The snow line is receding, as it is in many other alpine regions around the world. Throughout the 400-mile-long Sierra, trees are under stress, leading scientists to speculate that the mix of flora could change significantly as the climate warms. The death rate of fir and pine trees has accelerated over the past two decades.

In the central and southern Sierra, the giant sequoias that are among the biggest living things on Earth might be imperiled.

"I suspect as things get warmer, we'll start seeing sequoias just die on their feet where their foliage turns brown," said Nate Stephenson, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who is studying the effects of climate change in the Sierra Nevada. "Even if they don't die of drought stress, just think of the wildfires. If you dry out that vegetation, they're going to be so much more flammable."

Dave

Nate

As far as the Sequoiadendron decline is concerned, it's mostly from human intervention, foot traffic compacting soils, some logging, and lack of fires.

My father had a saying [Believe nothing you hear,and only half of what you see.]

Sometimes that rings true!

Can't see why they thought that. The strength of the blast pulverised most of the rock and lava into volcanic ash, which is an excellent rooting medium, and very fertile except for nitrogen (which is soon added by legumes). More quiescent lava flows (which are solid basalt) take a lot longer to revegetate, as there is no soil for the trees to root into. I've seen lava flows in the Cascases and on Tenerife which have stayed bare rock for centuries.

Resin

That should of course be 'Cascades' ;-)

On global warming, let's please not all get into sterile arguments over it . . . read the most recent IPCC report before making further comments!

Resin

Define IPCC and what is its function. Very briefly what does it state.

Dave

I've not read it yet, which is why I'm not commenting on the subject - I don't know enough details. But there's some info here:
Article about the IPCC at wikipedia
Article about the IPCC 4th Report (2007) at wikipedia (includes summary of findings)

Resin

That's a pretty dangerous argument, suggesting that because the scientific community has been wrong before that they are likely to be wrong now, particularly about climate change. (i.e., well 30 years ago they said we had global cooling so obviously they are wrong now...) It just enables people to put their head in the sand and ignore the evidence.

At one point they said the earth was flat, but is that a reason to say that it isn't round? They were wrong once before......

we cant really destroy the earth, but we can and probably will destroy its suitability for us. Just a matter of time now.

It's not a matter of having to choose between conifers-and-frogs and people every time an environmental issue comes up, every living thing on the planet is on the same boat. Conservation is for people.

Is it man made? There are pros and cons to this event actually happening as evident in this thread. I tend to think we have a part in it. I don't need to go into why. Just look around and see how we are destroying this planet and its natural resources.

Is it reversible? I think not. It will take the cooperation of many nations to bring change. By the time we sit down to figure out a solution it will already be to late. Money, politics and greed will be our downfall.

Just my opinion.

Dave

If I miss spelled or wrote a sentence double - shame on me.

The original news statment made it sound like CA will boil away from extreme heat caused by global warming.I believe the scientific community is predicting a rise in temps by a few degrees by the end of this century,not overnite.

I agree that we should do all we can to reverse our wastefull ways.
I believe the greenhouse effect is real,but are we baking from high temps just yet?

Political content over for today.

+oM

Habitat destruction and change everywhere are undenialable, for many reasons. Natural forests are disappearing and at least half of all species on Earth will be extinct in the span of a few centuries, irregardless of what is causing any climate changes. Its just sad.

As an American I could care less what someone thinks in Papua New Guinea. When they get their own act together with regards to deforestation, slash and burn practices, tropical species going extinct, etc., then I might care. Pot meet kettle.

People who bow to the alter of global warming often fail to look at other more simple causes, such as heat island intensification in zones where temperature is measured (Phoenix of 1910 is not Phoenix of today as well Washington, D.C. for example), variations in solar radiation, improved measurement accuracy, etc. As an engineer, I was always taught never to cite a calculation or observation without citing the uncertainty (in %) of the measurement. Where is this due diligence from the global warming propagandist's?

Some bureaucrat from that government, the EU, the UN, or other socialist agenda-driven organization will never sway me or any other American's for that matter.

