The green agenda!!
Posted April 24, 2001 - 02:47 AM
Actually there is not one definitive answer, the world consists of people some of whom would rather die than harm another human person, at the other end there are people who are unimaginably selfish in between there are; well; all of us.
Some animals have a pecking order to ensure species survival, as the population increases and the food resource becomes limiting, those higher in the pecking order get well fed and one at a time the bottom dips out completely, departing the scene. Communal animals all share the food and all go hungry, often the entire food source is destroyed and the species dies out in an area, hopefully to recolonise from another area. Actually most species fall somewhere in between. The social struggle that we have identified is about how Homo sapiens should react to population stress and failing resources.
Some of the selfish bastards referred to previously, believe that the pecking order situation benefits them, having accumulated sufficient resources themselves, they are concerned that the lower orders may render the planet less habitable before they starve. We are, admittedly, inconsiderate sods and our attempts to develop resources and economies, so that our families can participate in the good times, are having environmental impacts. Foot soldier “greenies” have no more chance of passing their DNA on to the ‘future generation’ that will inherit this Green Paradise than we do, they just don’t realise that they are being had. There are of course literally poor bastards simply trying to eke out an existence, in some case by living on a city tip or spending their whole lives in a refugee camp.
In between there are humanists ( generally encompassing Christians) who have put forward an alternative way to preserve the Species and the planet.
It came out of Agenda 21 of the first Earth Summit, essentially stating that :
1. The worlds economy needed to develop so that the entire population could survive.
2. The distribution of wealth needed to change so that a small reduction in economic activity wasn’t fatal to the poor.
3. Those countries that had achieved 1 and 2 could attempt to achieve Ecological Sustainability at the expense of their productive capacity.
Not that everyone interprets Agenda 21 quite as I have. No.3 is very popular with Environmental Groups everywhere, but they like to ignore No’s1 and 2.
Attempts to protect the environment without ensuring “meaningful economic participation” for the entire population merely hurts the poor. You will observe this as an increase in unemployment and inadequate social welfare, like education, health and support for the disadvantaged. The very reasons the US has stepped back from the Kyoto protocol. The greenhouse protocols ignore Agenda 21 and bring us back to the “Selfish bastards”.
Why do I want you to know these things?
The best defence against the Green Menace is “Ecologically Sustainable Development” itself. Interpreted the way it was intended ESD require that ALL of our resources are used appropriately so that they contribute to human needs, without destroying the resources in the process.
Join Sustainability organizations and get them on the right track, I sure do. Understanding the facts gets us on the right side, some of the UN agendas are sensible, others have been deliberately corrupted. There are good humane people in the UN, there are also selfish arseholes, the good ones need our support.
Posted April 24, 2001 - 07:25 AM
Posted April 24, 2001 - 07:54 AM
The Green Movement is just a political ploy for power by the Socialist. Anybody who buys their lies is being duped. Only to find out after it is to late.
Posted April 24, 2001 - 02:46 PM
Posted April 24, 2001 - 03:04 PM
Posted April 24, 2001 - 03:06 PM
say what you really mean Harry!!
Posted April 24, 2001 - 09:39 PM
We are all environmentalist, it's just to what degree. And the credibility of your science.
Thank you Harry, I enjoy these discussions.
Posted April 25, 2001 - 09:20 PM
Everyone does not need to reproduce, its not necessary. In some cases its stupid, people have kids then both parents work to support the ridiculous levels of living. The kids grown up and have spent very little time with mom & dad, dont have good values, morals etc. But thats just one opinion.
My other option is to genetically bread humans to be half the size they are now. If we where all 2-3 feet tall we would use less resources, food, materials etc. Each house or building could be retrofittd to have twice the room. Just think each room could be divided into 2 floors. We would need less gas to drive our cars as they would be smaller and lighter. It all makes sense doesnt it. However we would want to keep some normally sized people around to run things. This concept is too easy, half the size would consume half the resources. I think I'll start experimenting. I knew those midgets in the basement would come in handy at some point.
Posted April 25, 2001 - 08:57 PM
Scientist challenges theory of melting polar ice Floes may be just moving around in Arctic winds Bob Weber The Canadian Press A Canadian scientist is pouring cold, unfrozen water on the notion that global warming is melting arctic sea ice like a Popsicle at the beach.
Greg Holloway galvanized an international meeting of Arctic scientists Tuesday by saying there is little evidence of a rapid
decline of the volume of ice in the northern oceans. Despite breathless media reports
and speculation of an ice-free Northwest Passage, he suggests that it's far more likely that the ice has just been moved around in the cycles of Arctic winds.
"It's more complicated than we thought," said Holloway, a scientist with the Institute of
Ocean Science in Victoria. The original theory was based on declassified records from the trips of U.S. submarines under the ice.
Satellite pictures have clearly shown that the surface area of the ice has decreased about three per cent a year for the last 20 years. But the question was, How thick was it? The sub data generated headlines and cover stories from the New York Times to
Time Magazine when it seemed to indicate that ice volume had decreased by 43 per cent between 1958 and 1997. The evidence seemed good. There were only eight different voyages, but they had generated 29 different locations across the central Arctic where there were enough readings to make comparisons. Holloway, however, couldn't make that conclusion jibe with any of his computer
models. "We couldn't understand how the reduction could be so rapid," he said.
