As I have already stated in previous posts, whether Global warming is made or not is really not the best question to ask. I consider it a Divide and Conquer type debate. Politicians love to keep us divided along party lines as it make us easier to control and manipulate us. It serves their purpose, not ours. I could, but will not, send many links of quotes from Politian's that saw very early on that the Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) debate could be used to divide and also as a way to divert funds to projects they wanted funded. It's a great scare tactic. The taxes and regulation are part of the money and control side of this. A population divided against itself is easy to control and manipulate and I can't recall a time in my life where we have been more divided and therefore more easily manipulated. I think the MMGW debate is actually counter productive. We have to get past that. The Wall Street Journal article I think acknowledges that many people are looking past the MMGW debate, and realize we need to clean things up. The pictures this past summer from Beijing of a sky so dirty you couldn't see more than few blocks was great to broadcast around the world. I'm personally disturbed by any place that dirty. The amount of pollution coming out of Asia is horrendous. Regardless of whether you believe in MMGW or not I think we can all agree that we need to clean it up, reduce the use of Oil and Coal and do a better job of living with Nature and be better stewards of this planet. Who knows, we may even get our night sky back. I think that is something that transcends party lines and where I would like to see the debate, which isn't much of a debate from what I can see if we avoid the divisive nature of the MMGW debate. Yes, many corporations are coming to the conclusion that being Green makes good business sense, saves money as well as resources and is a responsible approach. In my own business I make extensive use of PDF files to limit printing (I hate to print, it kills trees) and years ago set up a recycling program at each of my centers. We recycle paper and plastics and have reduced our trash by more than half, probably closer to 75%. Why? It's responsible and it makes good business sense by reducing costs. That's an important message and one that few people will argue with. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:22 PM To: Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] UFO's ? Bob wrote: I would rather debate this than Global Warming. It's much more interesting and the sides are not divided along party lines. You will probably find a UFO discussion also divided among party line. I found this in an article: "A 2007 Gallup poll found that the average level of worry about the impacts of global warming among Republicans was 34%, compared with 59% among independents and 75% among Democrats. In the following year, Republicans grew less convinced that humans were causing global warming. This political divide lay along a line that more generally separated people according to their feelings about authority, individual responsibility, risk-taking and other personal issues. But it also depended on national political circumstances and history (in the United Kingdom, Conservatives in the tradition of Margaret Thatcher criticized the Labor government for doing too little about global warming). Each side found confident endorsement of its views in its favorite media, where exaggerated pronouncements served to attract and retain an audience by conforming to that audience's prejudices." Perhaps this sums it best: "As the Wall Street Journal reported, "The global-warming debate is shifting from science to economics... The biggest question going forward no longer is whether fossil-fuel emissions should be curbed. It is who will foot the bill for the cleanup." A wise corporation would take the lead in discussing just which business operations should be taxed or regulated. If you're not at the table, the Journal remarked, you're on the menu." Erik