You have to love Al Gore and the celebrity warming ilk who will tell me I have to drive a hybrid or a Yugo, and use one square of TP, but instead don't practice their own religion, and fly around in non-pollution controlled jets, with $30K yearly utility bills on Malibu hillsides where the local flora and fauna were wiped out by their own McMansions.

Give me a break.

In any case, the great majority of steps taken to deal with global warming are things we're going to have to do anyway. BTW, I don't get the connection between being an American, and not caring what someone who happens to be from another country has to say. But, your attitude has been duely noted.

+oM

1) What cause the cooling of Greenland that lead to the demise of the viking settlements there around 1400 AD?

2) What cause the weather to change leading to the formation of Glacier national park around 20,000 years ago?

3) What caused the little ice age in europe between 1645 and 1705?

4) What temperature is normal in north america? The ones that created the ice age or the ones that caused the ice to retreat resulting in our current situation? What caused these temerature changes?

5) What part of global warming is man made and what is part of the natural warming and cooling cycle?

6) Why was the warmest summer on record in the USA in the 1930's?

7) Why won't people like Al Gore debate anyone on this issue? They use the press to get out there points but fail to consider any other data such as the strong correlation between solor activity and the earths temps?

Many of those screeming the loudest about this problem are also the ones getting the richest off of it. You don't tell me I need to reduce my carbon foot print and then take a private jets and live in a house that has a carbon footprint the size of my neighborhood.

My main point here is that there is way to little data and the time frame is way to short to make any definative conclusions. You should also be suspect when most of the information you are getting is coming from those with a financial interest and those who refuse to consider all the facts.

David

Now that the Chinese own us and our star is falling (while China is on the rise) we may soon no longer be able to enjoy the luxury of such an attitude.

>When they get their own act together with regards to deforestation, slash and burn practices, tropical species going extinct, etc., then I might care<

Don't know about New Guinea specifically but in the past road building into previously remote tropical areas has been funded by the World Bank; western logging companies also work directly in tropical areas, and even where companies are owned and operated by citizens of the tropical countries where the rainforests are being destroyed the logs may be mostly exported to foreign markets.

Slash and burn agriculture is practiced primarily by poor people who do not set policy.

What about the hole in the ozone layer? I think the argument for that is that first chloroflorocarbons (sp?) did it in and then later it was somewhat morphed in that it would have happened anyway. I'll throw a few peanuts in for the elephants. It's definitely a circus. Interesting and passionate reading however. Nice list of questions David/Picea.

What would happen if so many trees were planted everywhere? I mean millions and billions or just so many it would be a ridiculous #? How much help would that do? Anyone know (?)

Dax

Checked up - Glacier national park was formed by an act of the US Congress in 1910.

Resin

That's what I was thinking. A couple more questions: Who are "people like Al Gore"? And how exactly does making a feature length film about this topic NOT equal a willingness to debate the topic? And, how are people who have made good under the present system and who then decide it important to try and do something about the problems we're causing, somehow more reprehensible than others who, having also made good under our system, only want to continue to plunder and waste resources? And finally, how could anyone be so fooking naive as to believe there are not enormous sums being spent to maintain the status quo? Could it possibly be that folks who are so unaware are the fish that are already in the net?

+oM

Making a film is the epitome of a video dictation, representing only what the film maker wants, the ultimate in control of the subject matter. Regardless of how you feel about the topic, the making of a feature length film is hardly expressive of any openness to debate.

The problem is he knows the current data is way to incomplete to support the definative statements that he is making. Sometimes it even runs counter to his point of view. Take the hurricane season as an example.

As far as Glacier national park goes I should have stated the weather changes that took place 20,000 years ago causes the formation of the glaciers, not the park its self.

There are a lot of factors that may be impacting this situation and to rule out any of them without proper scientific evaluation is wrong.

David

A guy at work brings in a rag called 'Climate Change News' or something like that. It's really a laugh to read it. From the perspective of the editors of this thing, every single environmental problem-in the world-turns out to be a conspiracy, a hoax, or a bunch of stupid people (Probably worshipping at the altar). Apparently, the health of the planet is just great. There are NO PROBLEMS! Yeah!

