Here's some more ... related to my "bad point" http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/leavesother.htm
http://www.co2science.org/subject/commentary/2002/v5n3com.htm http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n7b2.htm http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/description.htm http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/1997/braswell.html http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/ncfa-ccc121201.php http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html http://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/09-99/brf.htm (scroll down) http://www.heartland.org/environment/dec01/satellite.htm H. -----Original Message----- From: Cameron Childress [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 10:34 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Why Bush's Environmental Policy is Bad More red herrings... Howard I get your point, but you're still focusing on carbon dioxide (global warming). Cars, factories, etc, don't just emit carbon dioxide, there's plenty of other "bad stuff". Unfortunately, the global warming issue tires to make people focus on just one of those pollutants. Also, I don't really think I buy the argument that there are more forests because of the carbon dioxide emitted by cars. Bad point. The global warming issue is a very important one, and one that should be studied and discussed, but is TOTALLY separate from the problem that "pollution is bad"(tm). -Cameron -------------------- Cameron Childress elliptIQ Inc. p.770.460.1035.232 f.770.460.0963 -- http://www.neighborware.com America's Leading Community Network Software > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 2:33 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Why Bush's Environmental Policy is Bad > > > I'm no scientist, and I can imagine that breathing carbon dioxide (the > primary greenhouse gas) is bad. But if it is so bad, home come it wasn't > regulated in the 1970s? Wasn't it in the '70s when the auto industry was > forced to put emission control devices on cars? They control > emissions such > as led, but not C02. So, if C02 is so bad for the air we > breathe, why isn't > it already regulated. In fact, no device has been invented yet that can > reduce C02 emissions from a car. > > Did you know that there are 30 percent more wooded areas in the US today > than there were 50 years ago? Or that the Amazon's biomass increases at an > annual rate of 2 tons per year? Why do you think that is? It's because > plants love C02. > > I'm not sure C02 is a bad thing. I'm sure led is. I'm sure other > chemicals > emitted into the air is. There are all kinds of bad things that we can and > do pump into our ecosystems. But the very notion of calling something a > greehouse gas is sort of off base, I think. > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maureen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:52 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Why Bush's Environmental Policy is Bad > > > At 10:09 PM 2/16/02, you wrote: > >My point exactly. > > > >Global warming is a red herring used by both sides to generate > manipulated > >statistics which fail to effectively prove a point that doesn't even need > to > >be made in the first place. Polluting industries love it. Keeps people > >(like us here on this list) distracted arguing over global warming while > >they continue to pollute. > > > >-Cameron > > Whether global warming exists or not, the greenhouse gases > generated by the > industries and automobile exhaust are serious health risks, especially to > children and the elderly. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
