David wrote:
AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_el_pr/obama

"The four scientists will confront challenges
in global warming after years of inaction by
the Bush administration, which opposed
mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution."

Let's hope they do. 8 years of not only inaction, but
malevolent intentional destruction of our environment will
be pretty hard to undo.

BTW I want atmospheric pollution regulated
but global warming is a destructive distraction
as a scientific or political issue. Let's not
waste a huge wad of money and our precious,
precious time.

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

You're a nutcase, who cares what you want? And why are
you posting to the quakers?

Bill Carter wrote:
David wrote:
AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_el_pr/obama

"The four scientists will confront challenges
in global warming after years of inaction by
the Bush administration, which opposed
mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution."

Let's hope they do. 8 years of not only inaction, but
malevolent intentional destruction of our environment will
be pretty hard to undo.

Your sitting your fat ass in front of the TV probably
has been as destructive. But you wanna whine about Bush.

Great.

Al Bedo wrote:
Bill Carter wrote:
David wrote:
AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_el_pr/obama

"The four scientists will confront challenges
in global warming after years of inaction by
the Bush administration, which opposed
mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution."

Let's hope they do. 8 years of not only inaction, but
malevolent intentional destruction of our environment will
be pretty hard to undo.

Your sitting your fat ass in front of the TV probably
has been as destructive. But you wanna whine about Bush.

Great.

I don't watch TV. It is typical right-wing jackass behavior
to attack people for their opinions rather than challenge the
opinion itself, don't you think? But there's no doubt Bush has
been the most environmentally destructive president since
Reagan. There's nothing I could do to hold a candle to it even
if I tried. Here at the end of his brainless fiasco in office
he is packing in as many additional assaults on the environment
that he can think of.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ht-regulations
"Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations
that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices,
such as dumping strip-mining waste."

Bill Carter wrote:

Al Bedo wrote:
Bill Carter wrote:
David wrote:
AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_el_pr/obama

"The four scientists will confront challenges
in global warming after years of inaction by
the Bush administration, which opposed
mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution."

Let's hope they do. 8 years of not only inaction, but
malevolent intentional destruction of our environment will
be pretty hard to undo.

Your sitting your fat ass in front of the TV probably
has been as destructive. But you wanna whine about Bush.

Great.

I don't watch TV. It is typical right-wing jackass behavior
to attack people for their opinions rather than challenge the
opinion itself, don't you think? But there's no doubt Bush has
been the most environmentally destructive president since
Reagan. There's nothing I could do to hold a candle to it even
if I tried. Here at the end of his brainless fiasco in office
he is packing in as many additional assaults on the environment
that he can think of.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ht-regulations
"Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations
that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices,
such as dumping strip-mining waste."



And a UK newspaper article is needed to show this?


What is "strip-mining waste", rocks and maybe rocks and
coal mixed?
While I don't like the idea of altering the topography by
leveling hill tops and filling valleys, there are places where
it can be useful.

And rock is not pollution.



Can you show why it says "power plants in parks" in one
place and "power plants nearer to parks" in another?

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:33:16 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ht-regulations
"Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations
that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices,
such as dumping strip-mining waste."



And a UK newspaper article is needed to show this?


What is "strip-mining waste", rocks and maybe rocks and
coal mixed?
While I don't like the idea of altering the topography by
leveling hill tops and filling valleys, there are places where
it can be useful.

And rock is not pollution.


um, the rock is not the problem, the problem is the soluble heavy
metals it contains. Heavy metals get concentrated in the slag and
percolate into ground water destroying water quality and biosystems
dependent upon that water.


Can you show why it says "power plants in parks" in one
place and "power plants nearer to parks" in another?

wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ht-regulations
"Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations
that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices,
such as dumping strip-mining waste."

What is "strip-mining waste", rocks and maybe rocks and
coal mixed?
While I don't like the idea of altering the topography by
leveling hill tops and filling valleys, there are places where
it can be useful.

And rock is not pollution.

um, the rock is not the problem, the problem is the soluble heavy
metals it contains. Heavy metals get concentrated in the slag and
percolate into ground water destroying water quality and biosystems
dependent upon that water.

You think that strip mining produces slag? Or concentrates heavy
metals? It does neither.

You do know what the word "slag" means, don't you?

wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:33:16 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ht-regulations
"Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations
that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices,
such as dumping strip-mining waste."



And a UK newspaper article is needed to show this?


What is "strip-mining waste", rocks and maybe rocks and
coal mixed?
While I don't like the idea of altering the topography by
leveling hill tops and filling valleys, there are places where
it can be useful.

And rock is not pollution.


um, the rock is not the problem, the problem is the soluble heavy
metals it contains. Heavy metals get concentrated in the slag and
percolate into ground water destroying water quality and biosystems
dependent upon that water.



Please post some indication of where you found the words
"slag" and "heavy metals" in a discussion of strip mines, which
usually means "coal strip mines".


Can you show why it says "power plants in parks" in one
place and "power plants nearer to parks" in another?



Was that question too difficult to answer?