If I could take it a step further, and back on target, you may or may not agree with points following:
Releasing vast amounts of carbon into the thin shell of atmosphere of our planet deserves attention...but I'm not convinced that's the sole contributer to warming. Especially when one steps back and looks at a 500,000 year spectrum of patterns. We are reaching the peak of a reoccuring warming cycle.
Now...government mandates an elimination of incandescent bulbs? That's nothing more than a feeble attempt, which will have little or no effect on carbon emissions, at the risk of mercury by-products leaching from the disposal of flourescent bulbs into our landfills for the sake of saving face..."look! we're doing something that will fix global warming!" ...meanwhile trucks and cars continue to belch toxic fumes from their tailpipes...
...and working class families go broke trying to keep their homes lighted.
Every generation lives in fear of what we are leaving behind for our children. Every point you made is valid...and often mirrors mine.
I've always admired the scepticism you look at the world with. If more of us did so, we wouldn't follow the herd and the world would be a better place.
No, I agree with you and I know that our government has more information regarding climate change phenomena than they are letting on. I believe that a lot of what they are going could probably be linked to economic benefits for SOMEONE but I won't speculate much further than that.
The sad but true fact about the United States government is that you can figure out why and what by tracing back the money source to who.
Is it normal that the Midwest is turning into a desert?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well said...
If I could take it a step further, and back on target, you may or may not agree with points following:
Releasing vast amounts of carbon into the thin shell of atmosphere of our planet deserves attention...but I'm not convinced that's the sole contributer to warming. Especially when one steps back and looks at a 500,000 year spectrum of patterns. We are reaching the peak of a reoccuring warming cycle.
Now...government mandates an elimination of incandescent bulbs? That's nothing more than a feeble attempt, which will have little or no effect on carbon emissions, at the risk of mercury by-products leaching from the disposal of flourescent bulbs into our landfills for the sake of saving face..."look! we're doing something that will fix global warming!" ...meanwhile trucks and cars continue to belch toxic fumes from their tailpipes...
...and working class families go broke trying to keep their homes lighted.
Every generation lives in fear of what we are leaving behind for our children. Every point you made is valid...and often mirrors mine.
I've always admired the scepticism you look at the world with. If more of us did so, we wouldn't follow the herd and the world would be a better place.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, I agree with you and I know that our government has more information regarding climate change phenomena than they are letting on. I believe that a lot of what they are going could probably be linked to economic benefits for SOMEONE but I won't speculate much further than that.
The sad but true fact about the United States government is that you can figure out why and what by tracing back the money source to who.