Bush's Policy Might Turn USA into Atlantis

"Deny any link between the irrational exploitation of resources"

Oh give me a break. Do you drive a car? Do you use an airplane? Do you use alternative energy to fuel this website?

Right conclusion, wrong reason. Bush's policy may very well turn America into Atlantis, but not in the way the author of this piece had in mind. The real reason that Atlantis went under as a superpower, the most powerful the world had ever seen, based in the Atlantis Ocean, was not that it sank. No, the real reason was that it got defeated when it unprovoked, in a war of aggression attacked the Balkan and the Middle East. Reagan started by bombarding Beirut in 1982 (like Osama bin Laden said; what he said was true but few Americans know it), Bush the first went on by attacking Iraq after having tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait, Clinton added Balkan while constantly bombing Iraq, and Bush the second invaded and occupied both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Look at http://AtlantisInIreland.com, Deciphering Stone Age History, and follow the Links to Plato's text, and you will see how the US in almost every way is following the example of Atlantis. From having been respected, to becoming the Pariah. (If you are American, and don't want to become like the Germans after WWII, then do something to get this president impeached. Today!)

Ulferlingsson,
By following the logic presented in your opinion. How could this conclude impeachment as a solution when this president has not able to influence the past 40 years of foreign policy?
Next, how could Saddam be tricked into invading Kuwait, it was more likely the US took away his allowance 'AID package' and Kuwait was an easy target for recovering $$$$. Lastly, what is wrong with Germany?

marcus.curtius on 2005-06-16, 14:41 GMT
to Macrus Curtius (the forum doesn't seem to allow me to reply to your comment, only to the first level):
You asked: How could this conclude impeachment as a solution when this president has not able to influence the past 40 years of foreign policy?
First, Bush lied to start the illegal war, see www.informationclearinghouse.info, so his crimes are much more flagrant and obvious.
Second, US foreign policy is on a slippery slope. One can not say that just because it is only marginally worse then yesterday, one should let it pass. Hitler-Germany too was every day just marginally worse tahn the day before. That's why the Germans didn't stop it.
You asked: Next, how could Saddam be tricked into invading Kuwait.
Reply: Much has been written about this, it should be very easy for you to find the explanation if you just use Altavista a bit (I don't like Google, they tend to sort sites according to popularity, not according to how they match your search criteria).

You asked: Lastly, what is wrong with Germany?
Reply: Nothing. I'm just referring to the collective guilt felt by Germans for 40 years after the war, for not having stopped the madness, the violation of International Law and Human Rights. The same crimes the US is conducting today. Unless the Americans themselves bring down this regime of terror under Bush, the same shame will befall on the Americans for a generation to come.

see www.informationclearinghouse.info - only some real left wing bat would cite this as a reliable source. When you start believing that Saddam was tricked and believe it was an "illegal war" - are you saying the corrupt UN which had members like France, Germany and Russia bribed to keep lucrative oil fields in Iraq should be the ones to decide if the action was lawful? Give me a break.

You need a tin foil hat...

You wrote: "are you saying the corrupt UN ... should be the ones to decide if the action was lawful?"

Reply: Yes, that is the law of the United States of America. Read the Constitution.

I am so tired of the journalistic hyperbole that we are forced to endure. Citing the New York Times against Bush is like quoting right from the liberal fringe. Has anyone with an actual science intelligence looked at the cycle of sun spots and sun activity as it related to the polar ice caps melting? Does everyone out there think the last ice age was caused by stupid GOP dinosaurs? I wish everyone reading this would take the time to open a book and read about the facts of what greenhouse gases are. While lower emissions may delay the process, everyone should face up to the fact that when the next ice age comes, diplomats won't be able to prevent it.

This issue is about politicians, corporate leaders and the public coming to terms with what is a growing scientific consensus about climate change. Debate is good if it's honestly conducted but at a certain point action is needed.

I too suspect that increased solar radiation is a significant cause of global warming. Do you have information to support this theory?

Do you know if there was a buildup of greenhouse gasses just before the last ice age?

Yes, this has been looked at extensively. It's part of the reason scientists took such a long time to come to a basic consenus on global warming (this was thought abotu starting in the '80s). The main solar cycles are easy to throw out as it's about 11 years long and we have data going back many cycles. Long term variations in solar radiation levels obviously will still affect us but you have to understand that they don't have the severity of what we are causing. They are not sudden (happening over 1000s of years) and will not cause the change in temperature that the next predictions are making. Personally I think your opinion (that we should just let it happen) is fatalistic when you consider the damage it will have on the human life (death, disease, & poverty).

tmcmulli, I, and many other scientists in the Earth Science field, agree with you that it is too much hyperbole. I have put out an analysis (only in Swedish, but the graphs are intelligible) at http://atlantisinireland.com/GC/paleogeografi.html Look at "Figur 1-10", the yellow line (50 point running average). It turns up in the 20th century, yes--but look how it has behaved in past millennia! That's why I say it is hype.

HOWEVER, for reasons of common sense and sustainability, we should of course not pollute our planet of waste our limited natural resources. Just consider where we would be if we ran out of oil (with no replacement). We would not even have food on the table, since food production would fall drastically when fertilizer supply would fall since they are made using a lot of energy. and so on.

My objection is to the hype, since it may lead as astray and divert our resources and attention on the wrong things. Something must be donee, yes, but prudently, not hastily.

Nice comment tmcmulli.

Does anyone know how much the sea level will rise if the north pole ice melts? It won't rise at all! Since the ice is floating already, the sea level has already displaced the mass of the ice. DUH! The south pole average temp is almost -40F so cold that it doesnt snow there at all. It is accually the biggest desert in the world. if you increase the temperature by 20 degrees now snow would fall and the sea level would DROP!

Stop believing what you read and do some experiments yourself

Global warming is just a scare tactic!

This phenomenon in Antarctica is already happening (average thickening over 75% of Antarctica of 1.8cm per year between 1992 and 2003, measured using satellite radar altimetry). However, sea levels are continuing to rise at about 1.8 mm per year along with mean global temperatures (1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were the warmest years on record since 1856). There is also the thermal expansion of sea water and the melting of the edges of the ice caps on land in Antartica and Greenland.

A little but if science knowledge but you missed it completely. You forget that ice floats so not all the water is below sea level. Also remember that sea water has a higher density (salt) than water. Anyway in short since some ice will be above the water you get about .04 grams of water extra for every ml ice you melt. And after that ice melts that water will add to sea levels. Secondly, although the north pole ice is mostly floating that's not at all true at the south pole where most of the ice is over land (so it all goes into raising the sea levels)

Controllable human activities make up slightly less than 5% of the total annual CO2 output. The Kyoto treaty has been estimated to cost upwards of $400 billion if the US is involved (since the focus of the Kyoto is on the US). It is wasted money folks whether you believe in global warming or not. Let's invest $30 billion in a bunch of nuclear power plants. Our industry is already going to China and Mexico which are virtually exempt from the treaty and execution of the treaty will further push them off-shores. Our emissions will stay about the same over the next 10 years. I am thankful that both Clinton and Bush refused to sign the treaty.

Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty in 1998. THe Senate didn't ratify it. Where do you get your information? The way things are looking, we'll likely be forced into action on greenhouse gas emissions at some point. The US utility industry already considers a carbon-restricted world inevitable and is acting accordingly. Currently, the US is only delaying regulatory action.

It would be nice it the USA worked as simply as impeaching the president. The problem here is having a bunch of people that believe the end of the world is coming anyway, and don't care about global warming because they're going to heaven. These kind of people don't care about what the future generation have to do, because they think there will be no future generations. This kind of thinking is what is keeping Bush in power.

EXACTLY!

The real crisis in this country is nothing more than education.

Bill gates is dropping millions if not billions into changing the way we are educated because the real destruction to the USA is not going to happen in a war, or from this bogus “man made global warming and an ice age”, or by a single president or anything else people can conjure up. It’s going to happen silently and slowly and it has been happening for more that 40 years; it is called EDUCATION.

Peoples lack there of cause them to fall back on their only last resource called “emotion” when dealing with issues they are lacking education in.

