Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

In the meantime, what about climate change?

  1. Jul 7, 2005 #1
    The insatiable greed for profit is leading to who knows what disasters. While everyone focuses on the latest bout of terrorism (which is a reaction to a cycle of acts of terrorism that are bound to increase), this is what the scientists are saying:
    The following statement calling for the restoration of scientific integrity in policy-making in the US has been signed by over 6000 scientists:
    Many of the signatories are highly respected in their fields:
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2005 #2
    The reason why the US seek to replace Kyoto-style emission limits is that they refused to try it. The reason the UK seek to replace Kyoto-style emission limits is that they tried it and failed, and then tried to cover it up. Just sounds like the environment is being put on the back burner to me... no doubt releasing more CO2 of its own.
  4. Jul 7, 2005 #3
    Amen to getting science back into policymaking! I've heard one case after another of non-scientists being put into advisory roles on many issues related to the environment.
  5. Jul 8, 2005 #4
    Here are some specific examples identified by the Union of Concerned Scientists ( http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm )
  6. Jul 8, 2005 #5
    An unequivocal statement from a reputable source that there is solid evidence that action must be taken NOW:
  7. Jul 8, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That action needs to be taken now is an easy, yet utterly useless thing to say. What is difficult about this issue is figuring out precisly what action needs to be taken and who needs to be taking it.
  8. Jul 8, 2005 #7
    Those in power

    Sadly to say there is little that can be done until the government and the big energy companies stop filtering science and ethics through their wallets.

    I see Bush's suggestion that we need to start building nuclear power plants as a ploy. The American people as a whole are afraid of nuclear anything. Both Bush and the energy companies are aware of this fear.

    The American general public doesn't seem to react to anything unless they can be convinced that there is a "grave and gathering danger". Ultimately the path we must take is to somehow convince the public that this new "grave and gathering danger" exists, and that this one is real.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2005
  9. Jul 8, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Of course, every single thing no matter what it is has to be controlled by this "big energy" entity and no matter what Bush does, its a ploy and a lie. There must be some sort of underground handbook that dictates how all issues must be blamed on Bush.
  10. Jul 9, 2005 #9
    It is fact that the Bush family is tied to big energy more closely than any other first family in history. For the most part every politician in the last 15 or 20 years carries some blame because they chose to look the other way, but right now GW is the go to guy if anything is to be done.

    That underground handbook you mention is probably the same one used to Bash Bill and Hillary. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent :smile:
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2005
  11. Jul 9, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Any proof of that not on a geocities website or accompanied by "9/11 destroyed by C4" pages? And of course, why its relevant woudl be a great accompanying fact.
  12. Jul 9, 2005 #11
    Conversely, there seems to be a republican mental filter that blocks the obvious.

    Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Cheney, Halliburton/convicted, Enron, Bandar Bin Sultan/al Qieda, seem to be blocked.

    The words come out of Bush's mouth WMD, humanitarian, free the people, not about oil and republicans believe it however what we see is.

    1) oil ministry seized.
    2) Hospitals ignored
    3) infrastructure ignored
    4) Weapons caches ignored
    5) Ministry of defense ignored (Where you'd expect to find documentation on WMD)
    6) Any and all reports from govenment agencies disputing the WMD/al Qieda connection ignored and contradicted up until and including last weeks speech from Bush.​

    Come on, thiat isn't a conspiracy theory. Those are all facts.

    You even have Bandar admitting state funding of terrorism on Meet the Press which was an excuse for invasion og Iraq and the fact that 14 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi:

    I'd be more worried about the conspiracy of silence and denial.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2005
  13. Jul 9, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That seems weird because lets see... oh yes, Cheney doesnt make a cent out of halliburton contracts. Oh and again wait, did Halliburton get a no-bid contract under Clinton? Well might as well look around the balkins for a certain military base built by them.

    Enron execs TRIED under Bush Jr. Yah... wooo, huge energy connection there. Nevermind most of the illegal stuff happened under Clinton. Do you democrats even think about what you say? Or is it just denial as usual.

    And exactly why wouldnt you seize the oil ministry? The lifeblood of the iraqi economy should be ignored? Ever check UNICEF and UN reports on the numberous hospitals rebuilt after the US forces took over? I didnt think so...

    October 6th, 2003, power distributions reach pre-war levels
    All colleges and education institutions are open
    As of october 1st, 2003, 1500 schools renovated
    All hospitals are open along with 1200 clinics
    22 million vaccinations

    need i go on?

    Lets turn this into another iraq sucks/bush sucks thread :grumpy:
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2005
  14. Jul 9, 2005 #13
    D'ja think he might return to his old job on severance from his current one?

