/president_s_day_poll_1&printer=1"; target="_blank">This story</a> says white Americans choose Lincoln while black Americans choose Clinton as the greatest American president ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clinton was the first black president.
What really concern me about the discussion is that all you seem to care about is terroism and whether Clinton got a BJ.
What about economics and enviorment. Take fx the Koyto ageement that the US has just rejected. US is the country in the whole world who is producing most CO2 per captia and still they don't seem to think that that is a problem - to me that's plain stupidity.
IMHO Clinton did many good things to the economy and the poor people in your country.
He was a fair man.
And a comment about the BJ: Here in Denmark we were laughing so much so all the danes pissed their pants not because of the BJ. But because of the way the opposition reacted - in a truly desperat way. I couldn't care less if he was getting a blowjob by Mrs. L. She is most likely not the only one who has given the president a blowjob besides the wife (and that goes for all the presidents).
Here in Denmark it's a official secret that our "president" (we' have a monarchy) wear womens clothing and his even right winged. But people don't care. It is off course funny, but hell it's none of our business.
So get a grip of yourselves (Sott H.)
Sorry for the spelling
<strong>
What about economics and enviorment. Take fx the Koyto ageement that the US has just rejected. US is the country in the whole world who is producing most CO2 per captia and still they don't seem to think that that is a problem - to me that's plain stupidity.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kyoto is a perfect example of Clinton's failure to lead. While the treaty was being negotiated the Senate conducted a test vote. Not a single senator voted in favor of it. He greenlighted it anyway. If all you are interested in is looking good, that's what you do. But if a President is really concerned that this is a serious issue and he wants a treaty that will make a difference (I'm not saying there's such a thing but you seem to believe it's possible) then he has to listen to the other side of the debate. Clinton didn't.
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
Kyoto is a perfect example of Clinton's failure to lead. While the treaty was being negotiated the Senate conducted a test vote. Not a single senator voted in favor of it. He greenlighted it anyway. If all you are interested in is looking good, that's what you do. But if a President is really concerned that this is a serious issue and he wants a treaty that will make a difference (I'm not saying there's such a thing but you seem to believe it's possible) then he has to listen to the other side of the debate. Clinton didn't.
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
First: I was not saying that Clinton did thr right thing. But I was saying that I just don't get what Bush is doing - alloowing oil-drilling in Alaska and bring up the co2-productiion per capita (that's the consequences of his plan). The climate is getting varmer and varmer (it's a wellknown fact) but still he doesn't see any problems with that. We're slowly distroying the enviorment.
By the way; it wasn't Clinton who wrote the treaty in Kyoto. The many other countrys involved in this treaty had allready taking a lot of comprimisses so that the US would agree. But I guess many americans just don't know or care about the severity of this problem.
The problem is Bush way to focused on the production and GDP, so the enviorment don't bother him. But the thing is that is so egoistic because when the co2 production gets higher in the US then it is'nt only the US that will suffer from it but the hole world. But what the heck it's only Holland and other unimportant countries that will be floded when the indland ice starts to melt.
All in all I think it's a very bad excuse to say that Clinton has the fault of Bush making the enviorment suffer even more.
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: fukuhela ]</p>
<strong>
First: I was not saying that Clinton did thr right thing. But I was saying that I just don't get what Bush is doing - alloowing oil-drilling in Alaska and bring up the co2-productiion per capita (that's the consequences of his plan). The climate is getting varmer and varmer (it's a wellknown fact) but still he doesn't see any problems with that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
a.) Kyoto would have failed to ameliorate the problem.
b.) The question of whether greenhouse gases are causing global warmimg is not at all settled. (You must be aware of your <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=100001698"; target="_blank">fellow Dane</a> who is of the opinion that the enviroment is not at all in the dire staits you imagine.) However, even conceding that the planet is getting warmer (since the early 19th centuy) that doesn't mean this is a consequence of a buildup of greenhouse gases. Most of the temperature increase came before the greatest increase in CO2 emissions.
c.) Bush has presented an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7397-2002Feb13.html"; target="_blank">alternate proposal</a>.
Yeah and I know all to well about my fellow dane. And the funny thing is that his studys is based on one pair of statistic oberservations and he found there was no connections between co2 and global varming. But if you talk to any other biologist or proffessor in enviorment then you would hear something else. Everywhere he has posted his work he get bashed because it's so easy to proove other. Many articles by real scientist in "the sceintist" and other respected forums has shown this.
The only people who listen to lomborg and thinks he is right are those people who wants him to be right. Here in Denmark we've just got a new Government who wants to close all the institutions involving enviorment studys and open only one new based on Mr. Lomborg ideas. The only dane who claims what he does. But because it fits so very well with the right winged policy that the government practice they think he's right. And they justifice it with there are to many laymen that get time in the medias eventhough they don't know what they talk about. So we've got a government that decides who are right.
My point is if you want to believe then you believe even though it's an "one against all others".
About the alternate proporsal. It's excatly what I'm refering to in my previous post. It allows the USA to rise the co2 per capita even further. I would though like to say there are one good thing about the proposal, and that's he is interested in getting more windmills. But as long as he will be drilling in Alaska and build evenmore powerplants.
Maybe people should learn to turn of lights, computer, tv etc. when leaving home and work.... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: fukuhela ]</p>
<strong>
... But if you talk to any other biologist or proffessor in enviorment then you would hear something else...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so. There are other dissenting voices. Here's <a href="http://www.discover.com/feb_01/featgospel.html"; target="_blank">another one</a>.
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
Not so. There are other dissenting voices. Here's <a href="http://www.discover.com/feb_01/featgospel.html"; target="_blank">another one</a>.
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point taken. But still the picture is the same; few "against" the world.
This is so absurd I can't believe it.
Who pays these guys!?!?!
Everytime the issue has come up, for years, there is one whack pulled out of the wood pile that has a possible question, and that is enough to legitimize inaction when everybody KNOWS to the contrary, and everyone fmeans a lot a lot a lot of trained scientists with mounds of very compelling data!!!!!!
So much for the notion of peer review if there is a possible corporate/political position
Meanwhile its still OK to drive my Ford Excursion-3-mile-a-gallon-in-the-city-to-get-to-work stylish monster . . .after all there is one payrolled assistant professor scientist out there somewhere (i know it if not I have to up the pay) that says there might be questions.
<strong>
This is so absurd I can't believe it.
Who pays these guys!?!?!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know but Mr. Christy's data was used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it issued it's last report. Also, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has said that, "there is very little consensus" among experts in his field. We don't know if it will continue to get warmer or if the warming that has occurred is a consequence of human intervention.
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushglobal_061101.htm"; target="_blank">Bush's original (June 11) speech about global warming.</a>
His new proposal is actually pretty sound - I just don't understand why he isn't interested in proposing it in the context of Kyoto (maybe he will).
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_global_warming_13"; target="_blank">Here is an article about his plan.</a>
Basically, the new proposal seems to just "encourage" reduction of greenhouse gases with tax incentives, rather than mandating it.
<strong>Roger, I think you're going where even Bush doesn't go. I don't believe he denies that human-caused global warming is occurring...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't denied that it's occurring!!! Please read what I've written.
edit: Okay I failed to carefully read your post. The words "human-caused" are an important qualifier. I don't think that has been established. Yes, Bush hasn't gone there in his arguments.
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
Oy.
<strong>What? Teddy R. did not make it into the Top 5?
Oy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I voted for him, just look for my posts.
[ 02-21-2002: Message edited by: glurx ]</p>