VirusHead

I for one would be more than excited to join any treaty that was put forth by the U.N. I mean, this is the same U.N. that is the push over for the worlds terror organizations and regimes( read the Duelfer Report), the benificiary of much of the Oil-For-Food scandel that lined Sadaam’s pockets, as well as, some officials in the organization, and trys to undermine the U.S at every turn. Oh, yeah, I would definately go along with their treaty.

Not to mention, the “facts” that support the idea of global warming are, in most every scientific circle, disputed. There are, however, scientists that believe in global warming, yet they often conclude their papers with the FACT that they cannot substantiate their beliefs with facts.

It also seems as if the environmental movement is the new front to combat the U.S. They won’t be defeated by war, by the threat of communism (or socialism), or other economies of the world. So, I’ve got an idea, let’s blame them for being to blame for “global warming”. Thus the spawning of such “credible” organizations such as Green Peace, and Elf (Earth Liberation Front). Elf, as you may know, was resplonsible for fires set to car dealerships and homes in Michigan. On their website, they say that the reason for these attacks was “The ELF realizes the profit motive caused and reinforced by the capitalist society is destroying all life on this planet”. I bet ELF is in favor of Kyoto.

One last thing that bugs me about global warming. Let’s break it down. Global= the entire world.
Warming= an increase in the average temperature over time. With our terms defined, how is it that some areas in the world have gotten warmer over the last 30 years or so, while some have become cooler, yet some have stayed the same? To revisit our terms, this must be a global rise in temperature, yet the globe is not affected the same. I bet if the United States is the biggest offender, then there is probably a big black cloud over the country. Yet, following the global pattern, some areas are hotter, some cooler, and some the same.

I’m surprised to be getting such long posts from you David, since you are clearly opposed to everything I post. Why bother, really – unless I’m hitting a nerve?
That said – whatever your thoughts about the status of the UN (a weird sort of ad hominem argument in this context) or about the science of global warming, what a strange attitude to take…
Yes, there are people who become militant to support the environment – I don’t agree with those methods. But I also don’t agree that our priorites should be to destroy the only habititable environment capable of supporting human life that we know of in the universe. I don’t support hiring the wolf to watch the sheep by stocking the organziations for checks against slash and burn capitalism with conflict of interest cases. I don’t support putting cash ahead of human lives. If the US was cleaning up superfund sites it created, going ahead with alternatives to our oil-based economy, taking better care of our air and water and ecologies, I guess I wouldn’t be so concerned about our unwillingness to cooperate in global ventures such as this. We don’t like this treaty? Where is our own?
All the misdirection in the world can’t let us off the hook of our industry pollution – take a look at the rise in asthma and cancers catalysed by environmental factors.
The bottom line is that George Bush’s entire career shows that he has no understanding or regard for science of any kind. Oh, and while he is president, skip the processed meats.
You can disagree with the UN participation, you can not believe that the ice caps are melting,etc. Frankly, the world doesn’t care what you or I believe.

But as someone who studies language and rhetoric, it is impossible for me to “get behind” a president who uses outright lies as propaganda – no child left behind is used as way to pretend education is being improved while the funding needed to implement his requirements is cut and children are taught to a test of questionable value – that’s simply a way to get rid of public education, which has been the plan all along. A “clean air” initiative with the aim of allowing more pollution, and so on – how can any discerning person read the republicans handbook of how to control the masses and still think they care about anything other than a totally corrupt and morally bankrupt agenda?

Virus Head, I think that you and I are a lot alike, but oh, so different. We each seek to enlighten and get past rhetoric, however, we seem to be opposing each other. And that is fine. The debate of ideas,opinions, and facts has sculpted history and will continue to do so. My peeve is the uninformed and the blissfully ignorant. Not that you are. You seen to have an arsenol of data fueling your side. But for a while before I posted to your site, I saw no responses but “Yeah, I agree’ or ‘That’s what I would have said”. It seems that so many young people and old get their information about important topics from MTV and Entertainment Tonight. I imagine that you would concur. Therefore, I would like to respond to your “rants” with another opinion based in fact, experience, and a little bit of logic.

I am new to the blog scene, but I love debate, so please take my responses as fuel for debate, instead of mindless adherance.

How could I disagree? I love a good debate. Still, I’d like to see some of your posts as well! Grin.

I knew you would. As I previously stated, I am very new to the BLOG scene. But please visit my site at http://general189.blogspot.com. I only have one post so far and it was just a test post as I am trying to figure the whole posting thing out. However, Please become a regular.