The government report released late yesterday is said to be fully behind the science of climate change and also holds out belief that man both can and needs to effect changes to reduce these trends.
One of the questions I have had to ask myself is: "what would cause scientists, as a m*** group, to embrace a purely fabricated cause with no science to support it?" For the life of me I can't come up with a reasonable answer to that simple question.
Like most complex issues there is no single cause, and that applies to the fires in CA, but we need to identify each one and then formulate an effective plan to deal with them.
I mentioned in another thread that I (along with others) tried to include environmental regulations into NAFTA when it was signed. We lost.
The regulations in the US and Canada were almost identical (Canada fashioned their's after the US) but Mexico had nothing. The suggestion was that Mexico would be required to progressively adapt (and enforce) environmental regulations as their economy benefited from NAFTA. I believe that concept still has value today---far more so than cash payments to a bunch of crooked potentates.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
“You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Honda