+oM

Since Resin linked to the UN IPCC, I'll provide a link to a site (which I've been reading for yrs) that examines many of the IPCC's claims & actions, and won the 2007 Weblog Award for the best scientific blog.

This is a very technical site so not for the faint-hearted, other than the Unthreaded posts.

The UN is pushing for carbon taxes for developed nations that would be given to developing nations. We are talking about billions of dollars. Could this be a reason to push this point of view. The research dollars that governments are giving will also dry up if it is determined that this is a natural cycle. Political types won't be able to promise they can fix this problem if it is not man made.

I agree that there are financial motivation on both sides of this issue but those that side with Al gore tend to forget the motivations on their side are not pure. Anyone that wants to sell carbon credits is selling snake oil, not looking out for the good of the planet.

It should also be noted that those that question the view that global warming is man made are not always anti environment. Most of us just want to make sure that what we are doing is beneficial. It would be much wiser to spend billions of dollars on basic research into finding superconductors that are stable at room temperature, cost effective solar, geothermal and hydrogen technology than to spend billion on carbon credits.

David

It hasn't. That claim is erroneous. I'll see if I can dig out the reference.

Resin

I also don't know if it's accurate to say that anyone skeptical of the evidence of how much global warming is man made and how much is not man made are "full of crap and militantly ignorant" or that they are part of a political party or are a "smoking isn't harmful type".(just a side note, there is much more science behind the effects of smoking and it's a relatively much simpler and more easily studied subject than global warming) Nor is accurate to say that anyone strongly speaking out about the man made aspect of global warming are "Al Gore and the celebrity warming ilk" or necessarily aligned with people like that, or are "bow(ing) to the altar of global warming".

There certainly are people like those descriptions on both sides of this topic, but I think that most people aren't that way. I would be in favor of people laying out all of the relatively undisputed facts and observations we have and then separately laying out their conclusions, theories, hypothesis's, etc. to explain the facts. Then for people to argue these conclusions, theories, hypothesis's, etc. or any problems they see with the facts and observations that they are based upon. I believe this is indeed the way of science and logic and to be skeptical is how it works best. Without a theory or hypothesis being held up to skepticism and counter arguments is likely to produce a more flawed, inaccurate, and/or incomplete theory or hypothesis. As always knowledge really is power (my favorite cliche) and the more we learn the better our conclusions, theories, and hypothesis's become, so lets continue to learn while the debate rages.

That's just my 2¢

The earth isn't a fixed thing...you can't expect temps to stay the same, or deserts/forests to stay put in such a dynamic system.

While many "Global Warming(tm)" activists cite the shrinking of arctic ice-sheets, few wish to engage in a discussion of the increasing antarctic ice-sheets.

Josh

+oM

A few more interesting reads:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

In any event there is not an unlimited source of "cheap" mass resources for the world to provide affordable fuel, food, metals, plastics and synthetics forever for everybody. Things will have to change, for economic reasons, something has to give as the demands keep increasing and costs keep increasing. And growing corn is not the solution. Pretending that nothing will change does not help, and might as well not cut down all the forests and drain all the swamps and pollute all the waterways with fertilizer while we are it.

Sure Al Gore is a hypocrite, I'm sure he thinks he is doing the right thing and also enjoys the attention while he jets from city to city and is limo-ed around, in between visits to his 20 room mansions. But there are many types of hypocrites across the spectrum.

It would be funny thou to hear Limbaugh use plate tectonics as a criticsm of global warming!

The dissent really isnt credible. its just one or two guys, one of which i think is a former board member of one of the largest american petroleum companies, and a few crackpots that deny this. It really is like denying the holocaust. worse. If you make a simple bar graph of carbon as a percentage of the atmosphere and average global temps you see a direct and positive correlation. Isnt that more relevant than what you think the temps are on mars. Gimme a break.

My brother in law is an engineer and he is a border line retarded person. Do you really think your dinky wang engineering credentials are impressive? Are you so much smarter than 99.9999% of scientists out there because you can use a slide rule and a protractor?? you must have a tiny dingus to insist on your SUV so fervently. Or are you one of these pat robertson home school your kids so they can pray more types?

