On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"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..._r=1&th&emc=th

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

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

If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are
no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global
warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.

I agree with this post.
--
John H

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