hysteria, hollywood, and i don't like the u.n. (Score 2)

i'm troubled, deeply troubled, that so many people can still be ruled by hysteria, even when the science is as plain as day. how many reputable scientists have to challenge the tendentious claims of the united nations, actors, news media and other wackos before we actually research the information ourselves? before we see that the pseudoscientific bases for global warming reports are either exaggerated or plain wrong and that all credible evidence puts us in the black environmentally?

granted, the air around some island in the middle of the pacific with no factories will be clean. there's nothing to mess it up. if you put a factory on that island, there's now a source for pollution. but as countries develop more, beyond the first inefficient, 1830s-style factory period, their air begins to clean up. around cities there's no getting around it, the air will have car exhaust in it (at least for a few more years, then the hydrogen fuel cell might be able to fix that). but on the whole, the air in the u.s. is better than the air in azerbaijan. pollution is inefficiency, so even if the industrialised world cleans up pollution only because it's a less efficient use of resources (which i don't think is its only motivation, none of us wants to have to breathe bad air), the air still gets cleaner. and someday we won't need fossil fuels for anything, and the air will be cleaner than it was for the cavemen.

this topic is getting more attention now that spielberg put out a movie where global warming is an important piece of background. it's odd that in the future we'll be able to create robots that can love, but won't be able to do anything as the polar floodgates turn manhattan into atlantis. maybe if the hague went under...no more bogus ipcc reports...

rm