"My first thought was, 'What is it we don't understand?' ''Holloway knew that there was a regular pattern of sea ice being blown into the North Atlantic. He decided to examine if the wind patterns across the circumpolar
North could have had something to do with the missing ice. Wind patterns blow across the Arctic in a 50-year cycle. At different points in the cycle, ice tends to cluster in the centre of the Arctic. At other points, the ice is blown out to the margins along the Canadian shore, where the subs were not allowed to go due to sovereignty concerns.
When Holloway lined up the sub visits with what he knew about the wind cycles, the explanation for the missing ice became clear: "The submarine sampled ice during a time of oscillation of ice toward the centre of the Arctic. They went back during a time when ice was oscillating to the Canadian side." He had found the missing ice. "I believe it is most probably explained with the shifting ice within the Arctic locations," he said to applause from scientific delegates from Norway to China. If the submarines had made their first visit one year earlier and their return one year later, Holloway says they would have found no change in the thickness of the sea ice at all. But he cautions that his research doesn't force a total re-evaluation of the theory of global warming. Temperatures on average are rising around the world, he says. It does, however, deflate excitement about the possibility of an ice-free Northwest Passage. The chance of a year-round northern shipping route has thrilled commercial shippers but worried environmentalists. "At this time, we do not have the basis to predict an open Northwest Passage," said Holloway. It also calls into question some of the findings and recommendations of the International Panel on Climate Change, which accepted the 43-per-cent hypothesis in its report to governments. More data is coming in as further reports from American and British subs are released. But the furore over the first results contains a lesson for both scientists and the public, Holloway says.
"It's a very small amount of time and a very limited number of places those submarines could go," he said. "The cautionary tale to all this is the oversimplifying of a big and complex system. "Who knows what's going on out there?" © 2001 CanWest Interactive
Posted April 26, 2001 - 09:51 PM
I am doing my part by having no intentions of reproducing. I don't want any puking, shi$$ing little barf bag taking up my play time and draining my funds for the next 20 years.
I don't know about the half size thing. That would knock me down to 2'-9".
Posted April 26, 2001 - 01:00 PM
Posted April 26, 2001 - 02:53 PM
Posted April 26, 2001 - 10:24 PM
Never turn a blind eye to fatherhood. The joys of parenting exceed the thrills of motorcycling, albeit in a different way. I've been both single and married and believe me it's possible to have the best of both worlds. Providing you have the right woman...
Posted April 27, 2001 - 04:01 AM
Carbon dioxide is half as heavy again as the other atmospheric gasses so it stays close to the surface. Sat data indicates that the greenhouse effect, if it exists, is limited to the bottom 3000feet of the atmosphere. What extra heat accumulates during the day will cause upcurrents that take the heat to where it can be radiated into space. This may mean more storms and tornados in some parts where the mountains are over 3000feet and the enhanced sea breezes are warmer and humid. The planet doesn't nessessarily get hotter, the diurnal temp range may be wider. Melting of Polar ice requires an accumulation of heat at the surface, convection effects make this quite unlikely.
Here in Queensland I expect that the weather may revert to a pattern of thirty years ago when the expected rainfall was 50% greater and cyclones often crossed the coast. There are a lot of compensating factors with greenhouse gasses, for example the increased rate of photosynthesis may already be removing an extra 50 000 000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year mostly via oceanic algae(rainforests are NOT the lungs of the earth). The predicted sea level rises require that the oceans warm up and expand. Melting sea-ice actually has no effect on the volume of the oceans since ice floats. I don't see the oceans warming much, try heating a pot of water from above, it just doesn't work. The normal cycles of climatic change seem to be driven by the solar flare cycles of the Sun, long range weather forcasters rely on the records of solar cycles. If we do accept that there is or will be an impact from increased greenhouse gasses it would be well within the range of of the climatic cycles that exist. The importance of this "within the natural range" stuff is that it shouldn't by itself cause any extinctions since global biodiversity evolved to be adaptable within a natural range of change. The increase in photosynthesis may be a great advantage to agriculture and maybe Southern Canada will be frost free for an extra week each summer but a few degrees more between. I suspect that it is the possibility of changes in WHO can grow the food that concerns the powers that be. After all the wealthy countries are also the countries that, in the past and currently, produce most of the worlds food and that is no coincidence. Anyway a nice layer of particuate pollution will more than compensate by reflecting sunlight back to space. **** maybe space is warming!!
Posted April 27, 2001 - 08:00 AM
Harry.....you have done it again. Between you and Pmaust,you guys have nailed it. The Greenies don't have the reasoning powers to figure it out, but you two have.
Let me condense your words,if I may, and correct me if I am wrong. But what you guys are saying is, the earths weather patterns are cyclical.
Now that puts another slant on "GLOBAL WARMING", doesn't it? Proving that the Greenies are using junk science in every issue they choose.
Posted April 27, 2001 - 06:21 PM