Bird Flu Vs. Global Warming

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Bush outlines $7.1 billion strategy to fight flu
http://tinyurl.com/85rsd

Score at Half Time:
Bird Flu = $7.1Billion ; Global Warming = "shut the heck up!"

So its bird Flu by a runny nose.

The TV news has medical authorities telling us about "worst case scenarios", and "not doing enough" for bird flu. That would be to protect us and warn us of what may come, for bird flu.

Global Warming has government scientists being kept quiet [NASA guy] and no "worst case scenarios" being presented, no call to action whatsoever.

And Global Warming is a certainty, whereas bird flu is not. We have a history to go on with flus, so we pretty well know that they usually don't cause a major problem except in circumstances that simply do not exist in the modern world - sanitation mostly.

With global warming, we are facing something unseen, ever - a man-made "sudden increase in greenhouse gases". These fossil-fuel caused temperature rises are sudden, they just do not happen in natural "iceage to tropical swings", as those happen over 1000 years , not 50.

So global warming needs money - those billions would basically be enough to jump start the alternatives and achieve at least 25% energy use from non-fossil fuels sources in 5 years, if industry matched it and really helped the effort.


But they resist doing anything about global warming. Why are we letting this happen to us?