———————————————————————————

To: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
cc: Chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Committee on International Relations

We, the undersigned, vehemently oppose any U.S. military action against Iran. Such military action would inevitably kill large numbers of innocent people, foster even more hatred and international condemnation of the U.S., and dramatically increase the instability of the region. Our own intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat, and a war against Iran would add immeasurably more fuel to the fire.

Even if Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon, experts agree that it would take several years. There is no crisis, and our government should not create one with inflammatory rhetoric or military threats. The U.S. has both the time and obligation to work with the international community to fashion a diplomatic resolution to the situation, and the current refusal of U.S. officials to talk directly with Iranian officials cannot possibly help resolve the nuclear standoff, nor contribute to peace in Iraq and the Middle East.

Therefore, we urge you to take all steps necessary to reach a peaceful resolution to the current situation, including direct negotiations without pre-conditions. This is the only way to prevent yet another war, one that would be a calamity of truly global proportions.
———————————————————————–
No War with Iran!
President Bush is now regularly accusing Iran of supporting attacks on U.S. troops, without any evidence, – remember the WMD’s in Iraq, anyone? – adding that “we will seek out and destroy” these networks. Bush has authorized U.S. forces to kill Iranian “operatives” in Iraq, and he is sending nuclear aircraft carriers and missile defense batteries to the Persian Gulf. The unthinkable – a wider war in the Middle East – is unfolding.

John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that any U.S. military move into Iran would be “catastrophically stupid” and “unleash a conflagration like we’ve never heard of before.” We could not possibly agree more.

Resistance to a Bush planned military strike on Iran is growing in Congress, but it needs your help! Sign the petition to Congress below – No War with Iran! House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently that she would introduce legislation to stop such a strike, so our demand is beginning to get through. But the pressure needs to be much, much stronger to stop a President who has apparently gone mad with war and his own power.

Please know that your email address is for internal purposes only; we will not send it to the petition recipients nor share it with any other organization for any purpose. Thanks also for forwarding this to your friends, colleagues and listserves. We need everyone who wants to bring peace to the Middle East and prevent a war with Iran to join the effort now!
———————————————————————————–

http://www.peace-action.org/

India is on the same path. The UN predicts that India will increase it’s emission output by 90% by 2025.

Again, we need to stop thinking so small. The EU and the USA are NOT the problem. We in the USA could do everything in our power and India and China would still increase Global emissions by an unthinkable amount. Stop arguing about this stuff and start demanding action. The USA should up it intent and shot for a 30% reduction because the EU said it would match it. With that aside, the EU and the USA need to demand that China and India adobt the USA model for greenhouse gas intensity. We should start fining them on every good they export to make up the difference and use the money to help offset these horrible polluters.

That is the problem right there. For some reason the people that truly care about global warming (you for example) are to caught up in the micro details. This is a global problem. The USA isn’t the world. How is or isn’t paid by the Oil industry in the USA is a nominal issue.

You do realize that even if we came out tomorrow and said we would cut emissions by 50% by 2020 and start today, it would be reletively meaningless in the whole global scheme if our neighbors in China, Russia, and India don’t do a thing. And when I say 50%, you do realize that no one in the world is currently proposing more then a 20% reduction. We in the USA are actually working towards an 18% reduction by 2012 which would be the largest reduction of any country in the world over that time span. Either way, it is meaningless when countries like China are adding 300 million more cars in the next 14 years while already being the world’s largest polluter by greenhouse gas intensity charts (what climate scientists are using).

We need to start thinking about the problem in a Global sense and stop bickering about this nominal crap. The Oil industry in the USA is not the major factor. China, Russia, and India as countries are the major factor. Oil companies simply drill for Oil and sell it. We the consumer are the ones who buy and use it, they don’t. While it may give you warm fuzzies to see the EU cut emissions by 20% by 2020 and us cut emissions by 18% by 2012, it means nothing. That combined is still under a 7% reduction in global emissions which is less then what China, India, and Russia are going to increase there emissions by in the mean time.

