06-08-2005, 11:19 AM | #1 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
POL - Who needs Kyoto? I have white out.
US official edited warming, emission link
Wed Jun 8, 4:42 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House official, who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday. ADVERTISEMENT Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents. The White House declined comment on the report. The report said the documents were obtained by the newspaper from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistleblowers. The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that coordinates government research and issued the documents that Cooney edited, the Times said. The newspaper said Cooney made handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research. White House officials told the newspaper the changes were part of a normal interagency review of all documents related to global environmental change. "All comments are reviewed, and some are accepted and some are rejected," Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy told the the newspaper. In a memo sent last week to top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Piltz charged that "politicization by the White House" was undermining the credibility and integrity of the science program. ((Writing by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Stacey Joyce; Reuters Messaging: [email protected]; 202-898-8322)s
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
||
06-08-2005, 12:15 PM | #2 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
If they changed the data or made up numbers, it would be a different situation. But changing the summary or wording in the description of the study is business as usual for academic, government and private research. Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 06-08-2005 at 12:19 PM. |
||
06-08-2005, 12:17 PM | #3 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
OMG. Arles has replied to a potential White House scandal by saying it is no big deal. What is the world coming to?
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-08-2005, 12:19 PM | #4 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Still waiting for my apology, John. I know it would be as heartfelt as the others you've made
|
06-08-2005, 12:22 PM | #5 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Believe it or not, my other apologies were heartfelt. I'm still waiting for you to apologize to the board for using wholly fabricated evidence (of which there is zero doubt that it was fabricated) in support of your arguments on this board.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-08-2005, 12:38 PM | #6 | |||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Back to the subject at hand, do you have a problem with groups that contract research studies changing the summary to reflect their goals? |
|||
06-08-2005, 12:43 PM | #7 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Dirty
|
Quote:
For grants, papers, etc., all data must be peer reviewed and is checked to make sure the conclusions you reach from the data are acceptable. While it is true that people do like to highlight what they feel is better data, you will not be able to publish or get a grant when you leave important aspects of your study out. They can feel free to change the focus of the study, as you say, but then we should all take it as garbage, as that would happen around where I work (academic research). |
|
06-08-2005, 12:44 PM | #8 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
When it is the government of the United States I do. The government isn't the Bush administration. What you are suggesting is that any particular administration is perfectly justified to change any report so that it meshes with their politics. There are no facts, just different opinions that can be changed or ignored as needed.
Your argument gets to the reason for why we established a civil service in the first place. Much of what the government produces shouldn't be subject to changes by politicians. Not everything should be slavish servant to dear leader.(regardless of who dear leader is at any moment) And if you honestly think that no facts were changed or omitted you're nuts. |
06-08-2005, 12:49 PM | #9 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Arles, your "comfort" is exactly the problem. 1) You said, the treatment of Clarence Thomas was analogous to McCarthyism. 2) I (and someone else I think) called on that being pretty offensive. 3) In doing so, I mentioned the only people who had evidence Anita Hill was just smearing Thomas have retracted their statements. 4) You actually quote the number 1 retracted who admitted he fabricated the whole book "The Real Anita Hill." 5) Again, you are called on your statements and the fact that you quoted a fabricater as your only evidence. 6) You ignore that you flat out quoted a liar and continue as if nothing happened. And you continued your usual argumentative strategy of making up things that other people said without any quotes or facts to support it. And my insults were certainly provoked, not just by that incident, but by your constant ad homs and personal attacks at me. I just took my attacks to a different level and stopped trying to be polite. After all, you had repeatedly accused me of calling everyone who disagreed with me "stupid." In fact, I had done no such thing. So, I thought I would at least make your statement partially true by repeatedly calling you a moron in as many colorful ways came to mind.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude Last edited by John Galt : 06-08-2005 at 12:49 PM. |
|
06-08-2005, 12:49 PM | #10 |
Red-Headed Vixen
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
FWIW, here's the NYT article Reuters is discussing.
The article states that the documents that were edited are in the paper's possession. I hope they intend to release them in full. |
06-08-2005, 12:51 PM | #11 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
And Arles, I liked how you used my joke as evidence that my apologies were not heartfelt 1) without providing the larger context and 2) without mentioning that I even apologized for those jokes later in the same thread. Typical.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
06-08-2005, 12:52 PM | #12 |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Dirty
|
Another small point. This kind of BS is what gets drug companies in trouble all the timel and gets us all up in arms. They bury the negative data and reach BS conclusions. Then a few years later, a bunch of people die, or go blind, or something and it was found that they data were there and they just didn't cover it or fudged the conclusions.
|
06-08-2005, 12:56 PM | #13 |
College Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Henderson, Nevada
|
I dont believe in Global Warming. The earth is just going back to the state it was thousands of years ago. Just wait a few thousand years. I bet its just a cycle that we humans cant comprehend.
