From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ec3b1a84cab8fc8a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-06 12:40:37 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "chris.danx" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3B970152.4AC6C6E3@PublicPropertySoftware.com> <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net> <9n882d$rsh$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B97C5D4.2AFBAEDF@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Message-ID: <1eQl7.11748$592.809913@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:35:10 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.137.184 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 999804925 62.252.137.184 (Thu, 06 Sep 2001 20:35:25 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 20:35:25 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12837 Date: 2001-09-06T20:35:10+01:00 List-Id: "Darren New" 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.