GovernmentExecutive.com

COMMENTS

• We've been arguing about climate change longer than we've been arguing about 'weapons of mass destruction'. Despite scientists recording that the glaciers are melting away quicker than ever before (a glacier in Antarctica which is the size of New Jersey was recently calved); there are more extreme storms, there is an exodus of creatures from areas in which they were once plentiful; invasives are making their way into those areas - and we're still arguing. Yes, the 'bean counters' in the government need to be careful. Yes, other opinions should be heard. Yes, we can all argue the science until the cows buy a condo. Yes, no one wants any more (or higher) taxes. Meanwhile everywhere on the surface of the planet - everyone is noticing a significant change. Do we really need scientists from the left or the right telling us that something (or nothing) is going on? This may be the biggest 'weapon of mass destruction' - isn't it worth investigating? Johnny Johnny Hunt Posted October 27, 2009 9:11 AM
• It would appear that we have been taken over by people in government that don’t have to prove the science they are using and prefer to use junk science because it supports their agenda. I agree that we should be smarter and more careful about how we use this planets resources and that everyone can and should be cleaner and more thoughtful. But this is just common sense and being courteous of our fellow humans and other occupants of this fabulous planet we all live on. Destroying things just for the thrill of it, or just because we can is clearly the epitome of thoughtless stupidity. However using the current junk science to extract every penny from the public in taxes and try to make them happy about is even worse, in fact I would have to say pathetic at the very least. I recently read an article from a group of scientists doing research that if the worst case global warming scenario of a 2 degree average increase in temperature actually occurred, it would impact the arrival of the next ice age by approximately 100 years. When you consider we have an ice age every 10 or 15 thousand years, the 100 year scenario is probably well within the error range of the average. I think we give ourselves a little too much credit for impacting things on a large scale. All that being said, we still need to be smarter, better, and more efficient in our day to day impact on the things around us, primarily because it make sense, not because we need to pay more taxes to support a political hoax. David N. Posted September 23, 2009 11:27 AM
• It figures that the left wingnuts would promote an idea that attacks the basis of life on the planet, Carbon!! Perhaps they don't teach fundamental science in the grade schools any more, but when I was a child I learned that plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, while WE inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. How can carbon dioxide be POLLUTION???? Any card carrying scientist on the anthropogenic global warming train can feel free to set me straight on this. Cliff Marich Posted September 23, 2009 10:25 AM