    I don't know. Were they charged with criminal overbilling then too?

    You assume I care about Clinton. Enron paid into both parties according to the contributions disclosure. They bought influence either way but it was BUSH who allowed them to hire the regulator of their industry from an office in the white house.

    You cause me to question your intelligence. What does an office have to do with the production of oil and why should it concern you if you were there for the WMD? Why were you not in the science ministry or the defence ministry

    And this has what to do with the people who died when the local hospitals were robbed of supplies while the US military was guarding some receipts in the oil ministry?

    Don't post absurd statements unless you want responses then.

    What you are essentially saying is that it is okay for you to have your opinion but not the rest of us to have them?

    Oh, and oil is not the life's blood of any country.

    PEOPLE are the life's blood of any country.

    By making that statement, you infer what it is that motivated you in your support of your armed forces protecting the oil ministry while the hospitals were looted.
  15. Jul 9, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wow that was rather hilarious to read.

    "They did they protect the oil ministry"
    "because its how the economies run..."
    "why does an office building matter?"

    You seem to ask me why they did protect a building by implying that it is of extreme importance and then you say "oh well its not important!"

    Lets see what else... oh yes, you dodged the fact that they were taken down under this administration... thats rather typical.

    Oh there we go.
    You go "they iddnt protect the infrastructure"
    I go "oh wait, heres a bunch of infrastructure they did protect"
    then you go "Well well what about a few people who died! yah, see, people shouldnt die when there being invaded"

    You amaze me to no end. Shouldnt you be posting at the DU?
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2005
  16. Jul 9, 2005 #15
    Not if it questions the status quo, TSM. We have to all agree with the powers that be, all the time - then we can express our opinions. An interesting way of working through the pressing issues that we face in these very dangerous times, don't you think? :rolleyes:
  17. Jul 9, 2005 #16
    You should be amazed too!

    Infrastructure is not oil.

    What you presuppose to be infrastructure is absurd.

    Infrastructure is what a population needs to survive ... to cling to life.

    You have just equated the future earnings of a country being delayed by failing to protecting paperwork to the wanton ransacking of hospitals and the denial of clean water and electricity to a population.

    Let's put it this way to see if you can gain what we in the 'real world' call perspective ... infrastrucure is what human rights organizations ship to a populace when they are in distress. I don't particularly think they ship paperwork to the starving, the wounded, the ill and the dehydrated. Nor do they ship crude oil.

    Then, when seeking WMD which is what was said to the UN by way of the first of many excuses, you don't wage a pitched battle and protect the Oil Ministry. You go for research facilities and departments of defense. These are the places where you will find battle plans and records as to weapons caches especially when you have men on the ground who are still vulnerable to attack.

    What you have just done is to call not even OIL 'the essentials for survival' (infrastructure) but the paperwork over previous transactions. You just declared PAPERWORK in the oil ministry more important than well stocked hospitals used to tend to the sick and the wounded.

    You have in fact confirmed the perverse notion of a sad set of national leaders currently residing in the USA that OIL was the reason for the invasion and the people were not even close to the top of the list as a priority.

    A nation concerned with the liberation and well being of a people first ensures their survival before they ensure their wealth ... after all, what one single person stood a better chance of survival in all of Iraq knowing that the oil ministry was safe.

    Your post was in fact so absurd, it is hard to believe you are not a troll.

    After all, when faced with the maintenance of a hospital on a battlefield or a government office maintaining records, who in their right mind chooses an office?
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2005
  18. Jul 9, 2005 #17
    You can't see me right now but I have my comb under my nose, my arm in the air and I am goose stepping around my living room.
  19. Jul 9, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are you dense or just absolutely un-educated on the facts of Iraq?

    Guess what PAYS for the stuff that country uses? Guess... come on, this should be really easy.

    The way you spout illogical ideolog lines makes me think your an uninformed troll. I've seen many in my day...
  20. Jul 9, 2005 #19
    No doubt shaving is a beatch.
  21. Jul 9, 2005 #20
    Are you telling me that paperwork 'pays for infrastructure'?

    Are you trying to equate the protection of a building in Baghdad with the protection of an oil field?

    Are you going to tell me that the soldiers all ran around with an armload of invoices to the dead and dying or presented them with stock options in lieu of morphine?

    Do you know the difference between a battle and reconstruction and when each occurs?

    I can see why the USA has a problem winning the 'hearts and minds' when you clearly demonstrate posession of neither.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: In the meantime, what about climate change?
  1. Climate Change Poll (Replies: 157)