California has filed suit against six corporations for producing automobiles that emit pollutants. The company that makes the Flintstones cars escaped the litigation. What happened? Did the personal-injury-type attorney general get sick of suing tobacco companies? Was Bill Gates not available for a proposed court date? Did the AG get bored taking on Smith & Wesson?

I'm no fan of suing automobile companies for global warming. And it seem to me this Lockler is trying a little too hard to be the next Spitzer. i

But this is only happening becuase the Bush administration is ignoring the greatest national security threat of the 21st century.

At least someone is doing something on the issue.

What the.....F$%k......????? You demonstrate consistently that you are insane and make no sense whatsoever. Whatever it is that you're trying to link as another item in a long line of alleged crimes by Bush is completely unclear. Even if it was clear, you would more than likely be wrong. As usual.

As long as these kinds of liberal nutcases are out there, Bush and his ilk have nothing to fear.

You belong in California: land of fruits and nuts.

What? That was completly on-topic.

The AG of California wouldn't have to sue to get action on climate change if the federal government took it seriously and regulated it.

I don't think I'm nuts asdf :

Only 8 percent of Americans believe that Global Warming isn't real.

http://pollingreport.com/enviro.htm (Gallup)

Why can't CA regulate it?

That's actually the question Obi.

CA tried to regulate it, but the automakers have those regulations tied up in the courts.

This lawsuit is really just a counterattack to get them to drop their legal resistence to regulations.

Its a funny case legally bc California is the only state in the Union that had envornmental regulations before the federal government did. By federal law it alone has the right to opt out of federal clean air regulations and create their own. The question is really whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Its a tough case to make because CO2 itself does not direcly harm human health in the concentrations emitted by cars and power plants. But it is certainly responsible for climate change ,which is having disceranble impacts on human health(through heat stroke, floods, stroms, etc.).

So its a tough thing to do.

My point is that CA should have to be pulling this lawsuit crap just to help combat climate change. The Republican party in Washington really needs specific legislation to combat the threat.

At least John McCain tried, but that Joker Bill Frist stopped it.

I will agree that Bush is "ignoring the greatest national security threat of the 21st century." but that has nothing to do with the funny science of Global Warming.

I would consider that threat to be our dangerous open borders.

You know, thinking about it, I supppose Bush is responsible for the invention of the automobile and the green house gases they emit. Yeah, now I see your point.

But, if you put a hat on, nobody will notice.

Hehe, once again, polls are only as good as the questions they ask. I for one certainly believe the earth is warming. However, I categorically reject the "fact" human activity is significantly impacting the warming, or that human action can or will influence the warming trend one iota. And strangely enough, the fine print in the Kyoto Protocols indicate such to be the case.

A few facts. Nature produces over 220 billion tons of greenhouse gases a year. Humans introduce approximately 7 billion tons, which means humans account for about 3.08% of the total greenhouse gases introduced into the environment annually. Hardly a statistically or scientifically significant figure.

Even were the Kyoto Protocols fully enacted, they, by their proponents own admission, would only reduce global temperatures one-tenth of one degree. And at a cost of trillions of dollars worldwide, where might such funds be better spent?

Somehow the world came out of the Ice Age some 20,000 years ago without the benefit of human activity, and human intervention will no more impact the current warming trend than prevent the next period of cooling.

Now if Bill Locklear wants to waste his state's already depleted funds attempting to extort money from Detroit or bending car companies to his will, fine. The California voters can deal with that. But please, let's dispense with the "greatest threat to mankind in the 21st century" hype.

Besides, what serious emissions lawsuit would have omitted Yugo!

"The first thing we'll do is kill all the lawyers." -- William Shakespeare

"Only 8 percent of Americans believe that Global Warming isn't real."
I think its a little higher then 8%. From all the propoganda the MSM shoves down ordinary peoples throat on the nightly news about it, most people are oblivious to the fact that its all a charade. It was hot as hell a million years ago, it was hot as hell 500 years ago, and its still hot today. There is no Global Warming, just another ploy to suck hard worked money out of the average hard working Joe.

"I will agree that Bush is "ignoring the greatest national security threat of the 21st century." but that has nothing to do with the funny science of Global Warming."
Well put ASDF. the Borders are the BIGGEST threat that our illustrious Pres is ignoring. He is a traitor to the safety of the American public.

Will anyone be filing a suit against the state for it building roads for people to drive polution-mobiles on?

"But this is only happening becuase the Bush administration is ignoring the greatest national security threat of the 21st century."

What a joke.

I hope everyone that votes in the Democratic primaries is just like you.

Thom, I agree that opnion polls still show skeptisim about wheather climate change is anthrogenic.

But the science is crystal clear. Humans are causing climate change. It is a fact. Read some science journals dude, don't quote oil industry propaganda.

The Kyoto protocol is a start, but it doesn't nessacarly have to be costly. Using a market-based apprach we can pretty much solve climate change for pennies on the global GDP dollar.

We have the technology. It won't be that expensive , and the threat is real.

Al that is missing is the political will: and yes that is GW Bush's fault.

DirtBagJAck, you have a very good point.

IT is governments themselves who have encouraged the development of the polluting automobie by building these road networks instead of public transportation.

And Raplh, Climate Change is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, so yeah I say it counts as the biggest of the 21st century.