__________________
Toujour Pret |
06-08-2005, 12:56 PM | #14 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Good lord, the Liberals are crying wolf so often now that I don't even think Ted Kennedy is listening anymore. Have another drink, Ted. Nothing to see here.
|
06-08-2005, 12:58 PM | #15 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
I guess we need to see the actual changes to know for sure. |
|
06-08-2005, 01:01 PM | #16 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2003
|
Quote:
There's a big difference between "groups" and our government. Their "goals" shouldn't revolve around deception. |
|
06-08-2005, 01:06 PM | #17 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
The specific alterations pointed out in the NYT piece didn't seem all that damning to me. But I pretty much assume that everything I hear from the federal government has been fully laundered and filtered anyway -- so perhaps I'm a poor jodge of whether this is a big deal.
|
06-08-2005, 01:30 PM | #18 | ||||||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...2&page=4&pp=50 Last edited by Arles : 06-08-2005 at 01:33 PM. |
||||||||
06-08-2005, 01:37 PM | #19 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Back to the original subject at hand...
Yes, the Bush adminstration would restrict or edit information that supports Global Warming. This has been a constant pattern for the last 5 years and it won't change now. No real surprises here. At the same time, I support (OMFG!) the decision not to ratify Kyoto. It's a horrid treaty that imposes a large burden upon us while giving countries like China very little responsibility. Edit it to be fair across the world and I'd sign it in a heartbeat because I believe that something should be done. But Kyoto ain't it. |
06-08-2005, 01:58 PM | #20 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Well, my idea to let off steam in retaliation for people attacking me has completely failed. I give up. I'm going back to trying to play nice because I'm tired of these silly fights. You are being completely dishonest in your review of what happened as anyone who reads the original thread can tell. You used a fabricator as your only evidence about Anita Hill (assertions accompanying the quote repeating the quote are not other "evidence") after being told he was fabricator. Then you don't even admit your mistake and continue to argue otherwise. I take intellectual deceipt seriously and you have no credibility left because of what you did. You still can't even bring yourself to admit you did wrong! That amazes me. You cite someone who totally fabricated their evidence, after being warned that your position was supported by fabricators, and then never admit you did anything wrong. Truly astonishing! As for the rest of the personal stuff, I did not ever say anything mean to you until very recently. It was not a "routin[e]" as you assert (again you make accusations without evidence). And I only did so after you accused me of doing things (calling everyone who disagreed with me "idiots") that I never did. I simply fulfilled your accusation by repeatedly calling you a moron. I'm sorry you didn't see that connection, but to feign innocence is ridiculous.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-08-2005, 02:24 PM | #21 | ||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
Agreed, Kyoto's no good for us. The evidence laid out in the NYT article seems a far cry from damning as well. I'm missing a lot of the scandal here. Quote:
White House environmental policy is basically that global warming does not exist. The fact that the person in charge of White House environmental policy would color the language of the conclusionary portion of a report his office was issuing to acknowledge that perspective seems pretty logical to me. Especially when that coloring (at least with what what the article presents) does not involve data manipulation or fabrication. Ultimately the White House is issuing these reports and as I understand it although "previously approved," they were also approved by qualified scientific personnel after these edits. Seems like ultimately a non-story, puffed out by the ambiguously evil references to the "oil industry." But I might be missing some bigger perspective. |
||
06-08-2005, 02:42 PM | #22 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis |
||
06-08-2005, 02:46 PM | #23 | |||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
John,
I've stated that my citing of Brock was for his statement about those who testified, but I have no problem admitting he was a poor choice for source given his actions against Anita Hill. If I had to do over again, I would have instead cited parts of the testimony directly. Quote:
Quote:
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...587#post788587 The first few posts by each of us were fine, I even took the "Arles, you ignorant slut." comment with a polite chuckle. Then you broke into such intellectual rebutals like: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also went through that post and couldn't find any instance of me calling you names or accusing you of "calling everyone who disagreed with [me] idiots". The discussion was civil until you decided to take it to the next level - Something I refrained from doing. |
|||||
06-08-2005, 02:51 PM | #24 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
I'm genuinely curious - what is fair ? The biggest producers of "pollution" of CO2 in the world today is the US. What the Kyoto protocol admittedly points out is that America had advanced to the first world stage while much of Asia is still 3rd world stage, and cannot do what the Americans can. Heck, to extend it on a property rights stage- America has done more to contribute to the degregation of the Ozone layer than anyone (as the biggest industrial superpower, though the former Soviet Union has a claim) - hurting everyone in the process. I think Kyoto has its flaws ( and I think China should be called to do more), but the idea that countries which have already benefited from lesser regulation in their developmental stage do a little bit more now that they are developed seems reasonable. |
|
06-08-2005, 02:52 PM | #25 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
