Americans do not differ from Bush on this issue. Well, except for people with Gore's mentality. Gore is one of the most bizarre people to ever hold public office. His movie was a disgrace on the accuracy issue. Virtually nothing was accurate.

This issue is far from settled. Just because a bunch of left wing media types buy into it, does not mean it's science. A few short years ago, the same ones who are now crying global warming were predicting an ice age!

Science is something that can be demonstrated to be true. It is not just a theory, but something that can be demonstrated in an experiment to be true. This is not the case with global warming.

If history proves true, those who are crying the most about global warming will be the ones who actually do harm the environment. A little knowledge leads to assumptions, and assumptions are usually wrong.

Before you go saying that American's differ from our President, maybe you should check with mainstream America. Most of us do not support the Gore types or the Wimpy politicians who are jumping on something their own actions prove they do not believe is true just to advance their political aims.

Fortunately, we have a President who is above this garbage. And to you Governor, you should be ashamed of yourself. I don't think the people who brought you to this country and supported you agree with anything you are doing now. If you are not careful, we will soon not be able to tell the difference between you (a man's man) and that alcohol guzzling womanizer who is your uncle in law.

This issue is far from settled. Just because a bunch of left wing media types buy into it, does not mean it's science. A few short years ago, the same ones who are now crying global warming were predicting an ice age!

Dont'cha just love it?

It's okay for that factory farm to dump 25 metric tons of cow shit into your drinking water -- because Al Gore "made up" global warming!

It's perfectly alright for PG&E to dump as much cancer causing toxins as they want into your families drinking water -- because Al Gore is lying about global warming!

Point 1: exactly how does this international cabal of Freemasons, Illuminati and Communists work? Doesn't it seem just a little (who do I put this diplomatically?) silly to suggest that the climate change is really just a international "hoax" perpetrated by a super secret cabal of evil doers who (wait for it...) plan to destroy America by making our water, air and food less toxic? Can one of the die hard Al Gore haters explain exactly how those evil commies are going to "destroy" America simply by requiring poorly run and inefficient companies to adopt superior pollution controls? Just not clear on how that plan is going to work.

Point 2: Even if the cancer causing industrial pollution doesn't contribute to climate change then don't we still have the problem of, you know, it causes cancer?

It just boggles my mind how some people can be so violently opposed (opposed!) to reducing cancer causing industrial pollution in their air, water and food.

Al Gore wants to make upgrading pollution control for industrial sites mandatory instead of just (shrug) voluntary.

And the Republicans go nuts!

They start screaming that to require a coal plant or an industrial site to meet the highest pollution standard possible is...is...a million times worse than Hitler.

What really baffles me is how lowering standards so that even the most inefficient and poorly run business can still be in compliance improves the market. How does protecting stupidity make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to raise standards?

What happens when you raise standards? The dumb CEO's (cough*Bush*cough) are forced out of the market because they can't adapt -- newer, stronger, more intelligently run businesses move in and take over -- and everyone wins. Just not clear on how lower standards and protecting weak, inefficient companies makes sense. You wouldn't graduate a high schooler that couldn't read, so why coddle a CEO that can't (or won't) upgrade to the highest pollution controls that are technologically possible?

Dear Editor, Sept. 27/07

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National

Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a

series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have

shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the

Earth's temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were

too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need

to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new

experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large

enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the

cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's

temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame

for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much

less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade

480 Rupert St.

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Canada

Ph. 807 3457258

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188993.php

First, voluntary greenhouse gas emission limits are going to be about as effective as a voluntary speed limit on the highway.

Yet, the Bush administration is correct, technology is going to be the key to avoiding dangerous warming, because right now greenhouse gas emissions are directly tied to economic activity.

Developing nations can be expected to rapidly increase their greenhouse gas emissions as they grow their economies. For instance, both China and India can be expected to increase their electrical generation capacity with coal-fired plants. About half of all the US electricity comes from coal.

Coal is about 1/6th the cost of either oil or national gas to generate energy, and is a stable domestic source of fuel. Technology to capture and store the coal emissions is years away from widespread use, will be very expensive to build and operate, and probably won't be suitable to retrofit old polluting plants.

Instead, like Dr James Hansen of NASA says, any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing the CO2 from the air.

I suggest the low cost method of "biosequestration." It is technically feasible to engineer and extensively test a genetically modified organism and seed it into the ocean.

Unfortunately, Bush is correct, the solution to global warming is going to be technological, not simply legislative.

If Kyoto's mild emission targets were manditory, would more countries have met their committments? What will be the punishment for countries that miss the much more drastic emission limits of the next Kyoto treaty?

Of course cutting emissions is a major part of a feasible planetary rescue plan, but it falls far short of what is necessary to save Earth from returning to the hothouse climate state 55 million years ago, when most life died.

Soon, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters in a warming world, and ecosystems that remove the carbon from the air will start to collapse. If we want to avoid runaway global warming and abrupt climate change, we had better start both cutting emissions and increasing the rate the excess carbon is removed from the air.