On Aug 9, 6:07*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"J. Leo" wrote in message

...



"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...te.html?_r=1&t....

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.

Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the
ones to turn this around.
Everyone else will do their part as time passes.

There is no evidence for anthropegenic global warming at all. The
prophets of global warming mostly have carnon footprints 10x as large
as the average american so until they cut back, why pay any attention
to them.