And how many employed directly or indirectly by the fuel extraction industry that simply wants the status quo while we slowly shit in on our own kitchen table?

Again, this is a good thing, but swapping out light-bulbs while your house is on fire is insane.

Richard Lindzen’s theory got blown away about a year and a half ago with additional satellite data.

You are dated, man. Even your long list is dated 1998.

You are certainly right on Oil and Energy companies not changing and I wouldn’t expect them to. They are in the business of selling Oil so why would they undercut themselves? That isn’t logical. The other problem we face, is that Oil is still really cheap and we still have ALOT of it. All estimates still pridict that demand for oil will not outstripe supply till around 2050 or later. We both know that is way to long for this planet. Personally, we are still not in a position to switch the global economy off Oil without it hurting to much. We need to devolope a new energy source that will be acceptable to the average consumer. Electric cars work for city folks, but are not really feasible for us country folks. Recharging them takes hours, if not days. Owning 2 vechiles is also too expensive for the average American. Currently, our government should demand more fuel efficeincy and continue to promote hybred cars (and make them cheaper).

In the end, all these changes won’t happen overnight but we need to start working today. Also, all these changes on out end are meaningless if we can’t get China, India, and Russia to change ASAP. They are the driving force behind global warming afterall.

Did you study both sides of the debate on:

Smoking?
Asbestos?

And all the other “Great scientific debates”?

Still smoking thinking it’s okay? Or building with asbestos?

You can always find PAID scientists like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Finally something we can agree on, Dale has been passed over already!

He is proof common sense, isn’t so common.

Ok back to the issue…

Roger I’m sorry I just don’t see our govt doing enough too! Funding once again has been cut by Bush for the Alternative energy labs. We need MORE tax cuts for consumers, if I buy $60 worth of CF lamps, that should be tax deductible as well as major purchases.

Lets face it, Coal is the worlds biggest problem. So what can we do there. I say we TAX it, forcing the electric companies to find cleaner burning technologies, as well as alternative energies.

We really need our govt helping, as we see we can’t leave it up to private companies, because those with the money (oil, coal) won’t do anything about it until the Oil is $250 a barrel, or until forced, and we know how our Govt gives these Oil companies tax breaks, hell we even just give them money.

But we can’t leave something as important as this up to Exxon, BP etc, because they’re still making a huge profit, so why change their business model, they are run by a bunch of people who think like Dale after all.

#22, let’s see if I understand this correctly. Global warming is happening now, and we don’t have time to continue the debate.

Does the same logic apply to the Iraq war? We don’t have time to continue the debate? Gee, I thought that was a prevailing theme throughout TP; we need to have debate on important issues. But if anyone tries to have a debate on global warming, they’re told we don’t have time!

Has anybody here actually studied both sides of the issue? Read more of the ipcc report than just the summary? Researched further than just watching Al Gore’s fiction?

Not sure why your lumping me in with Dale. I don’t deny Global warming and am demanding we do more! Do you not read my posts in this thread and just assume the wrong thing?

We may even need to work with the UN to apply some sort of fee or tax to those countries that have the worst greenhouse gas intensities. Maybe a tax on every single product exported from countries that can’t produce at least 2 GDP per emission. The tax would even out the playing field and pay for projects to offset the emissions. Things need to change fast.

If you look at the signatures, you’d see the majority do not hold degrees. I randomly selected 20 names with Phd. 16 did not show up on goggle search. Out of 4 that showed up, 1 was a vet, 1 was a plant scientist, 1 was a microbiologist, and last was a K12 retired science teacher.

Whoopie!

YOu have created a great reason to invade and take over China, Russia, and India. They are the global climate change terrorists.

And not it’s generally you people who deny science are the ones who think the sun orbits the earth, and the world is flat.

If it’s CREDIBLE where are their studies, and reports. God knows the oil companies, coal companies etc would LOVE TO FUND THEM.

You sir, are the idiot.