As I said in the contrition thread, I'm sorry, so I won't rehash anything about this discussion here.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-08-2005, 02:54 PM | #26 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Same as with Arles, I apologized and don't want to rehash it. Though, I will say that the sequence of comments made by Dutch and his failure to clarify or apologize was easily the most hurtful thing someone has said to me on this board. I just don't think you can use 9/11 deaths as a tool in an argument against someone who suffered too much personal loss around that time. It just hurts.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-08-2005, 03:00 PM | #27 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
Good points, but from what I understand about Kyoto, the USA would be taking on a very large burden. While we may have been the biggest contributor to the degregation of the ozone layer, I also don't believe in punishing us for "sins" when no one really knew they were sins. So past polution to me isn't that relevant. Also, the amount of polution from the former Soviet Block is understated - we probably did less damage (as a percentage) than originally suspected since that information has been largely hidden. China is called to do very little and they are rapidly gaining on us in terms of pollution percentage. In addition, 3rd world countries' responsibilities are ill defined once they become "developed". Much of the world can reduce their emissions due to technologies developed in the USA - of which we get no credit for reductions. So on and so forth. I'm not smart enough to present a solution to global warming. Sorry, it's not my realm of expertise (shocking, isn't it?!?). But I do have a general understanding of where Kyoto falls short and things that need to be taken under consideration before moving forward with the solution. |
|
06-08-2005, 03:08 PM | #28 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
There has been a lot of success on a corporate level with reducing emissions through market-based initiatives. For example companies in a particular industry are alloted 100 units of pollution (an arbitrary number obviously) each year, if a company's emissions fall below that 100 then they have the option to sell their extra units to another company in need of them. In this way a company has a direct incentive to reduce emissions because reducing them has value. Under most environmental laws a company actually has incentives to produce as much pollution as possible up until a given quota or emissions standard. Applying something like this on an international level might strike the right balance between motivating governments at the front end to find ways to reduce emissions, and forcing developing nations to face some penalties for not being pollution conscious. Unfortunately much of environmental policy is dominated by idealists or utopians on one side or the other, and market initiatives don't appeal to most true believers.
|
06-08-2005, 04:21 PM | #29 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
That's a pretty neato idea. Something cool I haven't heard before. SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
06-08-2005, 04:28 PM | #30 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
This viewpoint always baffles me and I've said so on numerous occasions. What do you tell those people in coastal cities? "Sorry, we don't fully comprehend what we're doing so let's not do anything at all" http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...9&postcount=13 http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...3&postcount=12 http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...6&postcount=21 SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
06-08-2005, 04:30 PM | #31 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Yeah, credits have been around for a while, and we've done some consulting work on them - but the problem with credits is that they aren't all equal. If all the companies in LA, for example, buy credits from all the companies in NY, what you have is a system set up where the people of LA get screwed- they have to be more localised to work effectively. Essentialy, as an economist, I think companies should damn well have to pay for the pollution they cause - its simply a matter of pricing the negative externalities into the product. The atmosphere, the air, the grass- we tend to call the value intangible, and somehow equate iintanglible to zero- some of the hardest work is actually pricing this stuff - because we need do. Moreover, while markets are the prefered solution, there are avenues that the market cannot best allocate research- such as pharmaceutical R&D.
|
06-08-2005, 04:33 PM | #32 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
I think he was being sarcastic - you have to be fairly stupid to believe Global Warming doesn't exist at all. |
|
06-08-2005, 04:34 PM | #33 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
|
Quote:
I have heard this proposal before. Basically, all nations are given an X amount of pollution they can produce. However, nations over that limit can "buy" the extra capacity that under-industrialized nations have. This eases the pain and buys a little time that heavy pollution producers have in reducing their emissions. This also gives pre-industrialized countries (in Africa, for example) much needed leverage and capital infusion. It seems win-win, but people seem wary of the scheme. Are people afraid of giving too much power to the have-nots in the international system? Are there other problems? |
|
06-08-2005, 04:36 PM | #34 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
Every time we have a global warming thread, there are tons of people who don't think it exists. Go back to that Michael Chrichton thread- I'd say over half the people believed that it wasn't real. SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
06-08-2005, 04:48 PM | #35 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
They would be taking on a burden to reduce their emissions to thier 1990 standards- which is hardly ridiculous. I agree that China should bear a larger cost than it is now, but the current US is still the world's largest polluter. Purely from a logical capitalist mechanism here, the US pollution affects the rest of the world, and they should be compensated for it - price in the externalities of the products you produce, and you limit the classic free-rider problem. This isnt something like oil, where the US uses 25% of the world supply, because they do pay for that - this is a usage that due to its dubious, "intangible" status is somehow equated as a free good. As I mentioned in my post on trading credits, the market is not always the best avenue to resolve long-term goals over short-term ones . |
