Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Personally I sit squarely in the middle. I have no trouble with the concept of removing pollutants, cleaning up the environment and giving clean air to the next generation.
I do believe that the most difficult job for the leaders of the worlds countries is balancing their countries economic needs and protecting and promoting wealth which leads to stronger social, medical end educational programs with environmental needs, something that I don't hear discussed by the radical chic environmental groups.
I don't want to see Canada's economy crushed just so that other countries can collect money on an unbalanced environmental deal.
I skeptical about anyone that thinks that a fair and proper deal can be negotiated in a two week meeting.
Hell, its taken me nearly a year to negotiate a deal with one of my major clients.
|
Cap'n, you're squarely in the middle of a different issue then. I doubt you'll find many people on the board (or any board) that wouldn't be in favor of removing pollutants, cleaning up the environment and giving clean air to the next generation. The real issue is the hypothesis that CO2 is a pollutant and is causing the planet to warm. This thread is about the discovery that the climate scientists behind this hypothesis have been stacking the deck.
In fact, I would say that the obsession with CO2 is distracting from what should arguably higher profile (and proven) environmental issues. It's not like those went away; they just don't warrant a New World Government redistributing wealth.