McLame is really a piece of work isn't he. Within the past two weeks right here on FR I saw a posting that while Europe who signed Kyoto is not meeting the 2005 goal in reductions, but the US who rightfully refuses to sign the treaty has actually reduced it's greenhouse gas emissions. I find the whole thing rather tedious and take the Rush attitude - man is to insignificant to actually alter the weather of the globe. If we are truly this powerful lets put a stop to the hurricanes and bring some rainfall to AZ (Phoenix just set new record of 102 days with no rain).
Global drying.
I don't know if I buy into Rush's thinking on this one. First, we are definitely fishing the oceans into oblivion. We can do something so massive as to dramatically decrease the enormous schools of fish that span the globe.
With that said, I can't say I've personally seen the slightest indication that man is in anyway responsible for the rise in greenhouse gases or global warning. Indeed, man just puts out a very small fraction of the greenhouse gases emitted into the air.
And yes, fish populations are far more finite and don't have nearly the same number of checks and balanaces that the environment will.
In short, man can affect the globe, but as to whether that's happening with greenhouse gases and to what degree is simply not clear to me (and I do have my doubts).
Slow reductions sound fine. But Kyoto was a terrible, terrible act. No one has been complying by it, its reductions were not that large despite it killing the economies of nations that implemented it (much bigger impact than projected in Europe), and the fact that if left out China and India is inexcuseable, reckless, and would really, really hurt us if we gave it a second look.
No dims, no problems.