...when the war started to become a major problem, and this makes me suspicious that they're using it as a smoke screen.

Whether you believe climate change is real and man-made or not, do you believe that our governments really care, or whether they're just using global warming as a generic, abstract enemy that they can use to rally us against as yet another means to undermine civil liberties?

Discuss.

It's not a belief anymore than science is. Because it is proven now, no debate.

But, yeah, I think that this global warming stuff can be a smokescreen over other issues.

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

I guess I missed that.

But yeah, all I meant by it was that I don't care whether people think it's real or not, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this argument. It just seems like no-one gave a shit until the war fucked up. That's why Blair started giving a shit before Bush, because the popularity of the war weakened here a lot earlier on.

Seems odd for Bush to get into it considering he had America leave the Kyoto Convention.

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

Ok I went back east a few years ago, and I could not believe how industrial some cities are, and west coast too, but OMG Detroit New York yuck big smokestacks crazy black smoke factories etc..and like people don't do anything about it.

Well maybe they try to shut them down...but it's disgusting how these big factories cause so much pollution. and people ignore that..????

What I seriously don't get, is why this was all over the news yesterday, and why our government had a 5 minute "shut-off-your-lights" thing, when this was known years ago.
Like we didn't know polluting our Earth fucks it up before yesterday?
We didn't know we had a green house effect, we didn't know the poles are melting?
And why, for Christs sake, does Europe take a leading role, why does our Dutch government want to tax power even more, when they had a Kyoto protocol meeting where America made demands and later refused to sign it, when other countries did?
Why not force America to at least uphold the protocol they helped make?
Why would Europe take the lead when it seems to me that Asia and America that are the biggest polluters?
THAT'S what I'd like to know.

Asia and America may be the biggest polluters, but along with Germany they are also among the top industrialised nations. So, though it is sad, the pollution is an unfortunate by-product of mass manufacturing.

I would hazard a guess that Europe is taking the lead in this 'matter' because there are so many members of the Green party there. And it looks good politically as well.

You can't 'force' America to do anything. It always amuses me when people point to the States and say, 'They should do this, they shouldn't do that.' Because when the chips are down, everybody suddenly says, 'America, oh please help us. We need you!'

People say this?

The Australian government only cares cause it's an elecion year. We've been in a drought for about 10 years, and they only NOW think that it's a good idea to think about considering looking at talking about potentially doing something about it?
Fuck that.

i dunno. i think the self interest argument for dealing with climate change is finally sinking in. it's never been along the lines of whales or seal pups, but the enviro tag was so linked to altruistic causes that big business and govt assumed.

i think population pressure and associated immigration, plus wars and diseases from a hundred drowned cities in the developing world is the real fear, rather than the direct impact

If the Republicans hadn't lost control of congress Bush still wouldn't be into it.

I don't even watch the news much and I know that the White House was doing the environmental thang a good few months before they got trounced for congress. Bush wasn't forced to concede to the Demmycrats, he just realised that Mother Nature was an even better vague enemy than Terror.

HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you should watch the news more often.

So you're saying that the occasional tokenistic nods towards doing something about climate change despite not sounding like they knew what it even was were just make believe, didn't happen, and that the World Service just lied because they thought it was funny.

Doesn't matter if they actually did anything, as long as they were talking about it like it was important.

War on Terror. War on the psyche. Fear dissolves love. Love dissolves fear. Love sets you free.

Thoughts become things. You see what you want to see.

I see a beautiful world; and I love. George and those who support this kind of vision have no effect on my psyche; my passion has lead me to compassion and love. The world isn't so scary to me. It may be the greatest time in history for the individual to free themselves. Don't follow me, I don't want a bunch of crazies living near me or following me. Go find yourself, yorself.

Only those who love themselves first can then love others. All this vague fear shall pass.

"It's all about courage, my dear"

This has nothing to do with love. It's about diplomacy. It's about nothing but fear. Loving yourself doesn't change it.

A climate of fear keeps the individual "in the mind"; that retards a persons emotional development and thus the individual is easier to influence: political engineering.

You're completely wrong. Emotion is being used to manipulate people over environmental issues. If people were "in the mind", they would be less easily controllable.

Your philosophy about love doesn't really fit here. Yes, if you love yourself and such you might be happier, but if in order to do that you have to ignore or acquiesce to matters of politics, you're no stronger. Politics does impact on your life, whether you are at one with the spirit or not. Ignorance of it may well be bliss for you, but if that's the case then you've got no business discussing it.

Sounds like you want to excuse Bush's actions on global warming. Ever since he was appointed president in 2000, he's done nothing about global warming. Hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, giant reflectors in space, do nothing about the root cause of global warming. And trying to use ethanol from corn is actually taking a step backwards since using corn to make ethanol isn't very efficient.

So no, I don't think taking token actions have helped. Not one bit.