You are full of shit. Probably one of the biggest (and best) changes the Bush administration made in our laws is reform of New Source Reviews (NSR). This is the one the liberals and other ignorants go ape shit over. Basically what this law says is that if you modernize and upgrade a facility, you must meet the current, more stringent clean air standards. Normal repairs do not fall under NSR's. Well, as you might guess companies are leery of upgrading lest they have to make the whole plant meet these standards, which costs money. What Bush has done is to say, ok, if you want to upgrade you don't have to meet the new clean air standards. Sounds bad until you realize that any upgrading results in more energy effiency and hence less polution. This is a common sense reform that let's market forces do what regulation can't......improve the efficieny of plants and thereby reduce pollution. At no time will these plants that are modernizing be allowed to produce a net increase in pollution. The Kyoto treaty is another one that eveyone gets worked up over, but this is a bad deal. It lets countries like China and India pollute to their hearts content but makes The US meet unrealistic standards. If a reduction in global pollution is the goal, then why not go the source of the worst of it? What sense does it make for us to spend billions on reducing the final 5% of pollution? Why not spend the money on the worst pollution in developing counties?
Climate, vs. weather. Saw the same thing up north while I lived there. Extreme predictions or no, the warming is agreed upon, but not exactly the cause. Still, prudence is in order given what's at stake. We already have one good example of a runaway greenhouse effect right here in our own solar system.
Can't hurt, but be cautious of thinking of pollution as an undifferentiated entity. Sure, they modernize, become more efficient, emit less pollution, in the form of particulates perhaps, but possibly more mercury. Weighed by the ton, it's less pollution. But qualitatively... bad. And yet on a simple cost basis, the plant may be saving money.
Global warming (latest cycle), as started before the industrial age. Man made pollution has little if any effect on the climate change in the last 100yrs. Secondly, earths climate is constantly going through global variations... you will agree that 100 million years ago earths climate was much, much warmer than today. We went through a global warming 10,000 yrs ago that caused the ice sheet covering most of the US to roll back to the arctic. Glaciers have been coming and going for millions of years.... global warming is nothing new. Politics.....well thats fairly a new thing on the block.
As usual, ZZeal10 is unable to counter the points that refute his assertions, so he rests on ad hominem. Had Arnie not used ad hominem, Zzeal10 would have simply ignored his points and continued to blame Bush for the globe's environmental woes. Classic Zzeal10.
Don't think that was an answer. To me there is still a lot of disagreement over how much warming there has been and how much is caused by human activity. A good source for this is from the father of global warming, James Hansen, who has significantly changed his views on how much of the warming is caused by human activity. He has reduced his estimate of the human component by more than half. Here is a chart from a study Hansen and others did showing estimates for the positive and negative factors for global warming/cooling, from the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/vol98/issue26/images/large/pq2615536001.jpeg And in our rush to blame it all on CO2, we need to pay attention to his concern over soot which he believes causes 25-50% of the human component and is completely ignored in the rush to cut by fossil fuels which IMO is the real goal of many of the activists (not saying that is a bad goal, but that it is a gross misuse of science to sneak your real agenda in the guise of another.) Venus is nothing like earth and to use it as an example is junk science, IMO. Earth is a living planet where plants convert CO2 to mass and store it as ocean sediments. Nothing like that happens on Venus. Since you chose a bad example, I'll use mine: IF there was no global warming earth's temperature would be like that on the moon, too cold for any life. So the issue is not eliminating it but seeking a good level for without GW, no life as we know it could exist. DS