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884738

Here's a real discussion of Climate Change

The greatest threats of the 21st century come from: 1.)Unsecure borders, 2.) Russia, 3.) China, and 4.) Islamic extremists. Also, Russia, China, and Islamic extremists would be very likely to exploit our open borders to their advantage.

Agreed B.Poster. I like your ordering.

And, as the concept of Global Warming is only real to people like HeHe and others who love conspiracies or think that humans REALLY have control over our environments and our weather, GW doesn't make the list.

Weather is definitely our greatest threat. I'm personally terrified to step outside. I thought the Repubs were supposed to be the fear mongers, but they got nothing on the Al Gore non-science weatherphobes.

Hehe, the only thing crystal clear is the environmental-sound, sugar-and-additive-free, all-natural Jim Jones Kool-Aid you've been drinking dude! Forgive the jest, I couldn't resist!

No, the science it quite clear, but not as you would represent. There is absolutely no consensus among any scientific group other than those seeking grants to study the impact of human activity on global temperatures that will agree with your position. And what of the percentage of human greenhouse gas production versus naturally-created emissions? Are those statistics valid or not? And as they ARE valid, how does 3.08% compare statistically to 96.92%?

Global warming isn't a threat. It's a great business opportunity. If the environmentalists were correct, and if the science were exact, the smart thing to do would be to calculate the new coastlines and buy up all the property Lex Luthor style. Maybe they'd even give a small stretch of land to me: Ralphberg.

Ralph that greatly oversimplifies the situation.

40 percent of the worlds population is fed by rivers fed by Hymalayan glaciers. These glaciers are melting fast, and if they run out the rivers will dry.

Can you imagine the damage to the world economy if China, India, and all of Southeast Asia collapsed into mass starvation?

My comment was sarcastic.

Can you imagine the damage to the world economy if China, India, and all of Southeast Asia were each struck by large meteors?

Seriously I still can't believe there are global warming septics out there.

http://www.realclimate.org/

"Can you imagine the damage to the world economy if China, India, and all of Southeast Asia collapsed into mass starvation"?

Yes. More for us.

HeHe,

I'm sure I'll regret attempting real discourse here, but no one denies that the average temperature of the planet is rising. What is disputed is the cause. I read media stories all the time about prominent academics denying that humans are the cause. For example, here's an article from Tuesday:

http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894

No Ralph, the cause isn't disputed either.

Touche.

Come on! Don’t feed the troll!!!!! I mean this with all due respect. You’re wasting your time trying to engage this crackpot. Here are a few of the brain farts and contradictions he has posted on this website:

There is no disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is real.

He called Republicans racists, then went on to say he once was a Republican.

He’s called the Flynn Files bloggers racists and rednecks because they dared disagree with him, but still continues to haunt this blog.

He called George Bush a drunk, then said Bush doesn’t drink because he is an extreme Christian.

He claims Kerry would have gotten us out of the war in Iraq, but doesn’t realize Kerry voted in support of that war. Some of his posts are half as long as my arm, but when I asked him what HE would do to fight the war on terrorism he declined, claiming the website wouldn’t accept his post because it was too long. BS!

He claimed that spelling and punctuation wasn’t important because the human mind was so powerful all it needed was a couple letters of each word to be correct and it would correctly fill in the rest itself. If this guy wasn’t so stupid I’d say he was a deconstructionist.

One of his E-mail addresses is suckit@yahoo.com

Getting a good idea of what we’re dealing with here?

Like Joe Walsh once said “You can’t argue with a sick mind.”

p.s. Do any of you get the impression that there is more than one Haha/Hehe posting? I’m no Psycholinguist but it looks like the writing of at least two different people.

AM,

Usually I try to respond with sarcasm. Here I made an attempt at dialogue with the qualification that I'd probably regret it. Sure enough, the he's incapable of honest discourse. Oh well. We shouldn't try to run him off; he may eventually learn something.

Hopefully you're right but I wouldn't bet on it. He already knows everything.

Hehe AM thanks for the play by pay recap of my "trolling".

-I didn't call everyone racists. I called anyone pilfering a lame excuse for George Allen's Macacca racsist.

-There is no significant debate in the scientific commuity about global warming or its causes.

-George Bush was a drunk and then converted to extreme Christianity (so he says) and no longer drinks. That's not a contradiction, its called time. It passes, and things change. Look it up.

-I don't actually think I did say Kerry would get us out of Iraq. But, assuming I did, I think he had a better shot than George Bush. What did his vote have to do with anything? The question wasn't who got us in, but who's the better man to get us out. I think John Kerry would have done a better job in Iraq. Not cuz I like John Kerry, just cuz I was quicker than any of you to realize that Bush is incompetent.

-My point on spelling is that its a arbritary system of symbols that represent meaning. The important part- to me- is the meaning, not the symbols. If someone can understand me, even if my spelling is off- that's all that matters. I don't think thats a contradiction.

-Lastly, I think my "second voice" is usually just playing devil's advocate. There are the post that reflect my true beliefs, and then those where I have fun by trying to provoke a sterotypical Repub response just to prove your thoughts are more relexive than pensive.

shouldn't the state sue itself for making all those highways?

The highways are federally mandated.

But that's a good point. Government policy has certainly encouraged dirty fossil fuel use.