Let's get someting straight...

Not only do I agree with your last post, Ryan... but both James and I have been spouting the same thoughts since 2001, and you are only JUST now getting the idea. AND you get it from an undoubtedly "biased" TV program... that hurts, man.

However, I feel it is important to make a point here.

As stated numerous times, I do not buy into the whole "global warming" panic as it is promoted by Gore and the far-Left. There simply isn't enough hard science to back up the claims of impending doom and gloom.

That does not mean, however, that I think you are correct in making blanket generalizations concerning mankind's ability to alter the environment in catastrophic ways. I really think you need to stop "pooh-poohing" the possibility that man's industrial labors might someday have an impact that could be felt globally.

I am unable to argue with the fact that events in Earth's natural history... even in our recorded history... have managed to produce more carbon dioxide in one year than we as a civilization have created in the last 75 years (the years when our CO2 production was highest). Eruptions of volcanoes like Etna, Ida, Mauna Loa, the Kamchatka, Krakatoa... all have thrown millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere with each eruption. Hekla, on Iceland's southern shores, has been erupting nearly continuously since 1100 A.D. These events have produced MORE sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen carbide the we have EVER produced... surely THAT says something, right? The litany of evidence that clearly shows that the Earth has gone through periodic and sometimes extreme temperature changes is also long and accepted. All of this does (in my eyes) tend to negate much of what the "global warmers" are screaming about.

That is all well and good, and any opinions to the contrary of Gore's (et al) based on these facts are valid and stand alone very nicely.

I still hear, however, your tone of disdain and contempt whenever anyone brings up ANY kind of environmental concern... as if your doubts and concerns about global warming eliminate the possibility that man could alter the environment in some other manner. That is naive in the extreme, and does you argument no good at all.

Exxon Valdis, the Union Carbide leak at Bhopal, India (which killed nearly 5,000 people in 6 hours), the PPL contamination of groundwater in CA (which has cost PPL and the American taxpayer in excess of $1.2 billion in clean up) are all excellent examples of man effecting vast and vital areas of the environment through industrial contamination.

However, let's look at just one incident as an example of just how impacting our modern industry can be on the environment...

Chernobyl.

In 1986, the fire at Chernobyl effected 32 European and Asian nations, and has contaminated no less than 600,000 sq/km of central Asia (roughly 1.5 times the size of Texas). In fact, in the area immediately around the plant, arable land was rendered unusable in tracts that are larger than the State of Rhode Island. 780,000 people have been permanently displaced by the event, and 4 moderate sized cities and towns have been abandoned due to radiation. The really amazing thing about Chernobyl is that the fire started in April of 1986 (just months before I graduated high school) and is still burning to this day! It will continue to burn the nuclear fuel (an estimated 180,000 kilograms of the rods were in the reactor) for the next 25,000 years... requiring that every 4 to 8 years another layer of concrete (or something else) be added to the containment vessel for roughly 2.5 times longer than human civilization has existed. The slag that results from the fire (called "lava" I think) is so toxic that 1 minute of exposure to dust or steam from this crap will kill a healthy man in less than 12 hours.

This is the kind of industrial impact that I think anyone can see as unquestionably measurable in its effect on the environment. Of course, this doesn't take into account the 15,000 nuclear warheads which constitute the US arsenal alone... taking the estimated number of all the worlds weapons, the number is nearly 100,000 warheads... and we will leave the possibility of any of those global weapons being unaccounted for (meaning "on the market") for another discussion.

So, please, Ryan... do me a favor and stop dismissing each and every possible environmental concern as irrelevant to any and all political discussions. I am just as much a realists as the next person, and the term realpolitik has its place in debate and discussion... but if the "environment" is a top 5 concern of as many as even 10% of the voting public in America, who could argue that it is NOT something that anyone can afford to ignore?