Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD)

["chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>]

"Darren New" <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B97C5D4.2AFBAEDF@san.rr.com...
> > Perhaps it's because Northern America is one of the biggest polluters.
> > Something like 25% of all CO2 emissions are produced by Northern
America.
>
> Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north
> america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer.

It was in the new sci. i think, perhaps it wasn't just CO2 though (I could
check but New Sci. is weekly and it was months and months ago).

Ted reckons it's 17% now which would be good had there been an 8% drop in
emissions, but that's not the case.  Everyone else has just had a bigger
increase in output :-(


> > Maybe this will happen, maybe not but recent evidence and experiments
seem
> > to support it.  Like all science though it's not a certainty.
>
> I think it's closer to say "some evidence seems to support it."

Probably.  Science is highly driven by ppls' particular prejudices so it's
unlikely that research into this is going to be objective.  They either
believe it's not happening or it is, and they can't really decide on what
the outcomes going to be if they think it is happening.  The doom and gloom
scenario mentioned was probably prejudiced since it was shown here
(Britain).  Our weather system has supposedly got weirder with more floods,
however they tend to forget our government used to let builders build on
flood plains and that has only recently been rectified.

> There's
> a lot that doesn't. That's the problem.

Yes, evidence for either camp is used by politicians to further there
political aims.  It's a shame!  If there was consensus among scientists
politicians would find it harder to go against the grain, but that's not
going to happen anytime soon.