And the UN has a socialist agenda? Wow. you dont even know what the UN is I guess. Clearly you have like an 80 IQ. I have a degree in government and I can tell you the type of person who says something like that is a hopeless 'execute retarded people' 'go to a mega church' 'kiss your sister' 'I love rush limbaugh' type of republican. you're a gross idiot. I hope your whole fmaily gets cancer soon.

Peace homey,

Dax

1. global warming is occurring (probably true).
This is not all that unexpected since we may still be coming out of the little ice age which we know occurred at least from 1600-1850. Also warming is much smaller when measuring from satellite rather than from ground based measuring devices that are affected by urban heat islands.

2. the majority of the warming is due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions and not natural (questionable).
Correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 is problematic. Ice core data appears to show that CO2 increases follow or lag higher temperatures and is therefore an effect and not a cause. Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is small (0.03 percent). Man’s contribution to CO2 is a small percentage of CO2 (5%). CO2 contribution to global warming is small (4%). Much of the increase in CO2 due to man entered carbon sinks at is not still in the atmosphere (50%).

3. unnatural levels of global warming will occur during the next century (questionable)
IPCC predictions have ranged from a 1.5C to 5.8C increase by 2100 over the last ten years (needless to say the best answer may be they don’t know)
Computer models so far have done a poor job at predicting recent and past results. There is still a poor understanding of the global carbon cycle which makes any climate change due to CO2 unpredictable

4. The consequences of this warming will be disastrous (unlikely)
Typically only negative aspects of warming is noted, positive consequences should be noted as well
*Nighttime lows may be higher in temperate regions extending farming regions north
*Increased CO2 encourages plant growth
*Some desert regions (the Sahara in particular) may see increased rainfall based on historical data
If changes to the climate take place it will be over long periods of time allowing for the adaptation and migration

5. we have enough knowledge to put in place world-wide policy action that can reverse the warming (unlikely)
Any solution must be effective and be better than alternative actions (or inaction) and not produce unacceptable new problems
The thought of political leaders from around the world sitting around a conference table debating the best policy to put in place in order to keep 2100 global temperatures at a +1.5C increase instead of +2.5C is laughable

Fossil fuels are the life blood of the human economic engine that has improved the life of nearly every person on the planet. The level of proof for those wishing to change or effect the way we live is very high. The proof so far is quite lacking in my opinion. In addition, the proposed methods to combat this theoretical problem have been either impossible to implement or likely ineffective.

Pleases read the post by kman04. He or she nailed it. Also do yourself a favor and and do a google search for information and scientist who don't think global warming is man made. There are many from highly respected institutions. You will find out that that 99.99 percent it dramatically inflated.

You will also find that since it is goes against the current PC view, those that have a different view are reluctant to say so because of the ridicule they face from the hollywood, media and Gore types.

As far as your bar graft reference with carbon and temps goes it is the exact reason why the information on Mars it so important if it is correct. You could likely make a bar graft comparing the Muslim population increase in Europe with temperature increase there over the last 20 years and get a high corelation. Would that mean muslim are causing the warming in Europe?

Mars and Earth are both impacted by the solar cycle while only earth is subject the impact of increase carbon through human activity. If both are having temperature increases why would you then discount the impact of the sun? Just because you have a high or low IQ does not make you right or wrong but failing to look at all the variables that impact a complex system to determine which one is impacting it is just stupid.

At one point in time all the high IQ types knew that earth was flat and laughed at those that thought the earth was round. What group are you in?

...and the Crazy Left(tm) speaks! I hope this wasn't directed at me.
Your hostility and rudeness speak for themselves.
Yet, in the hopes of civility, I'll respond:

1) I don't hold with Church;

2) I don't listen to Limbaugh....at all! Nor Hannity, nor O'Reilly for that matter...

3) Do you just want my whole family to get cancer, or do you want them to die of cancer, too?
(By the way, you were so angry that you misspelled "family").
______________________________________

Look up Harm de Blij

Josh

It long ago ceased to be a informative and positive thread.

