Global warming how serious? noticed anything?

Its practice for burning in hell.

oh RTH u r too much. speaking abt global warming, the problem is there but the solution is not so simple too.

...

Originally posted by: Believe

...

So after 2000???😉😲

No offence to anyone:😛

Oh not at all!!.... I am just thinking about what will happen to my house in 20 years... I live on an island you see!!... Lol....

I like Sarina's way... Practice for burning in hell... Lovely!..

Or is it, wanting to have a first taste of hell... Because at the rate we are going, it definitely seems so...

its a joke...again a media hype which stretches too far..when everybody takes it seriously... its like the landing on the moon.. or something/.....

Originally posted by: Believe

...

So after 2000???😉😲

No offence to anyone:😛

😆😆😆 this is the only thing which convinces me about the truth of global warning.....
😆

President Obama bills himself on the world stage as an empathetic guy, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a veteran of a famous listening tour of her own. Let's hope the Administration was paying attention to India's environment minister when he told Mrs. Clinton a thing or two about climate policy Sunday There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions, Jairam Ramesh told Mrs. Clinton in a closed-door meeting, according to a copy of his remarks distributed after the session. And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours. Mr. Ramesh was simply repeating the widespread consensus in India that it's irresponsible to sacrifice economic growth benefiting hundreds of millions of mostly poor people for the sake of environmental absolutism. India's per capita GDP is around $1,000. While its mostly state-owned energy industry is grossly inefficient and the country could benefit from less wasteful energy usage, emissions caps are the wrong way to go. Caps would send prices on energy and other goods higher, not to mention the longer-term damage to economic growth. Mr. Ramesh's remarks point to another cost India could bear even if New Delhi resists imposing its own emissions caps: the cost of protectionist measures imposed by developed countries to shield their businesses from the costs of their own national emissions targets. The cap and tax bill recently passed by the U.S. House is explicit in proposing tariffs on goods from countries that don't follow the developed world's anticarbon line.Instead Mr. Ramesh repeated New Delhi's longstanding call for developed countries to finance the import of expensive green technologies, which would in theory help India reduce emissions without incurring as many out-of-pocket costs. At the same time, India has rejected any calls for legally binding emissions targets. If this concept sounds familiar, it should. President George W. Bush proposed such a framework almost exactly four years ago. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate brought together the U.S., India, China and four other countries to find ways to spread green technologies. Environmentalists derided it at the time, partly because it didn't set mandatory emissions reductions and partly because Mr. Bush had proposed it. It has since dropped off the radar screen, although it's still in operation. Call it a more honest form of environmentalism. The Indian government recognizes the public would never be willing to shoulder the costs of emissions controls, and that it's unfair to ask millions of poor people to try. Mr. Bush understood that the developed world can best help developing countries green themselves up by supporting freer trade in environmentally friendly technologies. It's a stark contrast to climate politics in today's Washington, where Democrats try to push cap-and-trade through Congress before anyone notices the costs while special interests slip in protectionist carbon tariffs. There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change. But if President Obama is determined to tackle the issue anyway, he could do worse than listen to what Mr. Ramesh said.

http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=941252&TPN=42