On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD