Swingman wrote:

On 1/23/2010 5:15 PM, Upscale wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600,
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

With cleaner air in most of NA now than in almost a century, how does
that equate with us as the culprits in AGW?

So, let's get the UN involved in "pollution", not some AGW scheme to be
used as the basis for taxation, distribution of wealth, and with a
consequent loss of sovereignty.


I've made this statement before, the statists in the AGW green community
have come up with a very brilliant ploy. During the early part of the
environmental, anti-pollution movement, particulates, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and other real pollutents were addressed. Unfortunately
for the red greens, the free market was able to overcome the barriers being
erected and actually produced lower-polluting approaches that work and are
affordable. The AGW ploy now attacks one of the products of perfect
combustion: Carbon Dioxide. By limiting and regulating this, the red greens
have figured out a means to control and attempt to destroy the
industrialized world. That's brilliant in a twisted diabolical way.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham