This was certainly an interesting video. I feel though that we are spending so much money into areas that probably just will make the problem worse. Air quality will eventually sicken this planet so bad that little will be able to be done to correct it. There are so many ways to improve the current situation yet they keep building momes by cutting down our forests. It is surely a way that will provide future deserts which I don't think are necessary. We keep building skyscrapers which is not the way to go. It will not be just North America that will suffer it will be the whole world.
Sincerely
Wayne

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37133

CZECH REPUBLIC:
'Environmentalism As Bad As Communism'
Zolt�n Dujisin

BUDAPEST, Mar 29 (IPS) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus has offered fresh warnings that environmentalism and measures to curb climate change are a threat to human freedom.

The President's most recent and controversial statements came when replying to questions sent to him by members of the U.S. House of Representatives energy and commerce committee which had requested his views on climate change.

Klaus is known for calling climate change "a false myth" or a "nonsensical fiction", and he opposes the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Vaclav Klaus was one of the leading political figures of post-communist Czechoslovakia and was prime minister of the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1997, leading the newly independent country in its economic transformation. The old Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia Jan. 1, 1993.
...
Conversely, the Czech President asked the congressmen not to yield to pressure from environmentalists and abandon the principles of free society: "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."

"This ideology," Klaus said, "wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."

The Czech President is strongly opposed to environmentalism, which he calls a "religion based on political ambitions rather than science," and accuses environmentalists of using "sophisticated methods of media manipulation" to spread "fear and panic".

I don't think talking to politicians sheds any light on the science. If they had the brain to comprehend science they wouldn't go into politics. Calling CO2 a fertilizer is almost as good as calling the internet a series of tubes. I cringe when I hear politicians talk about science, even when they supposedly agree with my position. I am not looking forward to hearing Boxer talk because she will probably say something just as stupid, and where will that leave us?

Brian:

What? Are you saying that the internet is not a bunch of tubes? Great another one of my pillars of understanding torn down.

Seriously though, you are absolutely right. But I would like to take your comment just a short step further, whenever you hear ANY politician on ANY topic, other than being a politician, it is essentially worthless. I think that some are probably smart people who once they run, become incredibly muddled. Think about it, the only point of being in office is to be re-elected. Look at the goofiness that is the 08 presidential race. Put "regular" people in office and I bet the country would run much better in all regards.

Darren seems to forget that as soon as "regular" people take office, they become, by construction, politicians.

I thought Darren supported democracy. If "ANY politician on ANY topic, other than being a politician, [] is essentially worthless", then Darren either wants no government at all or wants a government that doesn't include any politicians. However bad things may be now, either of these alternatives sounds worse to me.

Regardless of the "goofiness" of the 08 presidential campaign, Inhofe is a corrupt, right-wing blow-hard lunatic who offers no meaningful contribution to this subject whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, these two interviews give him far more credibility and visibility than he merits.

I think Inhofe is another crackpot religious fanatic who, like Lyndon LaRouche, should be ignored by anyone interested in meaningful discussion about this issue.

Likewise Barbara Boxer and her cronies are corrupt left wing liberal nuts who get far too much credibilty and should be ignored by anyone interested in meaningful discussion about this issue. So where does that leave us Tom?

Inhofe gives no contribution? Why do you say that, because he tells the truth and that goes counter to what you believe in?? The only fanatics are the AGW proponents getting ready with the stakes and bonfires to silence those of us who can think, ask questions and come to our own realistic conclusions.

Not really wishing to get involved in disputes concerning American political figures, of which I have little knowledge, it seems that the reputation of the senator seems to have coloured the views of those commenting.
I can't see anything remotely extreme or fanactical in this video clip. The senator's analysis of the European position is essentially correct from him seeing a political tendency towards "global governance" to a more worrying philosophy of "environmental activism" that is anti-American, anti-capitalism and anti-democratic.I wish we had a few of his ilk to liven up the debate in Europe!
On the point of CO2 being a fertilizer, I guess he had in mind the process of photosynthesis, whereby plants convert CO2 into sugars plus oxygen,indeed CO2 enrichment is used in horticulural glasshouses to increase crop yield.CO2 is all sorts of things to different people but a pollutant it is not.

Brookline Tom,
What is it that makes Inhofe a religious fanatic in your eyes? I've not even watched the interviews here but I'm having a hard time believing that he whipped out a Bible and told Katie that anyone who doesn't believe that global warming is a hoax is going to Hell.

As for the corruption charge I'm wondering, if this is true, why Harry Reid hasn't started an investigation into it. I'm sure that the leaders on both side of the aisle get a kick out of finding someone from the opposing party with their hand in the cookie jar. Senators and Representatives (this includes Democrats--news to you I'm certain) are quite often charged with crimes so why is Inhofe not under indictment? Could be that he is just another Senator going about his business in a similar manner as the rest but has, unfortunately, a different opinion about this than you.

I think that a "meaningful discussion" is exactly what Inhofe is bringing to this topic. It would be easier to believe that you were truly interested in one if you restrained from the histrionic name calling. Better to use facts than a bunch of empty schoolyard taunts.

Let us all remember the common voter voice will always be swallowed up by the fat check from big business. Anyone on Capital Hill in front of a camera lens is mostly full of hogwash to put it lightly. Now as for why the pollution problem isn't getting addressed by the auto makers and businesses, THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT! You think big oil and the big 3 are going to just roll over and let the our government make policy changes to help the environment? I'm sure they dangle campaign contributions in front of our legislators like carrots, making sure they "fight the right cause" the cause of the auto maker and big oil that is. Mr. Senator carbon dioxide is a fertilizer???????

Sen Inhofe makes some rash statements about environmentalists; and from this interview, his position is that anthropogenic gases have not been implicated in any amount of climate change. He also thinks that man-made co2 is a fertilizer. Excess of anything is not a good thing and in the case of co2 it probably is having a negative effect on marine life. If man-made co2 is a fertilizer then it's responsible for faster plant growth which elevates transpiration. That can't be good for homes ( mold, mildew, higher energy use for cooling etc ) Also, an intensification of the water cycle; that can't be good from a weather aspect.

Thor,

Is there a difference between man made Co2 and that which is caused by, say, a rotting tree? Is it of a lower quality or something?

BT:

Can you name me one, just one, "regular" person elected to government who turns into a politician. Face it, regular people don't run so all we are left with Only "connected" people seem to be put forth.

As far as wanting democracy, I surely support that as long as they are all right wing, fiscally conservative, bible thumping, grade A republicans.

OK, quit typing your reply for a second, just kidding, yes I support democracy and embrace all of the ideas that our system has to offer including those of the AGW crowd. I might not agree with all that I hear and read but I do pay attention to it.

I'm really confused though, whenever a thread heads down the 'ole path of one side versus the other, it seems that many of the AGW proponents suddenly revert to tossing out names whether substantiated or not.

Wayne/Common Sense:

Air pollution is not really a problem in today's world. It was a big issue in the recent past, and we need to maintain the standards that have been set. I believe we understand your concern but I doubt that the world is truly at risk as you suggest. As far as the big three not addressing pollution standards, I have 4 vehicles that all have a boatload of sensors and converters designed solely to address fumes that are emitted. I drive by power plants and factories that have gigantic and complicated devices to remove pollutants. And, the coup de grace as it were, we all pay extra money in real goods and taxes to provide for the removal of these pollutants. Not saying it is good or bad, it just is and clean air is good, but to say that nothing is done is flat out incorrect. Besides, current market trends seem to show that there is money in being "greener" than your competition.

Thor:

Don't you suppose that an intensification of the water cycle would be a good thing to battle against the upcoming droughts forecasted by the AGW proponents? I believe, Laura correct me please if I am wrong, surface weather is not overtly altered by water transfer as much as by heat transfer. And in essence, if the higher latitudes warm, the weather should be less "wild" due to the loss in potential energy. Simplistic but I think about the right analogy.