Lets move on. I kind of like the thread Conifers purchased for 2008. What have you ordered and what are you plans for 2008.

Start a new thread.

Dave

Josh

Ding, ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Personal attacks are the only weapon of choice when the holster of reason is empty.

The most telling part of the quote is "I have a degree in government..." More government is exactly what is needed.

I obviously spend too much of my money on my family and their needs when I should be paying more in taxes to fatten the wallet of some thuggish third world autocrat.

(moving on) Oh Yes. ring ring "yes hello mensa, sure I'd like to join mensa for small minds when I KILL MY FAMILY WITH TELEPATHIC CANCER!" lol I know, that's not nice, but I am calling on the good lord Satan and his family of Mars Muslums first: "(ring ring) hello, could you please forward this to my psychiatrist?" He's expecting me soon...

(ring ring) "yes again, may I have a mocha with extra whipped cream and a double shot, no make that a triple shot of gunpowder."

(ring ring) "Hi Dax it's your psychiatrist speaking, I'd like you to come in and save the world." Yes sir!

Dax

Dax

Thanks Dax (I think). ;^)

At this late juncture, out of respect for the forum, I'm leaving this thread, not in concession to global warming naysayers-I think the fact that the planet has warmed HAS been established. Rather, to concede that we're not accomplishing anything here. Personally, I'd like nothing better than for certain predictions for some of the regions I hold most dear to be wrong. But it's not plate tectonics, it's not "Hollywood". Deserts have been expanding world-wide for decades now. We, even New Guinians, have got some problems to face. Starting out in a reflexive denial posture is not being open-minded.

+oM

they have been melting since the last ice age, just because we haven't seen them stay constant over our breif awarness of them doesn't mean it's bad. there was a time on earth before there was water and life still eventualy sprung up. To say that, because it's not as cold as used to be durring the last ice age we might be on the brink of extinction is absurd.

Let me quote you:

"+om"

There ya go.

Later genius,

Dax

Probably the time of year with a dose of cabin fever has something to do with it also. I am ready for Spring and gardening talk.

Dave

The question is this: is "Global Warming(tm)" *caused* by human activity. Alarmists say 'yes.'

Many of us believe it is a complex issue, one which must necessarily take into account the primary causes of ice age fluctuation: volcanic activity and solar radiation. The Siberian Traps, the deep ocean vents, as well as our position in the solar system (in accord with the energetic output of the sun) heavily influence our global temperatures and weather-cycles.

We ought to steward and protect our planet, indeed, but not if we must lie and scare-monger people into action. Such lies are more akin to religious oppression than true science.

Thank you,

Josh

Back to lurkerdom-

Zack

What cannot be debated is whether the Kyoto Protocol is a good treaty for America.

On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[66][67] which effectively denied ratification of Kyoto.

Think about that.

The treaty is so anti-American that not even one Democrat Senator was willing to vote for it. Not one.

The treaty was formulated around the United Nations frame work of contributing countries.

United Nations: A worthless corrupt organization dedicated to nothing. Guess who continues to prop them up.

Dave

It's not just alarmists that say climate change is connected with human activity its just a widely accepted fact. Its really a little crazy to suggest otherwise.

I have to take issue with this statement because it's so wreckless and wrong: "The consequences of this warming will be disastrous (unlikely) Typically only negative aspects of warming is noted, positive consequences should be noted as well
*Nighttime lows may be higher in temperate regions extending farming regions north
*Increased CO2 encourages plant growth
*Some desert regions (the Sahara in particular) may see increased rainfall based on historical data
If changes to the climate take place it will be over long periods of time allowing for the adaptation and migration"

YIKES! That's right out a laundry mat crackpot religous periodical. Was Hurricane Katrina a disaster? Imagine what it would have been like if sea levels were 3 or 4 feet higher and it was a category 5 instead of a 4. That's only a matter of time irrespective of whether you think climate change is man made or not (and not that much time, just several decades at most). It can;t be stopped no matter what now.

How long will it take a few million people to "migrate"? Where will they go? What jobs will they work? What fresh water will they drink. This summer a huge american city, atlanta, illustrated how ill prepared it is for increased population and increased demands on fresh water supply. THats one of the 10 largest cities in the wealthiest country in the world! This will happen everywhere.