" people that believe the end of the world is coming anyway, and don't care " " These kind of people don't care about what the future generation "

Americans give more to charity than any other country in the world (look it up) Charity to improve the future lives of the worlds poor .
How does that equal " people don't care about what the future generation " ????
So called "religious" Americans are the most generous people in the world when it comes to helping the future of our planets poor .

Money from their own pockets to help educate people , for the future . To provide clean water , for the future .
To provide health care so more people can lead productive lives and provide for their families in the future .

See the following link for the kind of thinking that
keeps Bush in power. I agree with this thinking.
Bottom line, the Kyoto protocol costs way too much
and does way too little to stop global warming.
It flunks the cost/benefit test.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006808

sb1313 wrote that Americans, especially the religious people, are the most generous in teh world when it comes to helping the poor.

Now, that depends completely on how you count. If you count foreign aid per capita the US ends up in the bottom league of highly developed countries. Norway I believe was in the top last year, with a foreign aid of around 1% of the GNP.

Freaking hilarious! Don't you islanders over there have a dude named Donovan who sang about Atlantis? (The poet...the physician...the farmer...the envirnomental bedwetter...the alarmist, unemployed student with access to the internet...and the other so-called gods of our legends - or something along those lines?) Maybe he can persuade Bush that global warming is some dire threat. Until then, do as the Bible says and trust God, not man - even if the man is a leftist hack writing for the New York Times, throwing literary darts at a man you waste your time and energy hating. Peace, Pepsi, and pecan pie for the masses. Love, Kevin the Gregarious American

MMmmm pecan pie... *dribble*

Americans " don't care "
htp://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&d=574
Americans donated 1.59 percent of income to charities—over 2½ times more than Canadians

This is a REPLY to Comment #10 by sb1313:

The link you provided doesn't work but I think you are referring to this report: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Dec04ffgenindex.pdf#

Well, I think you should read the report more carefully before making any statement because the one you made is misleading.

That report was about charity contributions that benefit the given nation's communities, NOT donations to OTHER countries!

So, ironically, this means the Americans do care but for other fellow Americans, and not as much for people of other countries.

In terms of foreign aid, look here and see for yourself where the U.S. ranks: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#Agenda21RichNationsAgreedattheUnitedNationsto07%ofGNPToAid

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the Ice caps actually melt or not. It doesn't even matter if Bush is a jerk or not. It is relevant that we as a global power are out of step with the global community on this topic without providing a rational or sustainable counter argument. Americans have obligations not only as a power, but also as a primary consumer of resources. And one would think we would feel compelled to be proactive in protecting our common interests and security --political and environmental-in a globalizing society.

It does not matter what the exact effects of global warming may ultimately be if we do have independent evidence to suggest that unpredictable and potentially harmful change is a likely outcome of our actions for future generations. The current trend of devaluing scientific thought is unfortunate and potentially destructive to our future because scientific inquiry provides a rational rather than emotion framework to evaluate the importance of just such an issue.

At this point, we know enough to know that we are influencing the Earth's environment in a way that it has not been in the past. Any intelligent entity should be expected to protect its own interests and act conservatively --not talk in absolutes about historic trends that were not influenced by our behaviors. It is astonishing to see that so many of us are more emotional about taking any prudent and conservative action if it means any kind of elective change in our daily lives. It is even more astonishing that while doing so, we Americans seem to be making it a point of pride to rub against the grain of global consensus. What is so wonderful about the status quo that we should not seek to improve upon it when a liability in the system presents itself? We seem far more threatened by the need to make adjustments in our systems then by the threat of global warming, alienating our allies, and even war. This is troubling.

Finally, to those who's identities are so entrenched in the status quo, I ask what is this obsession of trying to discredit dissenters who are capable of living within our system while at the same time seeking to improve upon it? It is called self-awareness and historically many great Americans have used it to help shape a brighter future and help move us forward and overcome adversity (indeed many see this as a life value). I assure you, one can drive a car and acknowledge the short-term benefits, while also acknowledging the long-term down side that comes with it. And one can advocate for a system-wide adjustment from within more effectively than from the margins. Complaining that using the existing infrastructure, including the Internet, to promote refinements in that infrastructure just makes us all look foolish.