I admit, he may have replied.
But the Republican Governor of Alaska is saying this quick increase in
temperature is devastating. He ignores such comments. And points to the
world "dispute". Name a group of independent scientists that don't say
we are accelerating global greenhouse effect.

There is one I can point to. Michael Chritner (sp). Not really a
scientist.

Most of the ones are on Bush's payroll.

When I pointed out that his cabinet member quit over the deregulation's
of environmental laws, his statement was she was a liberal. Maybe I
missed a reply with substance, and concede that possibility but I doubt it.

Global Warming is a disaster that Glinton and Gore were working on. Bush
reversed all their work to protect the oil industry. We should be
preparing for a new kind of future. Based on trains, centralized
resources and energy passive buildings.

Hybrid technology does not meet the objects already in place that Bush
canceled.

Hybrids could be very fuel efficient. The Prious demonstrated that.
It would mean American's would be forced to give up some performance and
space. That's called reality.

He declared the Iraq war over. In fact the insurgency grows. We were
originally told the troops would be home in a few months.

What's his answer to the governor to the state of Alaska? Alaska is in
big trouble. Houses are collapsing as the temperature rose 8 degrees in
a short period. This is far to fast a change to compare to the "ice age".

Or the vast independent majority of scientists that predict global
warming? That Bush questions it?

It requires strong action now.


Don't get me wrong, I'm against terrorism, yet Bush continues placating
the Saudis because they have oil. How about wind and solar energy
rebates? Why won't he do that? Because he's in the oil business as are
his friends.

I documented several models that show Britain will freeze when polar
caps melt. He was unaware of such a possibility. He should thank me
for bringing them to his attention. If he did, with my news reader, I
apologize.


The fact is the US contributes far more than it's share of greenhouse
gasses. Shy did he cancel the great legislature that Clinton and Gore
had in effect. If they were in effect maybe Detroit's cars could
compete, and Detroit auto company's bonds wouldn't be junk status.

If he chooses to have a meaningful, NON INSULTING discussion we can do
it. Usually his answers attack the person, as he has repeatedly called
me stupid. Objective data prove otherwise.


He calls "Change Agents" radicals. Carl Sagon was a change agent. A
brilliant scientist he called for change regarding energy, the use of
natural resources, and seeing the world as one.

Bush wants to change social security in such a way as to put money in
the hands of businesses. That's being a change agent. The arguments
are worth examining. The risk is very real. Is Bush a radical since
he's a change agent?



Bob