When someone's house is under water they will take little comfort in the fact that arid areas are getting more rain. More rain in those areas does not amount to a "netting out" of the negative aspects of climate change. They are almost meaningless. It would take more than a little extra rain to make that area arable. And even if it is who cares? it's nothing relative to the negatives....

If you're 30 to 40 years old you'll see the disaster in your lifetime. If you're older it's your legacy. Congratulations. Put your head in the sand if it makes you feel better and play the skeptic. Call people alamists if you dont want to believe what they say. But the papers cited above are the consensus of the most educated people in this area. They are a little out of the league of the average (or above average) garden-weber.

I hope you're judged for your willful, proud blindness. It takes a special kind of person to curse their children this way.

I am very sorry to hear this. As a CA Southerner, do you have detailled information about the following 2007 fires and their impacts on the different Cupressus species?
February 2007: Coal Canyon Fire, Orange County.
July 2007: Zaca Peak Fire, Santa Barbara County.
Fall 2007: Tecate Peak Fire, San Diego County.

Thanks!

Could you care to explain why?

It looks to me that USA has the most to lose: Florida drowned, SW USA transformed into a desert...

On the other hand, Russia signed the treaty, when they have much to gain on the long run by not doing it.

In any case, I am sure that all oil that can be extracted will be and that most of it will be burned. Then will come coal (and is already coming in China)...

Just read that a fighter-jet is using 1 to 3.5 liters of oil per second. Without post-combustion...

Not to speak about the water shortages in some regions already.

It is largely acknowledged that the Kyoto protocol by not enforcing any meaningful pollution controls on China or India(another rapidly growing polluter) while imposing the toughest controls on the world's largest developed country(the USA) would give an economic advantage to China and India. A few economist have tried to argue that the net long term effects wouldn't be as detrimental to the USA, but few have said the immediate effects wouldn't be negative.

Also, SW USA is already a desert. Certainly the mountainous terrain allows for many different micro-climates which aren't necessarily desert, but overall it is mostly all desert.

I'm not trying to claim one side or the other is correct on this debate, but I do think there are a lot more than 2 sides to this argument which some people heavily invested(figuratively and literally) in one of the 2 most publicized points of view try to lump into 1 side or the other. Emotion, politics, and economics have so thoroughly entwined themselves into this debate that it has almost become futile to discuss the "facts" and data and reasonable or credible hypothesis to explain these "facts" and data. I put "facts" in parenthesis because many of the purposed "facts" presented in this thread are either completely unsupported, hyperbole, or very much disputed.

I will answer you since you seem to have singled me out…

If the UN stuck to international law we would all be much better off. The UN has been plagued with corruption just has every quasi-governmental or government agency has. Surely you can see that. Socialism has little to do with it.
You wrote… "It's not just alarmists that say climate change is connected with human activity its just a widely accepted fact. Its really a little crazy to suggest otherwise."
It is not widely accepted fact. If it were, there would not be the heated discussions. You saying it is so does not make it fact. Also ‘its’ should be ‘it’s’ on both accounts. Sheesh!
You wrote … "YIKES! That's right out a laundry mat crackpot religous periodical."
The global warming debate does not revolve around religion unless you count the high priest Al Gore and his minion of global warming worshipers who follow his hypocritical teachings on faith and not facts. I also take offense to you implying that I use a laundry mat. By the way ‘religous’ should be ‘religious’ I think you meant to type ‘out of a laundry’ as well.
You wrote... "Was Hurricane Katrina a disaster? Imagine what it would have been like if sea levels were 3 or 4 feet higher and it was a category 5 instead of a 4. That's only a matter of time irrespective of whether you think climate change is man made or not (and not that much time, just several decades at most). It can;t be stopped no matter what now."
Yes, hurricane Katrina was a disaster. And…. Does that have something to do with global warming? If global warming can’t be stopped and it is just decades away then you better buy some high ground in the Rockies, build a well stocked bunker with Uzis and buy gold. You are wasting time on these forums with ‘idiots’ like me.
Much of the rest of your comments are little more than anecdotal weather stories, what ifs, etc. However, I do have to comment on your statement… "If you're 30 to 40 years old you'll see the disaster in your lifetime. If you're older it's your legacy. Congratulations. Put your head in the sand if it makes you feel better and play the skeptic. Call people alamists if you dont want to believe what they say. But the papers cited above are the consensus of the most educated people in this area. They are a little out of the league of the average (or above average) garden-weber."
Well, I am 37 so I guess I will see this "disaster". Hopefully, all of the super intelligent people at the UN will be able to save us poor average (or below average I assume as well) people who come to read these GardenWeb posts.
Your last comment is pure elitist global warming believer rhetoric…
"I hope you're judged for your willful, proud blindness. It takes a special kind of person to curse their children this way."
I truly do take offense that you say I curse my children. I have a beautiful 22 month old son that I love very much. Good day to you!

