possibly noteworthy wrote:

We have at most ten years -- not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions. If we do not, climate disasters will become unavoidable.

When nations must abandon large parts of their land because of rising seas, what will our liability be? And will our children, as adults in the world, carry a burden of guilt, as Germans carried after World War II?

Ok, I've seen hundreds of studies claiming that "global warming" is occurring, yet the evidence is not actually there.

Global sea levels have FALLEN in the recent years, and there are parts of the world where it has gotten COLDER. If it is indeed "GLOBAL", it would be really nice to see someone come up with a scientific reason why it is not "Globally Applicable" or "Globally Measurable".

This "doom & gloom" is just another round of "managing" people with fear, IMAO, since we don't have a "Cold War", "Evil Red Army", "Global Thermo-Nuclear War", "Oil Embargo", "Weather Alert 2005", "Hurricane Pre-Warning Warning Watch" or some other overblown, over exaggerated risk to keep people from coming to a general concensus about how we should treat our environment.

READ THIS ------------------------ READ THIS ----------------

Before the flames ensue, please note the following:

1. I am FOR reduced CO2 and other noxius emissions
2. I believe that we need to recycle over 75% of our waste
3. I believe that there are functional systems today, that we could adopt to help us to move toward our goals, IF WE HAD ANY THAT COULD BE MEASURED and AGREED UPON
4. I am simply stating that the "Chicken Little" model of risk management get's old after a while... ("a while" being measured in the last ~15 years of fringe [left & right] control, and the media being a doom & gloom engine.)

Anyway...

My rant is over.. .time to get back to killing the planet...

RE: The Threat to the Planet