|
06-08-2005, 04:54 PM | #36 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
Well, the flat-earth society still has members, so I'm not particularly surprised- - but in this case, I thought Chemical Soldier was joking. You can dispute the scale of global warming, but arguing it doesn't exist is akin to the Emperor's New Clothes. |
|
06-08-2005, 05:08 PM | #37 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
It's not that something shouldn't be done...it's that the treaty, as written, isn't fair nor is it tenable. There is essentially no burden put on any developing country (including China) and they have no future incentive to comply or reduce harmful emissions. We could end up signing the treaty, getting stuck doing the lions' share of the work, spending the most money, hurt our competitiveness in the global marketplace and watch emissions continue to rise because other countries have no interest in reducing theirs. Until that's fixed, there's little use in signing Kyoto. Remember, I don't mind the goal - it's just I don't like how Kyoto gets us there. |
|
06-08-2005, 08:19 PM | #38 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
And oddly enough your viewpoint always baffles me. It doesn't make a lot of sense for us(mankind) do devote a lot of energy or resources into preventing global warming, if we don't really know that it is us causing it. If the planet's temperature is going to rise as part of some natural cycle that the planet goes through, then it doesn't seem very likely that there is anything that we(mankind) are going to be able to do about it. |
|
06-08-2005, 09:28 PM | #39 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
I'm all for trying to be good stewards of the environment (recycle, carpool when possible, try not to litter or pollute) - I'm just not all that excited about tying our economic survival to actions that may be the scientific equivalent of throwing a thimble full of sand off a beach in hopes of reducing the silicon content. Last edited by Arles : 06-08-2005 at 09:29 PM. |
|
06-08-2005, 09:59 PM | #40 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
I agree with Arles and Dutch. What would those liberals in the media have us believe, that an administration so concerned about the environment that they named one of their bills 'Clear Skies' (hxxp://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp), would stoop so low as to manipulate data to fit their politics (hxxp://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html)? The GOP has nothing but respect for all the sciences, just look at how abstinence education is finally getting the word out that contraceptives are to blame for mental health problems in teens and that teens should just 'follow God's plan for purity'. (Actual teaching points! hxxp://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/111805030118661.xml&coll=2 )
What will those crazy libs think of next?? Ignorance is strength. |
06-08-2005, 10:03 PM | #41 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Quote:
*sigh* Damn you J. Winston Porter! |
|
06-09-2005, 01:58 PM | #42 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Couldn't you just throw out th "cyclical" argument on just about anything and wash your hands of it. Really makes us very hands off what we want to be hands off of and just absolve us of responsibility for anything. "OH, its just cyclical. Dont worry, 400 years from now it'll be back to the way it is now." "How do you know dad?" "Thats the beauty of it...we dont, LOL".
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-09-2005, 02:13 PM | #43 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
Yeah it's a little more valid (who knows how much more) though in this case as we're trying to identify a dangerous trend emerging over the past fifty or hundred years in a natural system that's existed for a couple billion years. And we simply don't have the data to make a great judgment within that context. |
|
06-09-2005, 02:19 PM | #44 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-09-2005, 02:27 PM | #45 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
I'll agree with that, I just don't think the cyclical argument is so easily dismissed. As frustrating as it may be, we don't have the science or the data to really know. And some people clearly have monetary incentives to discount the theory, no doubt about it, but it's not completely phony science they're spouting. |
|
06-15-2005, 03:10 PM | #46 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Bump - apparently, the employee in question just joined Exxon Mobil..
Quote:
|
|
06-15-2005, 03:29 PM | #47 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
This isn't all that surprising given Exxon has been in the forefront in questioning the legitmacy of the stance that fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. Exxon has some of the best scientists in the world at working to decrease emissions and improve efficiency from fossil fuels. I find their stance on this issue very interesting and worth looking into.
Here's an article on them from yesterday's Wall Street Journal: Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 06-15-2005 at 03:39 PM. |
|
06-15-2005, 04:22 PM | #48 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Wow, a company that has smart people running the place?
I gotta hand it to them, I don't like their gas, but they've got smart managers, maybe I should buy some stock. |
06-15-2005, 04:28 PM | #49 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
Typical. The guy edits documents to continue the administration lies and then gets a cushy job from one of the biggest benefactors of those lies for it. |
|
06-16-2005, 01:34 AM | #50 |
College Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
|
How about this on Kyoto: Pollution is bad. We should take steps to reduce and eliminate it. Those who pollute the most should take the greatest steps. The US is on the losing end of the argument in rejecting Kyoto. There's only one reason why the US won't sign -- lobbying by polluters. But since the US opts out of many international treaties (e.g. the international criminal court), it is not surprising.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|