Oh my. Where to begin? Well, how about the UN Bill of Rights? It's not like ours with a simple structure of rights to protect freedom, such as free speech, assembly, petition, to be free from unreasonable searches, etc.

No. The U.N. Bill of Rights goes beyond that and speaks of "rights" to "adequate" housing, a wage of "favourable remuneration", rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, holiday pay, and widow’s pay.

"Rights" that have to be paid for by others. Socialism.

Q.E.D.

There are 192 Member States that make up the UN, only a few of which are Western democracys. This is the organization that put Cuba, Libya and Sudan on its' Human Rights Commission. It is amazing to me that anyone expects much from such a body.

>>>>>>>The Kyoto treaty is so anti-American...Could you care to explain why? <<<<<<<<

Rather self explanatory that if EVERY Democrat Senator and EVERY Republican Senator agree that a treaty should not be ratified, there just might be some "wee little" problems with the treaty.

I really prefer to talk about trees....

I assume you're talking about the declaration on human rights? It's really just an aspirational statement about rights the governments should provide citizens. It's not really law, certainly not enforced and certainly not paid for by the international community through the UN. So no, you doorknob, that does not make it a socialist organization. Nothing is paid for by others. If the United States doesnt want to contribute resources to the UN it shouldnt. It cant be made to, so presumably it does it when it feels it is in its interest.

And as for Midtn, Im glad you're my little spellchecker. Now Im convinced you're smarter than I am. But like I said there is consensus in the scientific community about this. But consensus does not mean it's unanimous. If you want to pick and choose the very small minority of scientists who are so fervently skeptical, well, that begs the question "Why"? and the answer is it's what you want to believe. Which is to say you are willfully blind to the problem. Which is to say you are screwing over your 22 month old becuase you can't be intellectually honest with yourself. Which is to say youre not a very good parent. Even if you love the little guy very very very much. Doorknob! it's ok, most people arent intellectually honest or consistent or even rational. Thats what makes us elites so much better. A life permeated by reason, not an insatiable appetite for everything.

You should stop. You are making yourself look like a fool.

Your ability to insult is impressive. You call me a poor parent. Why? Because I do not think that global warming is man-made and needs immediate action by some world-wide unelected bureaucracy. I guess people will put something on a forum they would never say to someone's face. Here is a little irony for you. When I was in high school in the late 80s I had to do a presentation for class. Guess what I picked. Man-made global warming (I was a believer at the time). I suspect you are probably a 20 year old college student who has very little life experience, much less children of their own. I think at this point that we should just agree to disagree. Good luck to you.

Jeff

Anyway, please forgive me I didnt know you've done HIGH SCHOOL PRESENTATIONS on this very subject! Holy Crap! That changes everything! You must be right. I apoligize I didnt realize I was in such learned and distinguished company.

Oh well. It doesnt matter what either one of us thinks. Im tired of this anyway......

Jeez! You are so thick! My point was that the global warming debate has been around since the 80s. We're still here and alive. Florida is not underwater. The point was that like you now at the time I had no idea what I was talking about! Bluespruce you are correct! I appolize to the entire forum for getting caught up in this. I should know better. averbiadverbera, please email me directly if you want to debate further.